Strike copyrights off the list of the uninfringed

The widely recognizable "New Day" symbol used by Barack Obama in his successful 2008 presidential campaign revolutionized the use of logos as powerful and indelible political icons. Which brings us to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign "Believe In America" campaign messaging. And the chilling symbolism therein.

Not only is it a direct rip-off of the Romika Shoes logo (below)--a likeness so uncanny it must have been used as the campaign's "inspiration." But it also suggests a level of defiance in the Romney camp, to proceed with a design so strikingly similar, knowing--almost challenging--Romika to do something about it. In fact, Romney and Romika fall so closely together alphabetically that the plagiarism is almost shocking in its blatancy and lack of calculation--the political equivalent of the dumb jock copying off the smart kid during an essay test--and as such, could be divulged through a basic corporate logo search.

The fact that Romika Shoes GmbH happens to be a German shoemaker flies in the face of Team Romney's "Believe In America" promise as well. It seems more consistent with the carniverously anti-nationalist nature of his rise to corporate riches through the Bain chop-shop business model: leveraged buyouts; forcing newly owned companies into debt, massive job losses or bankrupcy; and selling them for parts overseas. Whoever and wherever the buyer is matters not. [On a side note, it's worth reminding everyone that Mitt attended the same prep school as Ivan Boesky; whether it's irony, coincidence or something more is another matter.]

Deeper still, it says that while Romney claims to believe in the talents and abilities of Americans, he prefers borrowing very heavily (to put it mildly) from the design of a European manufacturer for their very own campaign symbol without a second thought. What does this say about his opinions of, say, the arts? Of intellectual property? Of individual ownership in general? Or the skills of the American workforce as a whole?

Many psychologists posit that criminals, adulterers and others engaged in immoral or illegal acts behave as overtly as they do because deep down, they want to get caught. From his verbally professed disdain of 47% of the voting public to this apparent display of copyright theft, Romney seems to be doing everything but confessing.


I understand that the contraversy emerged back when Team Romney officially unveiled their campaign logo. But as can see, its underlying significance is increasingly relevant as Election Day nears. So for anyone eager to dismiss this with the "old news" block: sorry to ruin it for you, buddy.

No cause for applause

The following topics generated cheers during Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech Thursday night at the Republican National Convention:

Paul Ryan.
Paul Ryan’s love for his mom.
Romney’s iPod playlist.
Freedom.
Freedom to build one’s business.
The America we deserve.
Us (for taking two jobs after being laid off).
Romney’s wish that Obama had succeeded. Something “we’ll do” (this November).
Our country (because it deserves better).
The spirit that led us to walk on the moon.
The greatest country in the history of the world.
Neil Armstrong.
Americans (who do the really big stuff).
Detroit.
Michigan.
Mothers and fathers.
The world (if all children could fall asleep loved).
Mitt’s father’s local florist.
Women.
The female speakers at the convention.
Mothers and fathers who love their children.
The importance of Ann Romney’s job.
Ann’s success at anything she would have done.
Our communities.
America's lack of excitement in President Obama.
Obama’s poor performance.
Obama’s lack of business experience.
Bain Capital.
Romney’s fear of going to hell (for losing a church’s investment).
Rich, retired Episcopal priests.
Staples.
The Sports Authority.
Bright Horizons.
Steel Dynamics.
Obama’s “attack on success.
Success.
Business.
Dreams.
Steve Jobs.
The free enterprise system.
Incumbant presidents except Obama and Jimmy Carter.
“Turning the page” on Obama.
What can be.
The “promise of America.”
People who don’t give up on America.
Jobs.
Lots of jobs.
Jobs eliminated by Obama’s taxes on small business.
Obama sending jobs to China. (I know.)
The future being worse under Obama.
Romney’s promises of a bright future.
The following promises:
-To create 12 million jobs. (The promise of a plan.)
-To invest in North America’s current fuel sources.
-To offer job skill training for citizens.
-To cut the deficit.
-To put America “on a path” to a balanced budget.
-To repeal Obamacare.
-To not raise taxes on the middle class.
-To proect “the sanctity of life.”
-To honor the institution of marriage.
-To defend our freedom of religion.
Obama’s pledges to save the oceans and the planet.
Romney’s pledge to help families.
Our freeing nations from dictators.
Osama bin Laden's death.
The ineffectiveness of just talking with Iran.
Increased “loyalty” to our allies.
Increased “backbone” to confront Putin.
The return of bipartisan foreign policy.
The demographic-less names on war memorials.
The “united” part of USA.
A better economy, more jobs and more innovation.
A brighter future for children.
A strong military.
The rights given by our Creator and the Constitution.
The future, which is “our destiny.”

What didn’t get applause:

Our nation’s troops.
The middle class.
Any specifics involving Romney’s plan.
The promise of "a united America that cares for the poor, the sick, the elderly and those in need.:

(Romney did say that last one--in fact, it was written to be an applause point--yet all it generated, however, was silence.)

Inciting murder or supporting gun control? Pick your poison

This afternoon outside a Safeway supermarket in the Catalina foothills of northwest Tucson, a 22-year-old man shot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in the head at close range. The gunman then fired a dozen more rounds into the crowd that gathered at the public appearance, killing six—among them a U.S. district judge, a pastor, a nine-year-old girl and Giffords' director of community outreach.

Two decades ago I lived three short miles from this shopping center, nestled in the quiet Catalina Mountain foothills that frame the city's northern boundary. Few places in this country could draw less fear in the minds of its citizenry than the affluent Tucson foothills. Which makes today's rampage all the more senseless. Families of the killed and wounded are left grieving in the aftermath of this horrific act. Yet the rest of the nation is left grasping.

Since Rep. Giffords had been at the forefront of the past year's health care bill backlash, the initial response suggested that it may be a consequence of the escalating tone of political rhetoric over the new legislation. Giffords and other Democratic congressmen reported 42 threats and acts of violence in the three months following President Obama's ratification of the Health Care Overhaul in December 2009. Her office doors and windows were smashed last March, possibly an act fueled by the verbal and online attacks waged by right wing leaders. Much of the toxic rhetoric used gun metaphors and imagery to persuade "patriotic Americans" to take extreme yet necessary measures to let those responsible for the health care bill's passage know the err of their ways.

The heightened and hateful shots seemed to resonate the strongest with those on the fringe. We all remember the woman at John McCain's 2008 campaign stop who was convinced Obama was an Arab and therefore cannot be trusted. Whether scaring the gullible with talk of "death panels" or posting the home addresses of congressmen (as a Tea Party member had done) and urging the public to "pay them a visit", the freak speak left those on the left begging for a halt to the inciteful tone. In response to Sarah Palin's mystifying use of cross hairs to identify the congressional districts under attack, Giffords herself said in a March interview, "(Palin) has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action."

Aware of the negative implications of any connection, the GOP acted quickly and launched another attack—this time against the sanity of the shooter. Within hours conservatives were painting a picture of a young man with a troubled past, struggling with mental illness and a history of homicidal ideation, schizophrenia and other possible psychoses. Even as the Pima County sheriff was suggesting the gunman may not have acted alone, Fox News was quoting a former high-school student who portrayed him as a "pot-smoking loner." If the gunman were merely gullible, easily swayed or mildly imbalanced, the blood would be on their hands for putting the ideas into his head. Yet if he has a proven history of psychotic or mentally ill behavior as they contend, or if he has a criminal past which kept him from joining the Army two years ago, they can create the "random act of a deranged individual" story.

The problem with this assertion is that the perpetrator legally purchased his murder weapon at the Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson on November 30. So if the right-wing portrayal is to be believed, how on earth was this guy able to buy a handgun? In disassociating the killer from their potentially lethal outbursts, conservatives may be setting up an argument for stricter gun control measures in the state that's the poster child for GOP extremism. That's the danger in painting a prettier picture: you may paint yourself into a corner.

It always takes a traffic fatality for an intersection to get that much-needed traffic light. In a similar sense, it may take the shooting of a legislator, the killing of nine-year-old girl and a half dozen adult bystanders, and the injury of another dozen people to instill some much-needed restraint in the mouths and minds of those on Capitol Hill.

Then again, maybe a dose of self-preservation is all they need. After all, who knows when the laser sight will be on their foreheads.

I'd know that sneer anywheer

Not sure how many snickers this may or may not cause. But I hope it's at least worth a wheeze! I'm not saying they're the spittin' image of each oter. Alls I'm saying is I've yet to see them in the same room together.

BP Gulf Oil Disaster "Spill Ticker"

But would Obama's plan cover Obama?

Would he impose a penalty on his own premium? Is this yet another opportunity for the ever-versatile Governmental Immunity statute? And does Governmental Immunity protect public-sector employees from the cancer too?