Prayers for Slain Police Officers. Prayers still for Those Slain Otherwise.

I have been searching my soul for the right words to combat the intentional deflection the haters have instantly jumped on to make this the fault of the poor and non-white. KAJ does better than I could hope to…once again:

“…the suicidal killer, wasn’t an impassioned activist expressing political frustration, he was a troubled man who had shot his girlfriend (and himself) that same day.” I add: The same day he killed two non-white police officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.

“Police are not under attack, institutionalized racism is. Trying to remove sexually abusive priests is not an attack on Catholicism, nor is removing ineffective teachers an attack on education.” ~ Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Time

http://time.com/3643462/kareem-abdul-jabbar-nypd-shootings-police/

My 2016 Presidential Election: Electoral Map Prediction

As of right now (before either party has announced one single candidate): 196 Dem, 169 R no matter who runs in either party.

173 votes up for grabs.

A strong part of my gut says CO’s 10 votes will go Dem, but I’ll leave it swing for now.

2016 Electoral Prediction

February, 2015 UPDATE – Fine Tuning, But No Changes – Pretty close to Gallup’s take on 2014, although they are looking at all elections, not just POTUS.  I might give NC and IA Red for POTUS, but then I would have to give at least MN Blue.  All 3 stay swing now, but barely.

Gallup analysis of 2014

Start with mine, and make it your own 2016 POTUS election map:

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bJki#.VJeAXtqYQN0

April 14 UPDATE – The Big Concern? The #BrokenSystem

Red or Blue, I’m more concerned with the #BrokenSystem angle. The Electoral College has outlived any use it may have had. It renders our POTUS elections meaningless to the vast number of Americans, and the candidates respond in kind by kowtowing to those 11 states that even have a remote chance to matter (most them won’t either, as we’ll show).

George Will himself notes the findings of another: that “…since 1992, a majority of states have not been “remotely competitive,” and that “almost two-thirds of the $896 million spent on television” by the two candidates in 2012 was spent in five states…”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cruz-is-aiming-at-the-wrong-republicans/2015/04/01/87899c0a-d893-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

May 5 UPDATE – Even with Candidates, Nothing Changes

This new Politico.com map – essentially the same as mine, drawn before either party announced a single candidate – proves we do not have but a the charade of “one person, one vote”. The past several near identical POTUS maps prove we haven’t had anything close for several decades, at least.

UVA’s Larry Sabato’s Map on Politico

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554.html

Note that the Politico almost perfectly mirrors my Dec 2014 map now that some candidates are known. No contradictions. And how could there realistically be any but minor contradictions? As Politico notes: “in 2000, when 537 votes in Florida elected a president, just 12 states were decided by five points or less. That number contracted to just four states in 2012.”

If that doesn’t point to a #BrokenSystem – EC votes conceptually unchanged (although better defined) with candidates as without – I don’t know what would.

The United States of America Needs a National Popular Vote

National Popular Vote Inc., a 501(c)(4) non-profit, confirms this predetermined Electoral College vote has become a de facto appointment process. Almost none of our 50 states actually matter:

“Analysts Already Say Only 7 or 8 States Will Matter in 2016 Presidential Election
~ Associated Press identifies 7 “Same Old Swing States”
~ Cook Political Report Identifies 8 “Toss-Up” States
~ Politico Says the 7 Battelground States will give you Deja Vu”

Their website, NationalPopularVote.com, details its call for the US to “Reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote reflects the nationwide popular vote for President.”

August 17 UPDATE – This Story Continues to be Cited…and Buried

The big (and continually buried) story in this article about Hillary’s campaign, and in all similar ones:

Only 85 electoral votes in play for POTUS 2016: Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

Hillary’s 2016 Game Plan Requires Winning Pennsylvania

May 5, 2016 UPDATE – New Map, Same as the Old Map

CNN has released their 2016 predictive map, now that two front runners look apparent. But nothing of significance has changed.

No surprise, their 2016 map mirrors CNN’s own 2012 map almost perfectly…even though there were two “different” candidates.

Compare CNN’s to my latest, also done this week. Also no change:

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

I have OH and FL as toss ups, although if Clinton I give OH to Trump, with TheBern I keep it in play. I have MI as GOP, but I have taken mucho guff for that and acknowledge it has as much chance of going blue as VA does going red.

Other than that, no conflicts with my Dec 2014 map, or mine from the day before Cruz and Kasich dropped out. True Rubio was out at that point, but having him in (or Dem O’Malley for that matter) would not have changed any of my predictions.

November 9, 2016 – Post Election UPDATE

And after over a billion dollars an endless campaign yielded very little change.  See the actual 2016 results:

Not one of my states on my Electoral College mapped predictions, as the first image in this blog post, from Dec 2014 when NO candidates were known, was wrong. Not a single one.

After candidates were known, in my May 5, 2015 UPDATE, I had reduced my unknown or ‘swing’ states to just two: Ohio and Florida. I further clarified that if Dems pick Clinton instead of Sanders (as we did) I had OH leaning to Trump.

I missed Wisconsin and (ironically) my home state of Pennsylvania only.

Coincidence, or #BrokenSystem? You be the judge.

Wolf Calls New York’s #Fracking Ban “Unfortunate”, But Supports Ban In One Watershed?

Regardless where one stands on this issue, supporting a moratorium in one watershed, while not supporting same in all watersheds is logically vacuous, and needs explained to We The People.

I continue to see that PA Governor-elect Tom Wolf supports a moratorium in the Delaware watershed until such time as O&G – on its dime and time – proves it safe there. But he opposed same protection in PA’s other watersheds. The Delaware has most of our wealthiest and most of our Dems…coincidentally, perhaps. Regardless, it can’t be unsafe (or safety can’t be unknown) where the rich drink, but same process safe everywhere else. Maybe I am missing something, but if so, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf ought to explain to the Democratic Committeeman why he opposes the Democratic fracking moratorium plank which won placement in our Democratic Platform, by a comfortable majority.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/12/18/wolf-new-yorks-fracking-ban-is-unfortunate/

I called out the hypocrisy of our GOP legislature when they pulled this same dual logic:

Some are Sans Safety Net, with Safety Still Uncertain

I now call out the guy I campaigned and voted for.

Right now, I’d settle for consistent positions. This issue in PA has become like blockading Cuba while having China as MFN…in order to fight communism. Pick a side, any side, and apply your logic to all cases, or explain what led you to different outcomes.

Is the well being of the wealthiest and most Democratic PA citizens more important than those in Hop Bottom, PA, or are the former just beneficiaries of us protecting NYC water? Or is it something else? Again, consistency either way.

Here is a clear map of PA watersheds:

http://fishandboat.com/pafish/fishhtms/chap2.htm

Why is OK to frack in some of Luzerne County, PA, but not only not OK in other parts of that same county, but specifically not OK because according to the 2011 draft regulations which led to it: “may have a substantial effect, either individually or cumulatively, on the surface water and groundwater resources of the basin”?

Workshop On Running For Local Office In Dauphin County

For all those people who have ever thought about serving on their school board, borough council, or township board – here’s your chance to learn how to do it. Penn State Extension is offering a workshop ‘Toss Your Hat in the Ring’ at the Dauphin County Agricultural & Natural Resources Center Building, 1451 Peters Mountain Road in Dauphin on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, from 7:00 -9:00 p.m.

The workshop fee is $25.00 per person. Register on-line at http://extension.psu.edu/toss-your-hat or contact Penn State Extension Dauphin County at (717) 921-8803.

If you anticipate needing any type of accommodation or have questions about the physical access provided, please contact our office at (717) 921-8803 in advance of your participation or visit.

The workshop includes:

* An overview of Pennsylvania local government and the responsibilities of a township supervisor, a borough council member, or a school board director – presented by Penn State Extension. * Instructions on how to run: filing a petition, reporting campaign expenses, and other important information – presented by Jerry Feaser, Jr., Elections and Voter Registration Director.

*A panel of local officials from Dauphin County who will talk about why they decided to run for office and some of their experiences since they were elected.

The workshop won’t offer campaign tips or strategies; rather the focus is on understanding the roles, responsibilities, and personal rewards that come with public service. “The people who run our local governments are our friends and neighbors – people just like us,” explained Penn State Extension Educator, Neal Fogle.

“You don’t need special training or experience to serve your township, borough, or school district. If you’re interested in serving, care about your community, and are willing to learn on the job, we’d like to encourage you to toss your hat in the ring.”

The ‘Jackie’ Story Did Not Hurt

The sky may not be quite falling, but journalists everywhere are already presuming significant fallout:

http://www.pennlive.com/living/index.ssf/2014/12/post_30.html

…from a botched attempt to tell the world exactly what happened to ‘Jackie’:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-challenge-rolling-stone-account-of-attack/2014/12/10/ef345e42-7fcb-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html

Relax

The ‘Jackie’ story did not hurt the movement to hold our miserable and spineless elite to the “tough on crime” standards were proudly puff our chests onto our less affluent who crosses the street in a hoodie not to our liking. It emboldened other victims, and brought renewed attention to victims who have been saying the same things about @UVA for years…with their names attached.

Look up Liz Securro, as just one example, who tells an almost identical tale…since 2011:

Dean Robert Canevari, @UVA, tells raped she “had sex…didn’t want my parents to know,” in 1984. Police not called.

Dean Robert Canevari, @UVA, now “claims to have no memory of meeting with” rape victim in 1984.

Interfraternity Council denies, and University Police have no record of, meeting with @UVA rape victim Liz Securro.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/16/i-was-gang-raped-at-a-uva-frat-30-years-ago-and-no-one-did-anything.html

Sloppy Reporting.  That is All

Sloppy reporting with ‘Jackie’? This reporter says “sure”. But by all accounts something predatory happened to this victim. And some folks who could afford cover came out smelling like a rose. Again.

So run a retraction (done), and a revised report (reportedly already underway).

Irreparable? The average American will forget this specific story in a couple weeks. Afterword, we can get busy fixing a TRULY irreparable wrong; we very likely are well underway:

“@UVA often expels students for academic (wrongs) but has never once expelled a student for rape.”
http://t.co/Xq8IdYe4dB via @rollingstone

#Cronybus Spending Bill Re-Privatizes Profits and Re-Socializes Risks and Costs…By One Vote

Orrin Hatch showed how out of touch he is – but also how his views reflect the thinking of most of those elected from either of the only two broken teams allowed at the table. Of Ted Cruz and Liz Warren’s attempt to filibuster the $1.1T #Cronybus spending bill, passed comfortably in bipartisan fashion by our US Congress, Hatch said: ”I don’t see an end goal other than irritating a lot of people.”

The end goal is a govt of, by and for us, which we’ve been told is a biggie; the people being irritated are the milk toast middle of both broken parties. Sorry for the inconvenience, we’re trying to change the world, as the saying goes.

Bravo to Senators Cruz (R) and Warren (D), for your valiant and oh-so-close attempt to filibuster this down.  You needed one (1) more vote (see below).

Shut the govt down, if we must. Just don’t give even more breaks to the banks and the political parties that they own.

The far right and far left are our only hope to salvage our democratic republic. Old-school Democrats and Republicans are of little help without us.

Bravo to the US Senate’s 21 Dems, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and 18 Rs who voted against the $1.1T #Cronybus spending bill giveaway to They The Corporate Political Class. Big Banks will once again insure their issuing of worthless paper at criminal profits on our backs.

May both CRUZ (R) and WARREN (D) be rewarded for their leadership by being selected by their parties to face off for POTUS 2016, in a principled debate.

Huge boo to BOTH of my own Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) for turning their collective backs, in bipartisan fashion, once again, on We The (Human, Constituent) People and voting Yeah.

File under: “Every vote counts” – If one more Senator would have voted Nay, we could have killed this via filibuster. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) did not vote.

NAYs — 40
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
***CRUZ (R-TX)***
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (R-WI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
***WARREN (D-MA)***
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00354

Warren for POTUS…But Only if The Political Class’s Funders Allow it.

“So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi(group): I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. It should have broken you into pieces.” ~ Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Senate Floor, Friday, Dec 12, 2014

Watch her detail, on the Floor of the US Senate, exactly why she thinks – and I firmly believe most Americans, of all political persuasions think – that Citi need broken up, around time 5:55:

Then, around time 7:00, she reminds us all of history.  For some reason, most of The Political Class has forgotten this:

“…a lot of people talk about how those trusts deserved to be broken up because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatened the very foundations of our democratic system.” ~ Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Senate Floor, Friday, Dec 12, 2014

Not Just Liberals

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-president-democrat-2016/

Teddy was a principled Republican – I know, Bull Moose, but still – he was a leader. The author of that article goes on to say:

“A populist who talks like Elizabeth Warren and really means it is a Democrat a conservative like me would consider voting for, despite her social liberalism.”

As a liberal Dem, I hope the race is Warren vs Cruz, for this very reason the author states: Not just on banking/Wall St, but any issue of substance. An HRC vs whatever milk toast neocon will be a pep rally about the flag and great jobs and stuff.

We don’t need that. We need leadership, of any political stripe.  But will it be enough?  A month ago, I grudgingly admitted “No.”  Now, I still lean no, but Americans have a way of surprising folks…especially other Americans.

Not Just the Anti-HRC

Tweeted @WashTimes Dec 12: Watch out Hillary! Obama campaign alums beg Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016. http://fw.to/UCUOj1Y

I add that so do many of HRC’s alums.

I voted for HRC over Obama, and I had an “HRC in ’08” bumper sticker in 2004. I was the first person in this area with an HRC bumper sticker that I knew of. Way bhen Bill Clinton ran, I wished HRC would have instead, and told folks so (even as I backed and voted for Bill).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/15/the-most-powerful-democrat-in-america.html

“Time HRC START” worrying? She either has been worried for some time, or is not perceptive enough to lead our nation.

Tongue in Cheek?  

“The crucial distinction Warren makes is this one: It’s not just social conditions like globalization and technological change that threaten the middle class. It’s an active conspiracy by the rich and powerful. The game is rigged. The proper response is not just policy-making; it’s indignation and combat.” ~ NYTimes’ David Brooks

Tongue in cheek?  Sure.  Brooks is a well known (and well-respected, by me) conservative commentator.  He can be expected to paint we libs in a comical light, as we of thick skin accept it.  His larger point is dead on though: a growing number of we libs will do all we can to reduce our backing of Republican-lite candidates.

Brooks goes on to point out what I see and hear every day, albeit in whispers, lest polite company is offended:

“According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month, 58 percent of Democrats said they believed that the economic and political systems were stacked against them.”

Will The Political Class’s Funders Allow it?

Sounds good. Who runs, however, is solely determined by money. The desires of the electorate have almost nothing to do with the vetting of candidates.

Warren will not run if we can’t raise her the $1B minimum entry fee, she will if we can. It is that simple.

Whoever runs, no R being bandied will break 40% against HRC or Warren, except Romney or Jeb Bush. And Anne Romney says no way.

We DON’T Need Warren in the US Senate!

Oh, to those tireless calls that “We need Warren more in the Senate”:  nonsense.  No US Senator has a fraction of the ability to act unilaterally as POTUS, forgetting even the Bully Pulpit. Not even Majority Leader, which Dem moderates would never let her take, even if we do retake the Senate (doubtful at rosiest).

Further Reading – Dems: No More Republican-lite Candidates 

This excellent Dec 17 Phillydotcom OpEd about the #‎Cronybus Bill sums up where the next Democratic candidates this Democratic Committeeman will bother backing had better stand: with Warren and me!

I have had it with Republican-lite candidates losing to (or beating, it matters little) Republicans.

“both parties were clearly terrified that a real discussion of the issues might have screwed up their real mission”

Among the sell-outs were ‘liberal’ Philadelphia Democrats Bob Brady, Chaka Fattah, and Allyson Schwartz. (I add Dem Senator Bob Casey to that list ‘of the people’, see my blog on #Cronybus Bill: https://steventodd.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/cronybus-spending-bill-re-privatizes-profits-and-re-socializes-risks-and-costsby-one-vote/)

“…veterans of Citigroup have dominated the Democratic Party establishment for quite a long time…”

‘not really dealing with divided collection of conservatives or liberals…1 nebulous mass of influence’

‘next march and rally can pay a visit to Citigroup with this message for Wall Street: #‎HandsUpoDontLoot’
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Wall-Street-1100000000000-the-American-People-0.html

To Obstruct or Not Obstruct and Consistency Across Issues

The debate on whether PA Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane should or should not defend laws in PA jives nicely with the numerous debates on whether one branch of a government should obstruct another. The answer seems to me to be “sure, why not?” An answer of “no way” could just as logically be arrived at.

The only illogical answer is: “sure, but only until the result I like is arrived at. Then the troublemakers should stop.”

Ideally, all parties would walk down the hall or shoot an email or set up a web conference or send smoke signals to compromise solid majorities prior to proposing things. Barring that, all sides must act in their vacuums, and exhaust all allowable steps to block things they don’t like.

Otherwise, my team gets what it wants and the troublemakers deal with it. That will never fly in a democracy.

The Commonwealth Attorneys Act is clear instruction to our AG:
“The Attorney General may, upon determining that it is more efficient or otherwise is in the best interest of the Commonwealth, authorize the General Counsel or the counsel for an independent agency to initiate, conduct or defend any particular litigation or category of litigation in his stead.”

Click to access 0164..PDF

In English: The AG may decline the Commonwealth’s position, if it’s more efficient and in the best interest of Pennsylvania for the governor’s, or independent, lawyers to defend a law.

I do not know that there is a criteria, protocol or standard for determining this. As far as I can tell, it is solely at the AG’s discretion. The remedy to any conflict or disagreement, I would imagine, will be our Courts.

I add that, from history, Republican AGs could reasonably be expected to react more conservatively and Dem AGs more liberally. Given that Kane is our first elected Dem in this office, we would seem to legitimately be on uncharted ground, given that an AG appointed by the Governor might be expected to do pretty much what that Governor wants.

Maybe Kane thought l ideology a legitimate justification to make a “determination” to not enforce. Maybe she thought something else was. Either way, she seems as good to go as 41% of the US Senate holding up things 59% want. To my knowledge, there is no reason required for an indefinite filibuster. Same deal.

Regardless why, if that is not our collective desire, then We The People of PA must change the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. Because it appears we not just allow, but require our AG to make subjective and autonomous decisions on a “because I think so” basis, in these cases. It also seems that other elected AGs may have been less diligent in applying our requirement of them: our Commonwealth Attorneys Act.

#ThisStopsToday…or Does It ?

Bravo to all who braved the wind and rain to speak out on this ongoing injustice in the USA. The haters and cowards and racists are out in force in the comments section following this article. Please consider a comment in support; signed comments add credibility:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/12/protestors_march_down_busy_har.html

This same week, a Director and a Senior Associate Dean joined a “Die-In” at my alma mater PSUH, as we added our voices to the Christmas tree lighting on Thursday, and #‎Ferguson2Miami shut down I-195 on Friday, and six more schools around Denver walked out of class. Soon even the most sheltered will have to notice. If not, the protests will continue.

To the (almost solely anonymous) charges of playing the dreaded “Race Card”: hogwash. Our argument is the dual path to justice in America, and the institutional – not individual – racism that allows and rewards it. The comparison between the two are necessary, since there are some who haven’t noticed it. I have heard no one applaud anyone’s law breaking or martyring any lawbreaker; claiming we are doing so is deflection. The race card must be played, because it is the only reason the repeated incidences recur.

Racism was the case here as with the countless times people of color are punished disproportionately to their “crimes” (selling cigarettes, or in #‎Trayvons case, walking while black). If a cigarette salesman needs strangled for resisting arrest, then surely the white CEO of JPMorgan Chase who looted the global economy doesn’t deserve a multi-million dollar raise…or vice versa. Pick either one, and your defense will at least be logical.

That is our reality, and what we protest: a black man has to be more careful about what he says to a cop than a white man does. And how he walks through a store. And how he drives. And walks. And looks at people. A non-white person must leave his or her house in a different fashion than a white person, for best chances of returning.

I believe that pretty soon, the USDOJ will have to find a pattern to our dual justice tract and propose a fix. We simply can’t keep allowing white dudes in ties to loot the planet with impunity, while strangling a black guy selling cigarettes (I know, I know: Illegally). We The People must not stand for it.”

Until then? We keep protesting our discontent at the #HandsUpDontShoot #ThisStopsToday protest outside tree-lighting ceremony at the PA State Capitol, Thursday, Dec 4 (Photo Credit: James Robinson, PennLive.com)

Me at the #HandsUpDontShoot #ThisStopsToday Protest

What Can You Do Next?

Please join our Sat, 12/13, 2:00pm – 4:00pm “Die-In” for Mike Brown on Capitol steps

https://www.facebook.com/events/733256433431977/

Excellent Rolling Stone expose of our broken Political Class

…and why it might not be able to hide from this brave heroine, Alayne Fleischmann:

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase’s Worst Nightmare

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3KkmWauzo

Summary, as Tweeted @stevenwtodd @rollingstone:

“It was like watching an old lady get mugged on the street. I can’t sit by any longer.”

“…if we don’t start speaking up..(we get) the biggest financial cover-up in history.”

Chase loan pooled and sold: manicurist claiming $117,000 income = 488 days / yr with no overhead.

“It’s theft on a scale that blows the mind.”

SEC, the FBI, the IRS, HUD and others COMBINED “help Chase bury the evidence,” for $9B disguised as $13B.

Chase settlement “carefully crafted to bypass the court system” by the USDOJ.

“Chase was allowed to treat some $7 billion of the settlement as a tax write-off.”

“One could argue Chase actually made money from the deal.”

“The assumption they make is that I won’t blow up my life to do it,” Fleischmann says. “But they’re wrong about that.”