Mitt Romney, as it has been widely reported, has not released his tax returns. Speculation as to why he is breaking a tradition his own father started, has almost become an Olympic sport unto itself. One of the more commonly floated theories is that Romney paid little to no taxes for the past decade.
On July 31st, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in an interview with the Huffington Post, claimed that a reliable, albeit anonymous, source had told him that Romney had indeed paid no taxes for the past 10 years.
Which brings me to the subject of this post. Politifact, a site for which I have previously pointed out, has in the past demonstrated an unfortunate inability to distinguish between fact and opinion, took it upon themselves to label Harry Reid's claim Pants on Fire.
Basically Polifacts' reasoning for this label boils down to speculation on the part of tax experts who say that it would have been extremely difficult for Romney not to have paid taxes. Otherwise, this issue remains Reids' word against Romneys'.
So why is Politifact not giving Romney a Pants on Fire rating either? After all, Romney could very easily prove Reid wrong by, you know, doing what pretty much every Presidential candidate has done for decades and simply release his tax returns.
In short, if Romney could prove Reid is in fact a liar, why should Politifact take his side? It is after all easier to imagine reasons why anonymous source would want to remain anonymous (particularly if they do indeed work for Bain Capitol as Reid claims) then it is to imagine why a presidential hopeful would refuse to follow tradition and release his tax returns. For example, I do not think that it is out of the realm of speculation (cough) to assume that there is a substantial chance that Reids' source might get fired for making such sensitive information public.
Then there is the issue of Polifact describing Reids' anonymous source as "shadowy". Really Politifact? What is your evidence for that? Is it now common journalistic practice to label all anonymous sources as "shadowy"? Do know why the term "weasel word" was developed? Is there any possible reason to include such a label, outside of oh say, if one were deliberately attempting to create a partisan smear?
Which brings me to my next issue. Why even bother rating for Reids' claim in the first place? Does Politifact really think that most people do not know what the term "anonymous" means? This is not an issue in which the particulars are not well known to the public.
So what exactly makes a ruling so desperately necessary? If, as Politifact claims, their standards dictate they must hold Reid accountable, why are they not also holding Romney accountable? Why is speculation considered a deciding factor but not an anonymous source?
If Politifact really is all about helping people find the truth in American politics, why bother reporting on an issue in which the details are already well known? Their article and justifications bring no significantly new angle to the table. Speculation at this point is only just that, speculation. The pondering of experts is worth considering, but I fail to see how they constitute substantial evidence in this case.
The truth of the matter is that unless Reids' source decides to go public or Romney decides to release his tax returns, the actual facts are unknowable. Which makes Politifacts posturing about Reids' pants being on fire, all the more galling. By pretending this is an issue in which the truth can be determined, Politifact has instead created a lie of the highest order.
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
May 15, 2012
Off Topic: Mickey Mouse For President!
From any reasonable perspective, modern politics leaves much to be desired for those, such as myself, who favor pragmatism over idealogy. When it comes to political activist a myriad of choices are presented, each with their own set of problems and compromises. While participating in protests, using social media to raise awareness of social injustice, letter writing campaigns, petitions, and so on are all legitimate means of political activism, there is really only one way in a democratic society to achieve real social change, namely voting.
But then the question becomes, which candidate should one vote for? Should one even vote for any candidate? In the upcoming Presidential election, voters will have the option to choose between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama. However, I think it's worth comparing the differnt optionns and considering the pragmatic value of each compared to voting for either mainstream candidates.
Option 1: Not voting
A totally non-pragmatic option as there is no chance of affecting social change by not voting. By staying home and not voting as a means of protest, all one will accomplish is to make oneself totally irrelevant to the political process.
Option 2: Voting third party or supporting a candidate doing a write in campaign.
This has pragmatic merit and therefore worth considering, due to the fact that having a viable third party has a shot at breaking through the dysfunctional mess that is modern politics. True, the chances of the candidate winning the election may be slim, but the fact is that every political party has to get it's start somewhere, but if a political party or politician gets enough votes, it may garner them enough attention to allow them win the proceeding election or at least get airtime on future debates.
Option 3: Abstaining but still casting a ballot or by writing in your favorite cartoon character.
Different from Option 1 in the sense that it requires the political activist to actually go to polling station and make aproximately the same effort as any other voter. While in the short term you will not be affecting the immediate election, the advantage comes from the message it sends to whoever wins. Consider how much more seriously an elected politician will take constituents concerns if their main compitition was from Mickey Mouse.
Granted this applies less when the politician who wins becomes a second term President, but I think it's worth considering, even if the chances of this having the desired affect are slightly less than number 2.
Also, I would like to point out that I have done this myself in one local election, when the candidate in question was running unapposed and had taken on positions that I found untenable.
Option 4: Voting For Either Democrate or Republican
For the pragmatic political activist, there is no longer any reason to consider voting for Republican candidates at the national level. I can't comment on local or state politicans too much (particularly as there is one local Republcan candidate currently holding office that I like) but when it comes to the GOP, idealogy now trumps any and all reason. What makes the situation worse is that the GOP's idealogy is horrifically inconsistent due to the crossing of Ayn Rands' Libertarianism (Screw the poor! Big Business Rocks!) while picking and choosing bits and pieces of Old Testament Law (Death to the Homosexual!) to shove down citizens' throats. "Uttely nonsensical" is a phrase unable to come anywhere near summing up my feelings for the current GOP.
From a pragmatice perspective when it comes to Romeney and Obama, there is no contest. Based upon everything I have read about Romeny's economic policies and positions, I see no reason to believe that that they will do anything besides benefit the rich while screwing over the middle and working classes. Toss in Romney's laughing off the fact that he once assaulted a fellow student who demonstrated non-conforming behavior and combined with his waffling/etch-a-sketching on every issue, and there is nothing to indicate that Romney has any leadership qualities worth mentioning.
Yes, I have very serious concerns about the positions and prioritites that many Democratic politicians, paticularly Obama have taken, as well as some of the legislation that they have supported and passed.
I get why many people are fed up with the democrates. To me, modern politics often feels like the following scenario.
You've just been in a serious car wreck, are experiencing severe arterial bleeding, your arms are bent at angles you didn't know were possible, and you can't move or feel anything below your waist. Along come the Democrates and offer you only a single band-aid and maybe spread a little salt in the wounds "to prevent infection". When the Republicans show up, they simply offer a length of rope tied into a noose, "to make the pain go away quicker".
At the same time, liberal political pundits stand around the smoking hulk that was once your car, hyping the undervalued healing properties of salt when combined with band-aids. All the while, conservative commentators argue that the rope in question is too expensive and because all of the money spent by the government on the noose, the salt, and the band-aids has now all been added to the national debt, we can soon be expecting the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Furthermore, the conservatives argue, the EPA really sucks because of how much envirnmental regulations will cost to remove and properly dispose of your car.
As you start to draw your final breaths, the liberals jump back in argueing that the EPA is good damnit (how dare the conservatives suggest otherwise) becuase of how much it will be helping to save all the species that are now endangered by the toxic fumes your burning vehicle is giving off.
Conclusion
Getting back the issue at hand, as a pragmatist, I believe in choosing the options before me, not in giving in to idealogy. That means even if I disagree with the President's stance in favor of LGB assimilation via marriage, I will still consider voting for him over the guy who assaulted a fellow student for demonstrating effeminate behavior.
To me, the choice a pragmatic activist has comes down to voting for a third party or write in candidate vs. voting for Obama. Those options are legitimate means of creating political change, while voting for Romney in the presidential election means chossing the worst of all the possible options. The worst option is not voting at all, which means giving up all chance of achieving political change and social justice.
But then the question becomes, which candidate should one vote for? Should one even vote for any candidate? In the upcoming Presidential election, voters will have the option to choose between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama. However, I think it's worth comparing the differnt optionns and considering the pragmatic value of each compared to voting for either mainstream candidates.
Option 1: Not voting
A totally non-pragmatic option as there is no chance of affecting social change by not voting. By staying home and not voting as a means of protest, all one will accomplish is to make oneself totally irrelevant to the political process.
Option 2: Voting third party or supporting a candidate doing a write in campaign.
This has pragmatic merit and therefore worth considering, due to the fact that having a viable third party has a shot at breaking through the dysfunctional mess that is modern politics. True, the chances of the candidate winning the election may be slim, but the fact is that every political party has to get it's start somewhere, but if a political party or politician gets enough votes, it may garner them enough attention to allow them win the proceeding election or at least get airtime on future debates.
Option 3: Abstaining but still casting a ballot or by writing in your favorite cartoon character.
Different from Option 1 in the sense that it requires the political activist to actually go to polling station and make aproximately the same effort as any other voter. While in the short term you will not be affecting the immediate election, the advantage comes from the message it sends to whoever wins. Consider how much more seriously an elected politician will take constituents concerns if their main compitition was from Mickey Mouse.
Granted this applies less when the politician who wins becomes a second term President, but I think it's worth considering, even if the chances of this having the desired affect are slightly less than number 2.
Also, I would like to point out that I have done this myself in one local election, when the candidate in question was running unapposed and had taken on positions that I found untenable.
Option 4: Voting For Either Democrate or Republican
For the pragmatic political activist, there is no longer any reason to consider voting for Republican candidates at the national level. I can't comment on local or state politicans too much (particularly as there is one local Republcan candidate currently holding office that I like) but when it comes to the GOP, idealogy now trumps any and all reason. What makes the situation worse is that the GOP's idealogy is horrifically inconsistent due to the crossing of Ayn Rands' Libertarianism (Screw the poor! Big Business Rocks!) while picking and choosing bits and pieces of Old Testament Law (Death to the Homosexual!) to shove down citizens' throats. "Uttely nonsensical" is a phrase unable to come anywhere near summing up my feelings for the current GOP.
From a pragmatice perspective when it comes to Romeney and Obama, there is no contest. Based upon everything I have read about Romeny's economic policies and positions, I see no reason to believe that that they will do anything besides benefit the rich while screwing over the middle and working classes. Toss in Romney's laughing off the fact that he once assaulted a fellow student who demonstrated non-conforming behavior and combined with his waffling/etch-a-sketching on every issue, and there is nothing to indicate that Romney has any leadership qualities worth mentioning.
Yes, I have very serious concerns about the positions and prioritites that many Democratic politicians, paticularly Obama have taken, as well as some of the legislation that they have supported and passed.
I get why many people are fed up with the democrates. To me, modern politics often feels like the following scenario.
You've just been in a serious car wreck, are experiencing severe arterial bleeding, your arms are bent at angles you didn't know were possible, and you can't move or feel anything below your waist. Along come the Democrates and offer you only a single band-aid and maybe spread a little salt in the wounds "to prevent infection". When the Republicans show up, they simply offer a length of rope tied into a noose, "to make the pain go away quicker".
At the same time, liberal political pundits stand around the smoking hulk that was once your car, hyping the undervalued healing properties of salt when combined with band-aids. All the while, conservative commentators argue that the rope in question is too expensive and because all of the money spent by the government on the noose, the salt, and the band-aids has now all been added to the national debt, we can soon be expecting the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Furthermore, the conservatives argue, the EPA really sucks because of how much envirnmental regulations will cost to remove and properly dispose of your car.
As you start to draw your final breaths, the liberals jump back in argueing that the EPA is good damnit (how dare the conservatives suggest otherwise) becuase of how much it will be helping to save all the species that are now endangered by the toxic fumes your burning vehicle is giving off.
Conclusion
Getting back the issue at hand, as a pragmatist, I believe in choosing the options before me, not in giving in to idealogy. That means even if I disagree with the President's stance in favor of LGB assimilation via marriage, I will still consider voting for him over the guy who assaulted a fellow student for demonstrating effeminate behavior.
To me, the choice a pragmatic activist has comes down to voting for a third party or write in candidate vs. voting for Obama. Those options are legitimate means of creating political change, while voting for Romney in the presidential election means chossing the worst of all the possible options. The worst option is not voting at all, which means giving up all chance of achieving political change and social justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)