Romney’s High School Pranks Troubling to Media – Operation: Defect from the Obvious Issues, Attack Fairly Squeaky Clean Romney for 1960’s Behavior

Compare: Barack Obama High School Photo's - image Magnificent Bastard do com

To: a decade before


Mitt Romney High School - from the website: classwareexists.com


Analysis

The Washington Post ran with a story yesterday regarding presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, the story headline: “Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents” insinuates there must be something critically wrong with Romney, after all, over forty years ago, he played pranks and was “mean” to his classmates. The Post goes further and hauls out some of Mitt Romney’s high school classmates, all of whom are Democrats and one of which happened to work for the Obama campaign in 2008. The gist: Romney and a group of classmates got together and cut another classmates hair!

Let’s put this into context. In the 1960’s, which one assumes may have been the time period, there was a shift in men’s (or boys more to the point, at 16 or 17) style – some held onto the more conservative short hair, while others, let their hair grow to new lengths. It was a sign of the times, rebellion, where those whose hair was a tad too long were booted from schools, and on the female side, should one not wear a bra, or if one’s skirt was too long, or one had sandals on one’s feet, one faced suspension. No kidding, public schools had dress codes too – and pranks were played, some of them would be considered criminal offenses today, however, that was then. A time when stealing a hubcap off a neighbor’s car would land one in “juvenile dentition” – Juvenile dentition was a separate facility, a jail if one will, where students, whose crimes were, by today’s standards, much ado about nothing, placed on in an educational setting with bars – for a time determined by the courts. Needless to say, the graduation rate was high, students were especially careful not to cross lines, and those that did, suffered the consequences of suspension, or worse. Those that were sent to Juvenile Hall or a young girl who was “in the family way”, were shunned by fellow students as somehow not proper.

So, Romney was a joker, probably the class clown, and most likely applauded by fellow students, who may have been sitting on the sidelines – yet 40 some odd years later, those same students are now full of remorse and politically correct. ABC News, for instance, in interviewing one of the former classmates, focuses on the “bullying aspect”, and also the fact that the young man with “long hair” may have been “gay”/ Of course, that goes towards the times – when in the 1960’s, “gay” meant happy, and well, it was a lifestyle that was not “talked about” by anyone, including those who were still in the “closet”. The long-hair again, was seen as an anomaly, born out of the rebellion of “doing one’s own thing” in that era. Family and friends of those who opted to grow their hair were referred to as “girls” – especially by siblings and parents who were beside themselves with what was considered behavior out of the “norm”.

Romney immediately apologized for something that he did as a youth. That appeases no-one, as the press has finally found something with which to malign Mitt Romney! Even though it appears that some of those that interviewed for the story were not actually witness to the incident. According to the dailycaller.com, there are “cracks in the Washington Post Story on Romney’s Pranks”. No-one is surprised, and frankly those in the demo (not the elite, touchy-feely, media), or baby-boomers, are not particularly “bothered” by a prank of that nature, having endured and or instigated pranks that make Romney’s look “amateurish” by comparison.

Example of cultural change: Pranks such as stuffing a black garden snake (harmless) into a victims mouth (mostly a girl that may have been one of those “rebellious” types), mostly to see that person a) fear the snake and b) gag on the snake and scream bloody murder – horrible! Today, those 13 to 18 year old boys would be in court, possibly incarcerated, for what was at the time, a mind-numbing stupid prank. Retaliation, it should be noted, also occurred – it was the natural order of things, being picked on- or picking on someone. Yes, it was not “nice” and yes, it probably left scars on those whose psyche was so fragile that they could not withstand being an “outsider” or even the random “victim” might still suffer from a fear of snakes. However, times have changed: Today, if one hugs one’s classmate, one might be considered a sexual predator – expelled, if one calls someone a name, one may be a “bully” expelled. The pendulum has swung in extremes, and the Post has decided, as it could not come up with anything else that Romney had done in 60 years, that perhaps painting him as a disturbing bully, with testimony by individuals who were not even there (that’s the cracks in the Washington Post Story – hearsay) might somehow help the President’s reelection efforts.

Of course, that’s when reading the Presidents’ book becomes a problem – Barack Obama is a decade younger, therefore, the “revolution” occurred after he was in High School, were his norm was smoking dope and skipping school – one can also hazard to guess as that time, the dropout rate among classmates in Hawaii and on the mainland was starting to increase. In 1960, the dropout rate was at 27% (including inner city, as well as rural and farm communities), and in 2008, the last year complete statistics were compiled, the drop-out rate was 30.1% - There appears to be a trend here, where, the counter-culture of the 1960’s, those long-haired, bra-eschewing, sandal clad rebels, who were picked on while in secondary schools, have turned the present day education experience into an anything goes, weather it is distracting other students, or walking out of class – and there are simply – no repercussions. Unless of course, a student tries to hug someone – then the alarms go off.

In reality, it does not matter if as a 16 or 18 year old Romney played a few pranks, or for that matter, if a 16 to 18 year old Barack Obama smoked a few blunts, or skipped some classes – it matters not, what matters is their behavior in their 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and yes, 60’s – it matter’s what political philosophy the candidate may have, it matters how that candidate voted, what the successes or failures that candidate has experienced, and how well prepared that candidate is to get the United States out of a big mess, one that has to do with job growth and the health of our economy. That’s where the comparisons should be made, but somehow, the Post and similar outlets are more concerned with Barack Obama coming out of the closet in “personal support for gay marriage”, while having no intention to repeal the “Defense of Marriage Act” In other words, although he’s personally (suddenly on a par with Mitt Romney for “flip-flopping”) changed his mind about “Gay Marriage” so that he he’s regained some “cool” with the Post Editorial Crew, and members of MSNBC’s late-night slate, he plans on doing – nothing.

Now there’s a story – President Supports Gay Marriage personally, but…..
For all my gay friends and acquaintances, that means – nothing. Especially those living in states outside of the five that offer marriage to GBLT community – a civil union bill would be nice, something that would protect these couples inheritance rights, or the right to visit a partner in a hospital – making everything equal (and this is my opinion) would require every couple to enter into a civil union, and those of religious bent, to have a traditional Church, Synagogue or Mosque, or what-have –you – wedding, complete with a certificate from the Church, etc. – that would be too simple, satisfy everyone’s needs, and give everyone the same rights – yet it is never an option – because, Gay Marriage would no longer be a political football.

For Democrats who must campaign on that issue, in all but five states, it means a great deal.

It’s also something one will see swept under the rug, as fast as furious (oops) as any major White House Scandal. In all it will be interesting to see if any of the incumbent Democrats fighting for their life in the coming months, call on the President to help with their campaigns. One might hazard to guess as this point; he may receive the 2008 George Bush Treatment.

Why? Just like the abortion issue, the Gay Marriage Issue will never be solved, because they make political points, a political football if one will – social issues, are ripe for the pickings of political parties, to point out the faults of the opposing team – and these issues? American’s are not entirely divided on these issues – which is always a danger when one puts themselves out in favor or not in favor, of one or the other.

So, Obama’s supporters in the Press deflect, surely the geeky Romney must have something in his past, something, anything that would make him less appealing than the President? The President who now owns an economy that is in dire straits, has more government intervention in individuals’ lives than at any time in history, and now is moving to the social issues, that will end up being more of an albatross than a help. The President’s state by state approval rating as it stands (Gallup) for 2010 and 2011 is little changed, he has just above a 50% approval in ten states, and that is not a statistic that is helped by the economy, sudden revelations of a personal nature, and/or calling out 40 year old “hi-jinks” committed by one Mitt Romney.

The Civil-Drug War in Mexico Escalates: 18 Decapitated in 2nd Largest City Ahead of July 1st Presidential Election - The Logic of Border Control

The Drug War Continues - Decapitations preferred method of execution - image from veracityvoice: The Unreported War In Mexico - January 2011


The body count in the Mexican Drug Cartel/Civil wars has been building in the past weeks, with the latest “revenge” casualties being 18 bodies found decapitated in Mexico’s second largest city – Guadalajara . The act of decapitation has become increasingly common in the nation, with what had been a “border war” escalating and moving into areas previously thought safe for Mexico’s citizens and tourists alike. That is no longer the case – the blog www.borderlandbeat.com has compiled an excellent history of the conflict, as well as updated news on the nation’s politics and continued civil war. (A must read.)

The violence has escalated during the Presidential election year - Mexico will vote for a new President in July, 2012. The leading candidate is Pena Nieto, of the Revolutionary Party (PRI), who together with his soap opera star wife, make up the most “charming” and appealing team, leading by 20 points in recent polls. (San Francisco Chronicle). However, it appears to be an election based on popularity rather than issues, at the moment. Pena Neito's Revolutionary Party had held power in Mexico for decades, and most recently lost the Presidency to Vicente Fox and Calderon, both of whom were able to control the cartels. However, the Modern Socialist PRI Party appears poised to retake the nation – with the nation’s most popular couple.

How all that would play into the civil war that is taking place remains to be seen – although, in for decades the drug trade existed between Mexico and the U.S. borders, it was not to the extent that it is today. Either atrocities were hushed by the ruling party, or they simply did not occur – the later being more likely. Therefore, logic dictates that should the party regain total power, and the leading contender be more stuff than fluff, one might see an actual decline in the violence, against its citizens, elected officials, journalists, and police.

In effect, the nation is in chaos, and it is spilling over the border into the U.S. – no matter how much money U.S. taxpayers throw at Mexico in a ridiculous “War on Drugs”. Ridiculous only in the sense that the other side appears to be winning, and there is no structure in place to prevent those cartel members or drug runners from easy access to the United States. It will be up to the President of the United States, as well as the newly elected Mexican President in July, to come to some sort of agreement as to the necessity of Mexico to deal with its own problems, and the necessity of the U.S. to man the border, and shut it down. Perhaps the U.S. should take lessons from Mexico, where they have effectively shut down their southern border with Guatemala – using tactics on those attempting to cross over through Mexico to the U.S. that would be considered extortion.

Additionally, Mexico does have a ruling class, or elite class that enjoys a lifestyle equal to those considered Elitists American’s, while there is no middle class to speak of, and a plethora of peasants whose past options included either working in the U.S. or working with and for the drug cartels. However, that particular party that ruled, at least had the appearance of keeping the violence under control – can the United States, however, rely on this happening again? Or is it, more to the point, the duty and right of the U.S. to actually do something about the border (talk is cheap and has been for decades), cutting off access to anyone who cannot legally enter the country? The scenario is doubtful, regardless of the party in power here in the U.S., as either no one has the chutzpah or the cajones to get the job done. Fear of alienating a voting bloc and big business trumps the health, wealth and safety of the very people they vow to protect – the American Citizen. One realistic solution would be to cut off the drug supply routes – cut off the cartels, the cash and let Mexico gain its independence from the United States of America. Again, political pandering will take that option off the table and as 25 lives lost in a week, turn into hundreds and thousands, on either side of the border will those in power still support the "do nothing" policy that continues to exist?

Mass Political Roundup: Warren’s Cherokee Nation continues to Haunt, Kerry Bemoans Loss of Luger, Mass. 6th Up for Grabs, Neal’s(D-MA1) Tax Rules

Lizzie Warren with Barack Obama - worked in Administration - image mediatedotcom


Elizabeth Warren, College Professor, Obama Team Member and Candidate against one Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), has, from any reasonable point of view, no way out of the ever growing saga, of her deceptive application as a student and Harvard Professor noting she is a minority due to her American-Indian Heritage. The latest ditty from Red State, speaks to the fact that her ancestor was indeed close to the Cherokee nation, however, on the “side holding the gun”. The more we learn about Elizabeth Warren, the more ridiculous a candidate she becomes – the question to the DNC – “What were you thinking?” It is apparent that one can run for office, be a friend to the President, and well, fudge one’s resume a bit – apparently the lack of vetting from that side of the aisle remains non-existent.

In an upset that was broadcast last night, the Indiana Primary saw 80 year old moderate to the left of center Republican Senator, Richard Lugar’s loss to a conservative, Tea Party, Club for Growth and RSC backed Richard Murdock – or - term limits imposed by the ballot box. This has Massachusetts Senior Senator John Kerry in a state of Depression - as he “laments Republican Richard Lugar’s Departure-from the Senate” (Boston Globe) – To those citizens of Indiana – obviously you made the correct choice – therein lays the proof.

There may be trouble in “River City” for Massachusetts Congressional Candidate John Tierney in the 6th District – this according to political pundit, Stuart Rothenberg. The Massachusetts House Seats now number nine, of nine, one might consider one completely safe – baring a strong and charismatic, well connected candidate for the 1st District, now owned by Democrat Richard Neal. Neal, now in the Massachuestts 1st District, is surrounded by the maximum progressive population in the state, and although there are pockets of conservatives living within the confines of the 1st, there are more “Cher” minded individuals – that is not to say he is not without competition, from inside his party. According to the Springfield RepublicanNeal faces two contenders on the Democrat Side, and no Republican has emerged as of March 14th.

There are, however, Republican candidates running in other, less gerrymandered districts, one with a particular disadvantage is a Kennedy running in the newly drawn 4th, drawn into such Conservative enclaves that Barney Frank got up and retired. That district may also be up for grabs, as anyone who lives inside Massachusetts understands the Kennedy brand is not what it once was – See Scott Brown (R-MA) enough said.

Finally, from Bloomberg News, U.S. Citizens living outside the borders, and considered ex-patriots (or ex-pats), are finding banking overseas to be non-existent. This due to new regulations put in place by Massachusetts’ Tax Man, Richard Neal (D-MA1), who crafted the Foreign Compliance Act, which essentially bars American’s from banking with overseas firms, and if they do, they pay a 30% tax.

Although one would think that this was aimed strictly at millionaires, and billionaires, who have escaped the U.S. for tax purposes, (or businesses ventures), it also affects other expats who maybe overseas working for contractors, limiting their choice of banking options. Additionally, according to Bloomberg, some of those “Millionaires” have opted to give up their U.S. Citizenship, in order to “evade” paying the 30% rate on return of investment – meaning, the U.S. government will receive zero dollars. The “Tax the Rich” plan looks great on Progressive paper, and also works well at Campus Rally’s, but when push comes to shove, if the targeted Millionaire becomes a citizen of “name another country”, the tax no longer exists. Just look at the state by state exodus to avoid hefty taxes within the U.S. and one gets the drift. Neal’s conservative moniker is: “Nancy Pelosi’s and Ireland’s Tax Man on the Hill”(from pre-2010 Republican House Takeover, a must read originally published on Brietbarts’s Big Government.) Neal is worth watching, although projected to be in the Congress longer than Bob Byrd.