... and was comprised of far too much by way of non-stimulative tax cuts. But the President, not yet disabused of his silly notion that he was dealing with rational adults across the aisle, insisted on incorporating "Republican ideas." The result was a stimulus that certainly helped, but not to the degree it could have had it been larger, and did not meet the Administration's projections.

...but why not just return to hand-counted, paper ballots? Sure, it means we might have to wait several days, maybe even a week or two, before the final tallies come in. But paper ballots make it much easier to verify actual. votes in the event of any question. Seems like instantaneous results are a pretty small sacrifice considering the stakes.

... but I don't apologize for the content of it (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ). In my fit of pique, I apparently misconstrued the intent behind some things, and for that I also apologize.

Here's a little background, to hopefully give folks an idea of where I was coming from when I posted my tirade.

I grew up not 30 miles from Penn State. I am not an alumnus, and am not even particularly a football fan of any sort. But I have plenty of friends and family who live in the area, and who are major Nittany Lions fans. They are all, to a person, utterly devastated by these events. In various threads here today, I've seen some truly over the top characterizations of the Penn State community -- characterizations that do a gross injustice to the vast majority of students, alumni and fans. They are most certainly NOT a bunch of willing enablers of child abuse who value football above the safety and welfare of children.

I realize that, in the actions of some of students who rioted last night, such an impression would be easy to take away from it. I don't defend their rioting. But I do, at least, have an idea where they are coming from. I spent a considerable amount of time online last night, talking/corresponding with students at PSU, both Paterno defenders and non-defenders. I tried to explain to some of the hardcore defenders that the rest of the country was reading their actions very differently from what they themselves were trying to express, that they were sending the wrong message. I still believe that. But I have to say that some of them were remarkably articulate about why they were upset, and they made some very valid points that merit at least a bit of understanding, even if not agreement. Below are some of their arguments, as I understand them (and there are certainly counterarguments to be made as well). Among the points they raised:

• By far, the majority of the kids I spoke to were in full agreement that Paterno should have done more, and indeed was morally obligated to do more, either by advising the grad assistant to go straight to the police, by calling the police himself, or, after weeks went by and no action had been taken, demanding action himself. And they seemed to think this was the prevailing view among the students.
  
  
• Penn State has a policy in place regarding the protocol to be followed upon receiving this kind of complaint -- a policy that complies with state law, and which is likely virtually identical to similar policies at colleges and universities across the state. Whatever else may be said about what Paterno did and did not do, or about what he was morally obligated to do, the fact is he complied with the law. Many of the students feel that if there are going to be requirements over and above the policy -- requirements which, if not met, can result in dismissal -- then those requirements should be clearly delineated in the policy. They feel that it is rather unfair, when such a policy is in place, to impose additional requirements after the fact.
  
  
• Related to the point above, they point out that if failure to go above and beyond the stated policy is an offense worthy of dismissal, they are outraged that the same standard has not been applied to McQueary.
  
  
• They agree the administration as a whole dropped the ball on this. But some pointed out that by Paterno notifying the athletic director, and the athletic director in turn notifying VP Gary Schulz, who oversees the university police, that police were effectively notified, and responsibility for the fact that Schulz failed to instruct university police to investigate is a matter that properly falls on Schulz, not on Paterno.
  
  
• In light of these, what the students believe are mitigating, circumstances, they felt Paterno should have been permitted to finish out the season and then retire.
  

Not once, from anyone I spoke to or corresponded with, did I hear a suggestion that Paterno shouldn't have done more. There was not one who wasn't thoroughly disgusted by the events. As I said, there are counterarguments to each of the students' points -- and I made them to those I talked to -- but their points are worthy at least of some consideration. So that's why I reacted so strongly to suggestions by some here that these students were more interested in football than the safety of the children and other similar nonsense. Those kids were in tremendous pain last night. They acted out, unfortunately very inappropriately, in a manner that gave to those outside the institution a very distorted view of what the majority of students think about the whole affair. What I am pleading for is just a bit of restraint, a bit of understanding, before labeling them all "enablers of child abuse."

And again, I apologize to all for the intemperate tone of my earlier remarks.

Below are three quotes from the late Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). For those who might be a little too young to remember much about him, as you read these quotes, keep in mind that when Goldwater ran for president against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, he was generally considered to be about as far right as a politician could be in this country and still be electable. i mean, this was the guy who said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

... One of the things that is so threatening about the OWS movement is that none of our professional politicians can quite get their arms around the thing. So they push for a set of defined goals or demands, trying to pigeonhole the movement into a narrower political agenda that can easily be either opposed, co-opted or exploited. In its present leaderless, inchoate form, OWS represents an enormous threat: not only are the political pros unable to pigeonhole it, neither to they know how large the movement will grow or how long it will last. And that is PRECISELY the movement's strength, and exactly why it should resist premature calls to declare a specific set of policy objectives!

Protesters were told the female jail is full, so they are being taken to an "undisclosed location" for an "unspecified period of time" until they can be moved into the female jail.

What a fucking outrage!

To the editor:

The column by Dr. Charles E. Greenawalt II, published in this paper on Sept. 28, concerning the proposed changes by the state's GOP leadership to the way Pennsylvania awards delegates in the electoral college to presidential candidates, grossly mischaracterizes both the current system as disenfranchising Pennsylvania voters, and the proposed change as somehow being more fair.

In trying to sell the GOP's plan, Dr. Greenawalt suggests, quite dishonestly, that because President Obama won nine of Pennsylvania's 19 congressional districts in the last election as opposed to John McCain's ten, that voters in the ten districts won by McCain were somehow "disenfranchised" in the last election. Not only is his claim patently false, the actual result of the proposed change would be to give the collective will of Pennsylvania voters less influence in the outcome of presidential elections relative to voters of other states.

Dr. Greenwalt fails to mention that while President Obama won only nine out of 19 districts in Pennsylvania, he won 55% of the popular vote. Since Pennsylvania, like 47 other states, uses a "winner-take-all" system of awarding electoral votes, the winner of the state's popular vote is awarded all 23 of Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

The determination of how many delegates to the electoral college each state has is made by a weighted system, whereby states with larger populations are awarded more delegates than those with smaller populations. Thus, Pennsylvania, with its 12 million plus residents, had 21 electoral delegates in the 2008 election, whereas a state like Vermont, with its population of 635,000, has only three.

Currently, there are only two states which allocate electoral votes by winners of Congressional districts: Maine, with 4 electoral delegates, and Nebraska, with 5. All the rest, including Pennsylvania, use a "winner-take-all" method of allocation. Under this winner-take-all system, the collective influence voters of a given state have on the outcome of the presidential race is proportionate to the size of that state's population. Thus, California, as the most populous state, has the largest influence with 55 electoral votes. Likewise, a state like Texas also has a very large influence with 34 electoral votes.

Had the proposed system been in place in 2008, McCain would have received 10 of Pennsylvania's electoral votes, and President Obama would have received eleven (9 for each of the districts in which he won the popular vote, plus an additional 2 for having won the state's overall popular vote), resulting a net win for President Obama of one electoral vote. What this means, in effect, is that collective will of Pennsylvania's 6 million voters would have had only one-third as much weight in the outcome of the election as that of Vermont's 325,000 voters. In the 2008 election, under the current system, the will of the majority of Pennsylvania voters represented a share in the electoral college of approximately 4%. Under the proposed GOP change, with the winner of the popular vote gaining only a one-vote advantage in the electoral college, Pennsylvania's share in the electoral vote would have been reduced to slightly less than two-tenths of one percent. Tell us again, Dr. Greenawalt, who is really being disenfranchised here?

The only scenario under which the proposed GOP plan would be remotely fair to the majority of Pennsylvania voters is if substantially all the other 47 states that currently use the winner-take-all system were to likewise change their method of allocating electoral delegates to the same kind of system the GOP is proposing for Pennsylvania. Otherwise, if only Pennsylvania makes the change, it will result in Pennsylvania voters having only a third of the influence on the outcome of the electoral vote than a state like Vermont, even though Pennsylvania's population is almost 18 times the size of Vermont's.

So what is really behind this push for changing the system? It is worth nothing here that no such change is being proposed in states like Texas, where the GOP already has an advantage. This change is only being proposed in so-called swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. The goal here is pretty obvious: it is an attempt to give the GOP an unfair advantage in those states where the vote is closely divided between Republicans and Democrats, while retaining their existing advantage in states like Texas. It comes down to a system where, in closely divided states like Pennsylvania, a minority of voters would be given an unfair weight, whereas in states that have solid Republican majorities, the minority party would be given no such advantage.

Dr. Greenawalt is certainly correct that eliminating the electoral college would be a difficult and cumbersome prospect, requiring a Constitutional amendment. But so long as it remains in existence, the only remotely fair way to allocate electoral votes is to do it the way substantially all of the other states do it.

The change proposed for Pennsylvania is an attempt by the GOP to disenfranchise the majority of Pennsylvania voters, who tend to vote Democratic in presidential elections, while leaving intact the weighted system in states where Republicans have the majority. It is nothing more than an attempt to game the system for partisan advantage, at the expense of Pennsylvania voters.

Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York

To the editor:

The column by Dr. Charles E. Greenawalt II, published in this paper on Sept. 28, concerning the proposed changes by the state's GOP leadership to the way Pennsylvania awards delegates in the electoral college to presidential candidates, grossly mischaracterizes both the current system as disenfranchising Pennsylvania voters, and the proposed change as somehow being more fair.

In trying to sell the GOP's plan, Dr. Greenawalt suggests, quite dishonestly, that because President Obama won nine of Pennsylvania's 19 congressional districts in the last election as opposed to John McCain's ten, that voters in the ten districts won by McCain were somehow "disenfranchised" in the last election. Not only is his claim patently false, the actual result of the proposed change would be to give the collective will of Pennsylvania voters less influence in the outcome of presidential elections relative to voters of other states.

Dr. Greenwalt fails to mention that while President Obama won only nine out of 19 districts in Pennsylvania, he won 55% of the popular vote. Since Pennsylvania, like 47 other states, uses a "winner-take-all" system of awarding electoral votes, the winner of the state's popular vote is awarded all 23 of Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

The determination of how many delegates to the electoral college each state has is made by a weighted system, whereby states with larger populations are awarded more delegates than those with smaller populations. Thus, Pennsylvania, with its 12 million plus residents, had 21 electoral delegates in the 2008 election, whereas a state like Vermont, with its population of 635,000, has only three.

Currently, there are only two states which allocate electoral votes by winners of Congressional districts: Maine, with 4 electoral delegates, and Nebraska, with 5. All the rest, including Pennsylvania, use a "winner-take-all" method of allocation. Under this winner-take-all system, the collective influence voters of a given state have on the outcome of the presidential race is proportionate to the size of that state's population. Thus, California, as the most populous state, has the largest influence with 55 electoral votes. Likewise, a state like Texas also has a very large influence with 34 electoral votes.

Had the proposed system been in place in 2008, McCain would have received 10 of Pennsylvania's electoral votes, and President Obama would have received eleven (9 for each of the districts in which he won the popular vote, plus an additional 2 for having won the state's overall popular vote), resulting a net win for President Obama of one electoral vote. What this means, in effect, is that collective will of Pennsylvania's 6 million voters would have had only one-third as much weight in the outcome of the election as that of Vermont's 325,000 voters. In the 2008 election, under the current system, the will of the majority of Pennsylvania voters represented a share in the electoral college of approximately 4%. Under the proposed GOP change, with the winner of the popular vote gaining only a one-vote advantage in the electoral college, Pennsylvania's share in the electoral vote would have been reduced to slightly less than two-tenths of one percent. Tell us again, Dr. Greenawalt, who is really being disenfranchised here?

The only scenario under which the proposed GOP plan would be remotely fair to the majority of Pennsylvania voters is if substantially all the other 47 states that currently use the winner-take-all system were to likewise change their method of allocating electoral delegates to the same kind of system the GOP is proposing for Pennsylvania. Otherwise, if only Pennsylvania makes the change, it will result in Pennsylvania voters having only a third of the influence on the outcome of the electoral vote than a state like Vermont, even though Pennsylvania's population is almost 18 times the size of Vermont's.

So what is really behind this push for changing the system? It is worth nothing here that no such change is being proposed in states like Texas, where the GOP already has an advantage. This change is only being proposed in so-called swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. The goal here is pretty obvious: it is an attempt to give the GOP an unfair advantage in those states where the vote is closely divided between Republicans and Democrats, while retaining their existing advantage in states like Texas. It comes down to a system where, in closely divided states like Pennsylvania, a minority of voters would be given an unfair weight, whereas in states that have solid Republican majorities, the minority party would be given no such advantage.

Dr. Greenawalt is certainly correct that eliminating the electoral college would be a difficult and cumbersome prospect, requiring a Constitutional amendment. But so long as it remains in existence, the only remotely fair way to allocate electoral votes is to do it the way substantially all of the other states do it.

The change proposed for Pennsylvania is an attempt by the GOP to disenfranchise the majority of Pennsylvania voters, who tend to vote Democratic in presidential elections, while leaving intact the weighted system in states where Republicans have the majority. It is nothing more than an attempt to game the system for partisan advantage, at the expense of Pennsylvania voters.

Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York

...by one Charles A. Greenawalt II, Ph.D., senior fellow at the Susquehanna Public Policy Institute. At the end of the editorial, there is a note describing that institute as "a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Hershey." It may have appeared in multiple publications, but I saw it on the site for the Lock Haven Express ( http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.deta... ). It basically amounts to a sales pitch for the Republicans' proposed scheme of changing the way Pennsylvania's electoral votes are counted. Currently, Pennsylvania uses a winner-take-all system, whereby the winner of the state's popular vote gets the whole delegation's votes. This is the system used by every other state except Maine and Nebraska. Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be awarded on a per Congressional district basis. In 2008, President Obama won 55% of the state's popular vote to John McCain's 44%; however, in terms of Congressional districts, McCain won 10 and Obama won 9 (the districts the President won were more populous than the ones McCain won).

If the GOP plan had been in effect in 2008, rather than getting Pennsylvania's full complement of 21 electoral votes, 10 would have been awarded to McCain and 11 to Obama (9 for the 9 Congressional districts in which he won, and the extra two awarded because he won the overall vote). That would have meant that President Obama, despite having won 55% of the popular vote in a fairly large state, would have enjoyed a net benefit of ONE electoral vote over his opponent. But Greenawalt tries to say that because McCain won 10 districts and Obama 9, that voters of those 10 districts were somehow disenfranchised! It's an outrageous and utterly false claim. He goes on to suggest that the proposed system would be fairer. But as I pointed out in a response that I have submitted (but has not yet been published), it would only be fair to the majority of Pennsylvania voters if the other 47 states who now use the winner-take-all system were to switch as well. But of course, nothing comparable is being proposed in red states.

If that isn't bad enough, later in the piece he discusses the practical difficulty of eliminating the electoral college and going with a direct popular vote. He adds, "...this kind of switch puts a premium on ACORN-style voter fraud and voter buying - something that was shown to be highly evident during the 2008 elections. It's a bald faced LIE, coming from someone who purports to be writing in his capacity as a fellow of a "non-partisan" organization!

Below is an excerpt, but you really should click on the link above and read the whole thing. In a reply to this OP, I will post the response I submitted for publication.

The NYPD's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, issues a bald-faced lie in his statement about the use of mace at the protests. In the link below, he is quoted as saying, "Pepper spray was used once, after individuals confronted officers and tried to prevent them from deploying a mesh barrier — something that was edited out or otherwise not captured in the video.” EVERYONE should contact the mayor's office as well as the NY Times to call him out on this lie. Even if the video was edited (and I don't believe it was), at the point the officer sprayed the young women, the netting was already deployed and they WERE NOT RESISTING. The pepper spray was an act of pure malice!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/nyregion...

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/11/140144067/fi...

Read full article at: http://www.alternet.org/story/152297/why_o...


http://www.alternet.org/story/152297/why_o...

Thank you, Sabrina, for stating so eloquently and powerfully the concern and frustration so many of us are feeling. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly have said it better!

... a shift towards a (very slightly) earlier model of family living accommodations where multiple generations live together under one roof is, in itself, Not A Bad Thing. I was born in 1961, and as a kid and probably well into the 1970s, there were probably more households in this country who had an elderly grandparent, or even aunt or uncle, living with the family than there were those that did not. In my case, my grandmother did not live with us, exactly -- she slept every night in her own home about a mile away -- she spent virtually six days a week with us. Dad would pick her up in the morning, and take her home sometime after dinner. Dad had a retail propane and appliance business, with the store in the front part of the building in which we lived, so my grandmother would often mind the store if Dad was out on the road or otherwise occupied. When my Dad was growing up (in the very same house), they had one of his grandmothers and a great uncle living with the family in their later years. I think it is a much healthier model than simply shipping grandma off to a nursing home or assisted living facility (unless, of course, that's what grandma wants).