Contact Us        
   Click here to Listen to KDUR
   Click here to Watch DCAT
 
Loading...
Forecast Radar Cameras Photos
WeatherBug
Your weather just got better.
Home

Opinions

Rick Santorum: The GOP's Nightmare

Republicans haven’t quite thrown away what they see as a winnable presidential election, at least not yet. But they’re trying their best.

In GOP circles, there is more than a whiff of panic in the air. Unemployment is still painfully high, Americans remain dissatisfied with the country’s direction, even the most favorable polls show President Obama’s approval at barely 50 percent — and yet there is a sense that the Republicans’ odds of winning back the White House grow longer day by day.

Mitt Romney, whose main selling point is his supposed ability to beat Obama in November, has shown himself incapable of putting away a couple of — let’s face it — political has-beens whose glory days were in the previous century.

Romney was crushed by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, which has a history of picking the Republican nominee — perhaps because the party’s most loyal voters, as well as its heart and soul, reside in the South. Romney was beaten by Rick Santorum, of all people, in the heartland states of Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri, as well as in Colorado, a key swing state.

And, according to the polls, Romney is in grave danger of losing to Santorum next week in Michigan, the state where Romney was born and raised. If this were to occur, Santorum’s tentative status as the new front-runner for the nomination would be confirmed. Hence the wave of fear that is washing over the GOP establishment.

The prospect of a Romney flame-out has given rise to crazy talk about a brokered convention at which an attempt is made to dragoon somebody else, into accepting the nomination — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, just about anybody.

This remote scenario would probably lead to a debacle. The last contested GOP convention was in 1976, when incumbent Gerald Ford narrowly defeated insurgent Ronald Reagan — and then lost to Jimmy Carter in the fall. Back then, the establishment still had the clout to impose its will on the party. Today, restive constituencies such as the Tea Party refuse to get pushed around by — to use a Gingrich term — political “elites.” The convention hall in Tampa would be a battle zone.

But what’s the alternative? At the moment, Gingrich seems to be fading. This could change in March if he does well on Super Tuesday, but for now it looks like a race between Romney, who has trouble communicating with voters, and Santorum, whose message is alarmingly clear.

At times, it seems as if Santorum is running to become theologian in chief. He made the bizarre allegation Saturday that Obama’s actions are motivated by “some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible.” On Sunday, he said by way of clarification that he understands Obama is a Christian, but that the president was somehow misinterpreting God’s truth — as revealed to Rick Santorum — about our duty to be stewards of the Earth.

This is not customary fodder for a presidential campaign. Nor is Santorum’s obvious obsession with women’s reproductive issues — not just his absolute opposition to abortion but his criticism of contraception and prenatal testing as well.

Santorum’s social conservatism is a huge iceberg, and his views on women and childbearing are just the tip. He not only opposes gay marriage but has criticized the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws and declared that “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.” That alone would be enough to put him well outside the mainstream. But his Ozzie-and-Harriet ideas about family life place him in a different solar system.

In his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” he lectured women who choose to work outside the home, writing that “the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.”

Convenient rationalization? Given all the money Santorum has made as a Washington insider since leaving office, perhaps he forgets that most American families need two incomes just to put food on the table.

The issue, for Republicans, is not just that Santorum would lose in November. It’s that he could be a drag on House and Senate candidates as well. Imagine, say, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) trying to explain to his constituents why someone who doesn’t fully understand women’s participation in the workforce should be president.

Listen closely and you can hear the anguished cries: “Mitch! Chris! Jeb! Help!”

Are we on the brink of war with Iran?

Only twelve minutes into his presidency, Barack Obama reached out to the Muslim world and Iran, offering America’s hand of friendship if Iran would in turn unclench its fist. Yet three years later, we are closer to war than we were in the last years of the Bush administration, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta telling the Washington Post there is a “strong likelihood” of an Israeli strike this spring. How did we get here?

Conventional wisdom in Washington is that Obama’s diplomacy with Iran failed. It did not. As I argue in my new book A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy With Iran, it was prematurely abandoned. Obama’s intention was genuine, but his vision for diplomacy was soon undermined, for four reasons: pressure from Israel and its powerful allies in Congress, and to a lesser extent from Saudi Arabia and France, to adopt a confrontational policy; the June 2009 election mayhem in Iran and the subsequent repression and human rights abuses, which hardened the regime in Tehran and narrowed Obama’s space for diplomacy; Obama’s early adoption of a contradictory “dual track” policy, combining diplomacy with escalating pressure on Tehran; and Obama’s unwillingness to create more domestic political space for diplomacy by challenging a status quo in Washington that is set on enmity.

The Netanyahu government and its Washington allies compromised Obama’s vision in four ways. First, they insisted that diplomacy be given an unrealistically tight deadline of twelve weeks. Second, although Obama was potentially willing to accept enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil under strict inspections, Israel demanded complete dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program, an unachievable objective that rendered diplomacy dead on arrival. Third, the Israelis and their hardline US allies pushed for sanctions before diplomacy was even tried. Obama pushed back at first, but after the Iranian election scandal, the pro-sanctions camp got the upper hand.

Want to understand the GOP? First you must understand Evolution

Earlier this week, yesterday's Republican primary champ Rick Santorum called global warming a "hoax." Yes, a hoax. In other words, apparently scientists are in a global cabal to needlessly alarm us about what's happening with the climate -- and why would they do such a thing?

Well, presumably to help advance an economy-choking agenda of global governance -- or perhaps, to line their own pockets with government research grants. Seriously.

Santorum's absurd global warming conspiracy theory is the kind of thing that absolutely outrages liberals -- but to my mind, they really ought to be getting used to it by now. From global warming denial to claims about "death panels" to baseless fears about inflation, it often seems there are so many factually wrong claims on the political right that those who make them live in a different reality.

So here's an idea: Maybe they actually do. And maybe we can look to science itself -- albeit, ironically, a body of science whose fundamental premise (the theory of evolution) most  Republicans deny -- to help understand why it is that they view the world so differently.

In my last piece here, I commented on the growing body of research suggesting that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not merely ideological in nature. Rather, it seems more deeply rooted in psychology and the brain -- with ideology itself emerging as a kind of by-product of fundamentally different patterns of perceiving and responding to the world that spill over into many aspects of life, not just the political.

To back this up, I listed seven published studies showing a consistent set of physiological, brain, and "attentional" differences between liberals and conservatives. Later on my blog, I listed no less than eleven studies showing genetic differences as well.

Last month, yet another scientific paper on this subject came out -- from the National Science Foundation-supported political physiology laboratory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The work, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (free version here), goes further still in helping us understand how biological and physiological differences between liberals and conservatives may lead to very different patterns of political behavior.

As the new research suggests, conservatism is largely a defensive ideology -- and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments. By contrast, liberalism can be thought of as an exploratory ideology -- much more appealing to people who go through life trying things out and seeking the new.

All of this is reflected, in a measurable way, in the physiological responses that liberals and conservatives show to emotionally evocative but otherwise entirely apolitical images -- and also to images of politicians, either on their own side or from across the aisle.

To show as much, the Nebraska-Lincoln researchers had liberals and conservatives look at varying combinations of images that were meant to excite different emotions. There were images that caused fear and disgust -- a spider crawling on a person's face, maggots in an open wound -- but also images that made you feel happy: a smiling child, a bunny rabbit. The researchers also mixed in images of liberal and conservative politicians -- Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

While they did all of this, the scientists measured the subjects' "skin conductance" -- the moistening of their sweat glands, an indication of sympathetic nervous system arousal -- as well as where their eyes went first and how long they stayed there.

The difference was striking: Conservatives showed much stronger skin responses to negative images, compared with the positive ones. Liberals showed the opposite. And when the scientists turned to studying eye gaze or "attentional" patterns, they found that conservatives looked much more quickly at negative or threatening images, and spent more time fixating on them. Liberals, in contrast, were less quickly drawn to negative images -- and spent more time looking at positive ones.

Similar things have been found before -- but the big breakthrough in the new study was showing that these tendencies carried over perfectly to the different sides' responses to images of politicians. Conservatives had stronger rapid fire physiological responses to images of Bill and Hillary Clinton -- apparently perceiving them much as they perceive a threat. By contrast, liberals showed stronger responses to the same two politicians, apparently perceiving them much as they perceive an appetitive or positive stimulus.

As the authors concluded, "The aversive in life is more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right."

What does this mean?

To my mind, it means it is high time to grapple with a fact that we like to conveniently ignore: the left and the right are deeply asymmetrical actors in our politics. If we could acknowledge this, it might explain an awful lot.

click here for full story

Rightly targetting Income Inequality

INVOKING THE SPIRIT of Teddy Roosevelt, President Obama traveled to Osawatomie, Kan., on Tuesday to underscore two related problems plaguing America: growing income inequality and mounting strains on many of the poor and middle class.

Although it prompted the inevitable accusations about class warfare, Mr. Obama’s focus on income inequality is justified. “The rungs on the ladder of opportunity,” as he said, “have grown farther and farther apart.” A new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) makes clear that the gap between rich and poor is growing throughout the industrialized world.

Republicans who deny the phenomenon or its ill effects would do well to recall the admonition of Mr. Obama’s predecessor. “We have an obligation to help ensure that every citizen shares in this country’s future,” George W. Bush said in 2007. “The fact is that income inequality is real. . . . And the question is whether we respond to the income inequality we see with policies that help lift people up or tear others down. The key to rising in this economy is skills, and the government’s job is to make sure we have an education system that delivers them.” That is closer in spirit to Mr. Obama’s message in Kansas than to the anti-government rhetoric of this year’s Republican candidates.

 

Mitt Romney, for example, on Wednesday inaccurately accused Mr. Obama of “seeking to replace our merit-based society with an entitlement society” in which “everyone receives about the same rewards.” Mr. Romney asserted that as entrepreneurs “exert the effort, and take the risks inherent in inventing and creating things, they employ and lift the rest of us, creating prosperity for all of us. The rewards they earn don’t make the rest of us poorer — they make us all better off.” Mr. Romney is right that economic growth is essential. But evidence suggests that even a rising tide may no longer lift all boats, without new policy approaches.

That leads to one weakness in Mr. Obama’s speech: His policy prescriptions, at least so far, don’t match the gravity of the problem he describes. In addition, to the extent he finds villains in American corporate greed or weak regulation, he misses the OECD’s point that the phenomenon, fueled in large measure by globalization and new technology, transcends borders and political systems.

Of most concern is what the president omitted or played down. He made glancing reference to the need to “get our fiscal house in order” and immediately pivoted to the imperative of extending the payroll tax holiday. The economic growth that will be essential cannot happen with the dampening overhang of ever-mounting debt. Nor can the spending Mr. Obama rightly prescribes for education, research and infrastructure.

The president is right that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are unwise and unaffordable, but ending them won’t be enough. Carving out the fiscal space to make the needed investments will require far more than simply going after millionaires and billionaires. To quote the president, “That is not politics. That’s just math.”

Depression and Democracy

It’s time to start calling the current situation what it is: a depression. True, it’s not a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s cold comfort. Unemployment in both America and Europe remains disastrously high. Leaders and institutions are increasingly discredited. And democratic values are under siege.

On that last point, I am not being alarmist. On the political as on the economic front it’s important not to fall into the “not as bad as” trap. High unemployment isn’t O.K. just because it hasn’t hit 1933 levels; ominous political trends shouldn’t be dismissed just because there’s no Hitler in sight.

Let’s talk, in particular, about what’s happening in Europe — not because all is well with America, but because the gravity of European political developments isn’t widely understood.

First of all, the crisis of the euro is killing the European dream. The shared currency, which was supposed to bind nations together, has instead created an atmosphere of bitter acrimony.

Specifically, demands for ever-harsher austerity, with no offsetting effort to foster growth, have done double damage. They have failed as economic policy, worsening unemployment without restoring confidence; a Europe-wide recession now looks likely even if the immediate threat of financial crisis is contained. And they have created immense anger, with many Europeans furious at what is perceived, fairly or unfairly (or actually a bit of both), as a heavy-handed exercise of German power.

Nobody familiar with Europe’s history can look at this resurgence of hostility without feeling a shiver. Yet there may be worse things happening.

Who should answer that 3 a.m. call? Newt, Mitt or Barack?

It’s late at night when the phone rings at the White House: Kim Jong Il, the ruthless oddball dictator of nuclear-armed North Korea, is dead. His apparent successor is his 20-something son, about whom practically nothing is known. South Korean officials have rushed to put the nation’s military forces on high alert.

Do we want Mitt Romney answering that phone call?

Newt Gingrich?

We learned Sunday night what happens when Barack Obama is on the receiving end of unsettling news from one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints. There’s a round of consultation with allies, a carefully worded official statement, an assessment of the status of diplomatic efforts to defuse North Korea’s nuclear program — in other words, a cautious and measured response.

Implicit in Obama’s actions is the recognition that nothing a U.S. president says or does at this moment is likely to influence North Korean events in a positive way. Intemperate words or deeds, however, could be destabilizing at a moment of sudden transition. This is no moment to apply sharp pressure to a hermetically sealed, supremely paranoid regime that considers itself perpetually besieged and happens to possess nuclear weapons.

The White House was particularly concerned about how Kim’s son — Kim Jong Eun, the “Great Successor” who may have already assumed power — would react to anything seen as a provocation. The young, inexperienced leader might believe he had to make a show of belligerence to prove himself. Aggressive action could prompt a sharp South Korean reaction, and suddenly a situation could become a crisis.

All this is lost on Romney, who came out guns blazing with what sounded like a call for regime change.

“Kim Jong Il was a ruthless tyrant who lived a life of luxury while the North Korean people starved,” Romney said in a statement. “He recklessly pursued nuclear weapons, sold nuclear and missile technology to other rogue regimes, and committed acts of military aggression against our ally South Korea. He will not be missed.”

The statement continued, “His death represents an opportunity for America to work with our friends to turn North Korea off the treacherous course it is on and ensure security in the region. America must show leadership at this time. The North Korean people are suffering through a long and brutal national nightmare. I hope the death of Kim Jong Il hastens its end.”

Well, that’s what we all hope. But dancing on the dictator’s grave is hardly presidential. How can anyone be certain what approach is most likely to lead to reform in North Korea until we know more about the Great Successor? Or until we can ascertain who now controls the nuclear weapons?

Romney is eager to show that he would somehow be tougher than Obama in foreign policy — a high bar, given Obama’s record of killing Osama bin Laden and helping orchestrate the demise of Moammar Gaddafi. It’s possible that Romney understands what his responsibility would be if he faced a similar circumstance as president. But if you take his words seriously, the former Massachusetts governor sounds like a dangerous hothead.

That’s nothing compared to Gingrich, whose past statements about North Korea have been shot from the hip.

In 2009, Gingrich said the United States should have used force to prevent North Korea from testing a new long-range missile. “There are three or four techniques that could have been used, from unconventional forces to standoff capabilities, to say, ‘We’re not going to tolerate a North Korean missile launch, period,’” he said.

No, there are not any “standoff capabilities” that could have been used, at least not without starting a nuclear war. Gingrich has expressed his enthusiasm for a laser-beam weapon that the Pentagon tried to develop, but that program was radically scaled back. We could have just destroyed the missile on its launch pad, perhaps with a cruise missile strike, but the North Koreans might well have responded by destroying Seoul.

One of Gingrich’s worries is that North Korean scientists will be the first in the world to work out how a nuclear device can be used to create a massive electromagnetic pulse — and fry electronic circuits from Malibu to Maine. Would somebody please cancel the man’s subscription to Popular Science?

During the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton famously asked whether Obama was ready for the 3 a.m. phone call about a foreign crisis. Kim’s death reminds us that it’s always 3 a.m. somewhere in the world.

New divers beware: Choose your dive operator carefully

It seemed like this forum thread is slowly burning out so I'm here to throw a little more fuel on the fire. After removing my original review on Tripadvisor.com I started reading some of the other reviews for Deep Blue. Here's links to the ones that jumped out at me.

“Deep Blue - not for beginners”

Deep Blue probably wouldn't like me saying this, but I don't think this operation is for beginner divers. There are other very qualified shops on the island that do cater to less experienced divers and I would suggest exploring those instead of using Deep Blue.

“Topside work could be improved upon”

I am sure the divemaster was not as focused on his divers as he should have been after forgetting his gear. But, he needed to show a little more guidance and control over his dive party. I know some of you are going to say that the divers should know better but, let’s face it, just because someone is certified does not mean they should be let loose.

“BEWARE of Deep Blue Divers!! They are UNSAFE!”

During our pre-dive discussion, I asked Pedro how we would be paired for dive buddies. He seemed surprised and said, "Dive buddies? We don't need dive buddies. We all look out for each other." He also told us that his equipment was bad and could "blow up" anytime during the dive. He told us that if his equipment did blow up, he would surface without us and we were to continue the dive without him. Not very professional at all, in my opinion.

Following our first dive, which reached a depth of about 90 feet (or 30 meters), we went directly to our second dive site. Rather than wait the recommended Surface Interval Time, our divemaster said we would be diving again immediately, less than 15 minutes after completing the first 90 foot dive. No dive tables were discussed, let alone used.

Please note that I am not a very experienced diver and have always been in the company of very professional divemasters. Even if I had confronted the divemaster, I don't believe it would have changed his behavior or the very poor performance of Deep Blue. Based on our experience, I would caution anyone from patronizing Deep Blue.

 “Mediocre- must be better out there”

The staff is very disorganized and forgot several items of gear repeatedly. We had gone into the shop to try on gear to make sure we had the right size the day before. Then we waited at the dock for a while the next day and almost thought they weren't going to show. When they did, they did not bring wetsuits for us!? We waited an hour or so for them to drive wetsuits to a dock for us to pick them up. The next day, they forgot our computers. One day the computer was out of batteries. Gear, if they remember to bring it, is not in good shape- holes in wetsuits, etc. The final straw was when we scheduled another morning dive and they didn't show to pick us up at our condo.

“Going downhill”

Switched to Deep Blue on the advice of my lodging hosts, and had a great dive in 2009 at Devil's Throat and Cathedral. So signed up for more dives late 2009/early 2010 and it was a disaster. Wanted to do a special dive like the one last year, but they couldn't make it happen. All the dives ran VERY late, equipment was missing, and I even lent some gear to other guests. Granted, these were some of their busiest days of the years, but they should be able to count gear correctly, especially given the extra 45 minutes it took to get going. Once under the water, the dives were great but it doesn't make up for our wasted time.

“Deep Blue Cozumel Unsafe & total disorganised.”

As a diver with 70+ dives I can tell you they are basically unsafe and total disorganised over busy periods. We dived in total 6 dives with Deep Blue and on each dive they failed to get right things even a basic open water might know; to name a few issues

• Failure of basic kit checks before they depart meaning many divers each time either could not dive or had badly fitting kit.
• Inability to depart on time with 30/40 min waits due to lack of basic organisation meaning only the closest dive sites where the only option. (not the reason you are going to Cozumel I am sure)
• So called “dive masters” which had clear gaps in their training such as basic signs to start a dive and more of a focus on the amount of “colour” we would see rather than simple dive briefings.
• Faulty and badly maintained kit e.g. regulators with mouth pieces completely bitten off, wet suits failing to bits, shared equipment between dives unwashed.
• 9+ divers rammed on one boat with only one diver instructor.
• Lone divers allowed to drift off 400meters ahead of the group and instructions don’t mention a thing after the dive.

After talking with the dive School about these issues plus others they explained during busy periods they hire in freelances and equipment so standards do drop and we expect to get a few complaints but they suggested we come back in the off season. This dive school is a total mess and should hold their head in shame knowing they are putting divers lives at risk.

After speaking with other divers that had dived with other schools we learnt the deep blue in about $10US more per dive than other companies which also provide a full hot lunch between dives.

Conclusions: Deep blue I am sure used to be good but their success seems to have gone to their head.

Out of 38 reviews for Deep Blue here are six (not including mine that I deleted) that I would call negative. That's roughly 15%. Compare that to Scubatony which had 213 reviews - none rated "poor" or "terrible. ScubaDu had 89 reviews and only 3 rated as "poor" or "terrible" that's 3% negative rating. Pro Dive Mexico had 175 reviews and a 2% negative rating.

These opinions speaks volume for the operation they run.

Syndicate content