The Brett Kavanaugh Accusers

Pres. Trump's SCOTUS nominee -- Usually in cases like this, the classic HE said/SHE said I'll either side with the man (e.g. Clarence Thomas) or not have an opinion for the time being (existentially neutral or only God knows the deal).  When the # of accusers increases then it becomes problematic.  If you're dealing with say four or five different female accusers you can sit there and say it's a travesty against God and Justice and Country but average folk like me begin to ponder.  Sure it can be some evil leftist conspiracy but......So can the FBI conduct a decent investigation in a week?  Was Judge Kavanaugh even properly vetted?  My own preliminary opinion: maybe go with somebody else?

Thoughts on the gun control debate (yet again)

It's amazing how fast time is going. Looking over the posting date of my last post I hadn't realized so much time had elapsed before coming up with a new idea. Sorry to my handful of fans. Liberals act like if they were in charge tragedies like the recent newsroom shooting in Maryland wouldn't have happened. Then I'm reading some hyperventilating political/social commentators extrapolating from one weird individual living in his own self-contained weird mental universe that there's some kind of male rage/war against Women. Well as one conservative blogger here said some time ago back in the day re Newtown sometimes bizarre and tragic things happen and there's almost nothing we could have done about it, nothing that could have prevented it so the whole gun control debate becomes a kind of cosmetic discussion imo. Then there's this thing about some revenge porn law that seems to have gotten stuck in the New York State Legislature that won't pass and folks are blaming Google. I'm no attorney but isn't it already illegal to post say nude pictures of myself without my consent on the Web not that you'd want to see? In our zeal to pass new laws based on the latest tragic social circumstance we should first check what's already on the books that maybe need to be better enforced. If you're having sex maybe don't leave the smartphone out? Here's the problem: reality itself is weird and bizarre and tragic things happen, sometimes rarely and in the case of guns for some reason in cycles. There are bizarre and odd individuals walking amongst us right now. All I can say and offer is don't make eye contact:)

The News is a bit off-center of late

Bill Cosby may spend the rest of his life in prison and President Donald Trump may win the Nobel Peace Prize. Haven't googled Bill Cosby's exact age of late. Could be 89, 97 or 105 but Justice has been served. Public disgrace and opprobrium not enough and I'm no legal authority but I thought there was a statute of limitations or something. The Hollywood academies have rescinded his many awards and mere mention and it's as if I Spy never existed. They finally realized Roman Polanski is a perv too and did the same such is the feminist juggernaut a little late in coming though. President Trump is seriously being mentioned as a viable peace prize potential winner with the upcoming Kim Jong-Un summit in Singapore the Stormy Daniels saga being merely a springtime diversion to fuel the news cycle. As an aside I don't see any more tip cups in Dunkin' Donuts and I have a chunk of change to spare. Are the clerks making too much or something?

Tim Cook traveling down Creepy Road

The latest news from the Tim Cook vs. Federal Gov't fight over Apple encryption is the FBI may have found a third party way to open up the dead San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone. I'm fairly libertarian myself and at first blush his position sounds good and brave and other swell things but I got to thinking. Our country is already rife with perverts, the mentally unbalanced, online predators and yes I'm sure there are some terrorists scattered about and he would seem to be saying these groups need to have their privacy and data protected as well. Cyberstalking is a big subject these days and feminists have been a driving force behind the ever-evolving legislation but strangely I don't hear them criticizing Tim Cook and Apple. Another huge terror attack today in Europe this time in Brussels but Mr. Cook continues to dig down deeper into his Snowdenian position which is somehow supposed to get us to buy more Apple products. I for one am sticking with Android with its myriad problems from incompatible apps to slow-charging Samsung tablets but at least it's a stand. I have long agreed with Hannity, as soon as the government or law enforcement wants to get inside your head and police your mind that's totalitarianism plain and simple but these other folks I'm talking about ain't just thinking things they're already breaking the law in some fashion. I'm not taking a pro-government position here, I'm at best sometimes ambivalent about law enforcement in this country but do you want to give the worst elements of society that high-tech advantage?

Hillary Rodham Clinton compared some of the Republican presidential candidates to ISIS

From a free speech angle I got no problem if that's how she feels but where's the blowback, the media firestorm? just sayin'. Well she's at least updated the tired Nazi analogy. Trump says things that are half true and he's got the universe on edge. On the positive side at least she acknowledges that ISIS is bad for women.

Defunding Planned Parenthood

I have sincerely tried to understand this liberal apoplexy whenever the subject of defunding Planned Parenthood is broached but when I've posed the question throughout the years I never get a clear answer or quite often no answer at all.  WHY is Planned Parenthood entitled to or why are we morally obligated to subsidize this organization through millions of dollars in federal taxpayer funds every year???  Even if I were pro-choice I wouldn't automatically come down on the side of the federal subsidy.  There are quite a few organizations in this country who do yeoman's work on the side of good and yet they don't receive such a subsidy and yet it is mostly a Democratic Article of Faith that PP needs to be federally subsidized and if you don't quite morally calculate it this way you're on the side of darkness and devils.  I have to say though I have always found the pro-abortionism of the NY Times editorial board to be quite stunning even with the string of undercover sting videos by the pro-life although I'm supposed to say the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress. So throw your coins in the fountain here or if you prefer just walk by and glance and give the old Sitemeter an uptick.

Planned Parenthood, fetal harvesting and a roomful of beagles

Liberals have always acted like you're emotionally, morally and spiritually obligated to support Planned Parenthood. Actually that's not true, it's up to you. I'm not against birth control but I am personally against abortion so for me to support Planned Parenthood is a logical impossibility and the extended topic of fetal harvesting is definitely out of the question.  Doesn't make me a bad person. It's a larger issue for me than the latest undercover viral video made by the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress showing PP not in the best light. We can discuss that and folks are sure to bring up PP health clinics are big on breast cancer screenings, STD prevention and whatnot but now we got a little beagle problem on our hands. Let's say your local animal shelter does exemplary work for the most part, placing adoptions of pets, spaying and neutering and shots but in the room in the back they gas beagles maybe once a week. Some will support the shelter 100%, some will support part of the shelter and pretend the other room doesn't even exist and some may not go there at all because they're morally opposed to cat/dog euthanasia on principle. The grisly room in the back overrides everything else for some people. In my view that's perfectly valid and needs to be respected. Ditto those who withhold their moral support for PP because an integral part of their daily work is they do provide abortions. Again I'm not getting why I'm a bad person if I don't support the organization.

OK so maybe now we can all hate the SCOTUS

For decades now conservatives have hated the Supreme Court because of the Roe vs. Wade decision among other things. There are other things of course but that was/is primary. NOW liberals including feminists and the New York Times hate the SCOTUS because of its recent Hobby Lobby decision even though for the longest time liberals have counseled accepting Roe as the Law of the Land mainly because the SCOTUS said so. Here's a thought though, maybe the Supreme Court shouldn't be the most powerful branch of government in the Land. If it takes the various cycles of the political pendulum to see that so be it.

A status check on feminism

Last night I was watching an always interesting local program here called Chasing NJ and there was a segment on the increasing number of women who are getting breast augmentation surgery without the benefit of general anaesthesia. The host had asked one woman what was her motivation, after all we're not talking a critical and life-saving operation and she said so she can feel more "confident." So I got to thinking about the apparent increasing cultural irrelevancy of modern feminism, the guys want a nice ripe soft breast to handle so wouldn't want to disappoint the boys would we? So who's more sociologically relevant here Hef or Gloria Steinem? Now before you get on my case I actually agree with a few points of feminism our society's overemphasis on beauty and physical perfection being one of them but you have to ask yourself whether feminism as an overall life philosophy has ever really caught on. I mean are women demanding larger and thicker penises? It would seem for all the talk of women's empowerment these days we're still at heart a bit of a patriarchal society. Thanks gals.

Does the Democratic Party want to be known as the party of late-term abortion?

There's been a kind of polling consensus out there for years now that even your average pro-choicer at large opposes or feels squeamish about certain things like later-term abortions besides sharing a couple of other points with the pro-lifers.  I've often wondered myself from a philosophical POV how does a doctor perform such a procedure and go home and sleep at night? and if you track historically the narrative arc of the whole pro-abortion movement there was in the past a definite trend to emphasive earlier term abortions and not to be seen as too keen defenders of this whole other ghastly business, indeed they've accused the lifers of purposely harping on it.  Recently however there's been Gov. Cuomo's now stalled push in NYS to allow very late-term abortions for reasons other than the mother's life and now there's this story and it just leaves me scratching my head over why liberals/progressives/Democrats would even go this route.  There's been a kind of latent creepiness/weirdness which has come to the fore these days in the whole pro-abort movement, a kind of Newtowning of Choice, a sort of philosophical monsterism and would Wendy Davis personally herself we willing to stand in the same room and witness such an existentially depressing procedure from start to finish?  Is the average pro-choicer that you work with demanding this?  Extremism by any other name......

Pro-abortionism, the quicksilver in the debate

Trying to nail down what exactly is pro-abortionism since everyone denies it so I've come up with this by way of example.  Let's say I'm against affirmative action or "reverse discrimination" as it's been called, now I think I can come up with a fairly respectable and intellectually legitimate defense of my position but let's say to make my case I then relied almost exclusively on the arguments made by avowed white male racists would it be a fair assessment among the folks-at-large to say I'm a racist or bigot, that the reason I'm against a quota system is because I hate blacks?  In the same way if I say I'm not pro-abortion but pro-choice but rely almost exclusively on pro-abortion argumentation, the pro-abortion worldview re the fetus in making my case then I think it not a far-fetched conclusion to say I'm also pro-abortion in addition to being pro-choice, nay probably pro-abortion first and foremost.  It's not really just another abortion thread just a caveat regarding semantics that when making your case be careful whose arguments you choose to use.  IF a pro-choicer uses the same material that a hardcore pro-abortionist uses and does this time and again know what I'm sayin'? 

Free cell phones as a gov't bennie - Gov't stroking the sweet spot

Got a thing in the mail yesterday from a place called Safelink which is a service of Lifeline which is actually something to do with the Federal Government.  Note the key words here - Safelink, Lifeline, Federal Government.  Apparently and I've heard about this but if you're poor enough, if you're under a certain predetermined income level and already partake of certain government programs like food stamps and SSI you're ELIGIBLE, entitled to a free cell phone with 250 free minutes!!!  Text your heart out.  So of course they have some kind of positive blurb at the bottom of the letter from some older disabled woman saying the cell phone practically saved her life butcha just know most folks are just gonna be gabbing and blabbing and yakking on the things.  Bishop Sheen warned about this way back in the day, they're gonna try to make you dependent on the federal government.  Free cells and having your job be forced to cover your birth control, it's all of a thread.  Maybe they should call it Flukelink (pronunciation fluck).  The Obama Motto - don't let your boss decide if you can have bc or not.  To me that's irrelevant, your boss has nothing to do with your personal life.  During my last job interview it never dawned on me to ask in closing are you gonna cover my sex'chal needs?  The ONLY thing that matters is getting paid for services rendered, that's it!  You know it's become kind of gauche to point this out lately but these are the type of people who voted for Obama and yes he won the election fair and square but when his second term is up that's when we have to have The Great Rollback, the massive scaling back of liberalism and at the top of my list will be the free cell phone.  Conservative post-election analysis greatly missed the point.  Generally speaking Mitt Romney really did nothing wrong, the country's changed is all.  BTW BB's probably entitled to a free cell:)

Conservative post-election analysis

Now we get into the sheer entertainment spectacle of conservative cannibalism and zombie apocalypse, now they're working on Romney's leg.  The problem was outsourcing as if Made in Indonesia just happened yesterday, no but maybe Romney should have been from the Midwest instead of the Northeast.  Romney didn't reach across the cultural aisle to shake hands with Hispanics the fastest growing demographic in the country but if memory serves they were on prominent display at the RNC along with many prominent Republican women.  Other conservatives want Republicans to start killing fetuses and joyfully pass out Rear Entry silicon-based lubes to gay couples and maybe smoke a couple of doobies too while they're at it you unhip out-of-touch crowd.  Here's a thought though, what if Romney did nothing wrong? what if the country is simply more liberal or wishy-washy or whatever?  What if some people are simply stuck in some form of economic masochism, you know some young guy out of a job for quite some time now but who has simply gotten used to the Routine of sleeping in every day and then circle-jerking to the Price Is Right models and he can go out and buy at least the cheaper gas station porn with his government handout when the old stuff isn't fresh anymore?  HOW do you appeal to a populace in constant moral/social flux anyway who know more about the Kardashians than the national debt and deficit or Benghazi?  I think Mitt Romney was a strong candidate, strong enough in a bad economy to win and certainly stronger than McCain was so in 2016 what'll happen is maybe they'll throw up a Marco Rubio or a Chris Christie or put them in tandem somehow and when they lose too the conservative post-election analysis/post-mortem will begin all over again with ever fresh and creative deconstruction.  Obama got a strong storm bounce of that there is no doubt and I think Chris Matthews (free speech again) hit upon the truth here.  You know it's funny about Obama he seems to court every possible voting bloc except the white male vote and I totally agree with Bob Woodward who said on the last episode of Meet the Press that Obama has to start having a much broader message beyond his core constituencies.  You want Romney to go out and escort a woman to the nearest abortion clinic or offer his and Ann's bed for a gay romp while they go out shopping at Target? well if you think it'll help but I have to laugh over here in Westchester County practically every Democrat candidate for every conceivable office including dogcatcher touted I AM PRO-CHOICE and my brother goes most people don't care about that at least not right now, where are the JOBS?  One last thought, if the conservative pundits know what's best why don't they run?

The new norm

Conservatives sound positively suicidal.  Listening to Rush on the way home after Election Day and he said it doesn't jibe.  Ann Coulter said if we can't win with Romney in a bad economy we've reached a tipping point.  Conservatives in general have the ominous foreboding they're somehow outnumbered but Z-man has spotted a political trend of late and it goes both ways.  Bill Clinton was a two-termer, so was George W. Bush and now Obama.  I think the populace at large now sticks with the same leader for reasons of political and social stability, at least we know who he is.  This also helps on the foreign stage, doesn't confuse world leaders and a foreign policy gets a chance to work itself out and while I didn't agree with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on everything I'd much prefer him over the socialist Hollande.  So basically I think the new norm may be Americans want a president to finish the job whatever that job is and if he doesn't put a positive end to it all he'll get his just and deserved blot in History.  Kinda tolerant and fuzzy but I ain't that way.  If the economy doesn't improve however those hordes who voted for Obama have no right to complain and  I like to reserve that right and so I voted for Romney/Ryan of course.  It wasn't a good day for the GOP in general and for those of you who like to say the GOP needs to become more moderate on the social issues in order to win I have one thing to say: Linda McMahon.  Fiscally conservative and socially moderate as they say she looked good on paper and put together some very professional ads for the Senate slot in CT against Chris Murphy.  In fact if you didn't know any better you'd think she was the incumbent and she also spent a hell of alot of money or so I heard.  Wasn't even close and I don't think professional wrestling had anything to do with it.  Did it ruin my day? no, I just went off to work and did my usual, didn't get into the whole Rush/Coulter mindset.  There was alot of talk among the pundits on Tuesday night and the day after about the country's changing demographics and how they helped Obama and the Democrats, more Latinos and less whites say although if I were a Democrat and heard some chucklehead at one of the media roundtables say the less religious are somehow more inclined to vote Democratic I'd be offended.  You talk about your Tea Party and OWS movements but be on the lookout for perhaps the next big trend/movement, the movement to get rid of the Electoral College.  Where do I sign up?  Oh I know the framers put it there and I think the original rationale may have been to provide some kind of counterbalance to the natural stupidity of the American public but I was never a fan of the EC even when I was a kid and this movement can definitely be bipartisan, after all the case can be made that Al Gore should at least have been a one-term president.  I mean why not just let the six battleground states so-called vote for the President and the rest of us can just take the night off?  First president to win re-election with a jobless rate over 7.2%, the new normal:)

The 3rd & Final Debate, foreign and domestic repairs

It took but half an hour or twenty minutes or so before businessman Romney veered off into more comfortable domestic terrain, done on purpose and killed a small block of time and Obama happily took the bait (geez Dad can we rap about birth control again?  I see an opening!).  Not exactly two Kissingers squaring off against each other and sure enough Obama obliquely got his pills in (I'm beginning to think he takes bc pills himself) when he said Romney has social policies more from the '50s, a Mormon cross between Robert Young and Leave It To Beaver but onto to Syria and some other more pressing matters.  Bashar al-Assad to date has killed about 30,000 of his own citizens, brings to mind Stalin's old quip that one death is a tragedy 30,000 is a statistic to paraphrase.  Obama kept talking sanctions up the kazoo whereas Romney agreed but said while there would be no military involvement under his administration we really need to arm the rebels the right ones anyway.  I pretty much watched the whole thing with a quick sidetrip for a whizz and a refill and in my notes there's everything.  Obama took out Osama bin Laden which in a foreign policy debate is perfectly fair to point out and also somehow took out Khadafy.  The evening started out with Mideast terror/Benghazi of course and perhaps the best line of the evening was when Romney said we can't kill ourselves out of this terror situation but really need to engage the Muslim world to reject extremism (hey Sat the real War Against Women can best be capsulized in the pic of little Malala recuperating in her British hospital room, just thought I'd get that in).  So how'd that reset go with Putin Mr. Obama?  Romney sees Putin more as a geopolitical foe, I see him as nostalgic for the Cold War and not wanting to move on but Obama somehow sees him in less menacing terms, dunno.  Iraq, status of forces agreements, the Red Line with Iran, future talks between the U.S. and Iran not being true, tensions with Israel which even many Dems are concerned about, Obama's global apology tour.  Geez this blogpost is beginning to resemble an updated version of We Didn't Start the Fire.  Rom's feeling is that the world's worst leaders saw weakness in Obama and this made events in the world worse and yeah China was ripe for discussion (we'll save that for the comments section).  Leaving Afghanistan in '014 (we hope) and Romney was quite straight about Pakistan being an ally after all they have about 100 nuclear warheads and if Pakistan somehow became a failed state we wouldn't want them getting into the wrong hands.  DRONES, education, a strong economy and the overwhelming need for a strong military which in my view Obama seemed particularly weak on, kind of stammered.  I finally figured out the media's formula for determining the winner in these things, if Obama didn't do horribly then he won.  Of the three debates this was the most pivotal imo.  Of course when I go to my e-mail later and find out who's trending today on Yahoo I may revise that.  Oh yeah Bob Schieffer a class act:) 

The 2nd Debate not quite the debacle of the first

I watched a good chunk of it the town hall affair of undecideds at Hofstra but wasn't familiar with the Crowley CNN woman as mod.  Obama was better but lately I've become distracted by Romney's hair, get a Wahl guide comb out please!  There must have been some polling done on the whole BC thing as Obama seems to feel very comfortable bringing it up, go social.  I was tired from work and all but Obama seemed to bring it up apropos of nothing really but it's predictable by now, when Obama feels a lack of confidence arguing the economy it's like he holds out his hand, opens it and says "look I have a contraceptive pill, I'm for it."  He brings up PP as if it's some kind of charity run by the Dalai Lama and a cross with Big Bird and you have to be evil to even think of defunding it.  Let me flesh something out here as there was the vaguest hint of a future ad-hominem by one of my more liberal commenters.  Um if I might parse something here I never said Sex is not necessary only that it's not medically necessary.  An orgiast and a monk can both live to be 102 and it's a philosophical thing to judge who is the happier but their bodies function just the same although the monk has his abbey ale to dull the pain.  Now BB and I are both pro-drinking and pro-pipesmoking but that doesn't make them medically necessary so there's a hell of a lot that Life has to offer but that doesn't make them critical from a purely medical the barest minimum to continue life POV (for the life of me I don't know why this is such a controversial point).  I think what it is is that Sex is such an integral part of human life that many of us feel that medical insurance needs to cover at least certain aspects of it and if it's not covered then by golly there needs to be a Law.  Look soap could pay for twenty free lap dances for me with a special visit to the VIP Room thrown in and my position would still be the same and I'd blog the same comments.  Logic doesn't change but for many folks we get into Icky Territory in a hurry when folks like Sandra Fluke want some aspect of picking up the tab for their sex'chal needs.  All of a sudden you have images of pumping buttocks and slapping scrotums whereas before you were quite tolerant because folks paid for their own lifestyle choices.  I myself would never think of billing my insurance company for some Trojans or making an issue of it with the Catholic Church.  Look if I worked as an usher in a church somewhere I wouldn't expect the local Bishop to reimburse me, wouldn't even cross my mind but that's because I'm not ideological and Obama and his supporters are.  Ideologues always have to ramp it up a notch and get you in line with their way of thinking and if Romney had any cojones he would have simply said on national TV pay for your own shit.  Anyway getting back to the debate Romney was strong as usual and had a good command of the, yes facts as when he pointed out Obama cut permits and licenses for drilling and energy exploration on federal lands.  Now Obama said no I didn't but if he were honest he'd simply say yes I care for the snail darter and Al Gore so it's like you always get sucked into your opponent's points instead of standing your own ground but at any rate it was a good show.  Obama's sexual socio/economic message -- when the economy sucks it's always PP+BC+RC which somehow you might be out of a job but I got ya covered, I'll hook you up:)

Faith & Politics

OR leave your Bible at home.  Been wondering though are liberal politicians ever motivated by their faith? and if so is this invalid too as when us Christian fundiecons do it and why is it never pointed out?  Gay marriage, equal pay for equal work, social justice, reproductive rights, low-income housing (desegregation), immigration reform, health care and the liberal list goes on but can laws or legislation to pass these things have a religious underpinning and do liberal politicians ever get motivated by their very own personal liberal understanding of faith to take action politically on these and other important matters?  So far nobody's sayin'  Sure there's politics in the Catholic Church but is Nancy Pelosi ever inspired in her House actions by her Catholic faith?  Certainly Martin Luther King Jr. was openly motivated by his faith and talked about it in marching for civil rights so that was a good thing but if a pro-lifer......well you get the picture.  Bibles, Korans, Torahs I don't care put it on the table and while we're on the subject does that old fragment of a papyrus paper show Jesus had a wife perhaps Mary Magdalene? and oh btw why do atheists use God's name in vain from time to time say when they're stuck in traffic?  Some new pro-Islam ads just went up in the NYC subways in some cases right next to the controversial ones about Support Israel and be against the savage.  This is the RIGHT way to handle speech you don't like - GET IN THERE!  I'm kinda tired of Tim Tebow wearing his celibacy on his sleeve, you can brag about your sluttery or your chastity and it's all the same to me and some woman's gonna seduce him and my other thing is if he's only the backup QB for the Jets why is he getting far more presstime than Mark Sanchez?  These and other matters feel free, coffee's perkin':) 

Hope and change has turned into King Lear

He wanted the job.  Well the new numbers are out: 96,000 new jobs for August which is less than expected and a jobless rate at 8.1%.  Some economists think 2% growth is on trend for a very slow recovery but for all their festivities at their abortion and car show the Democrats must have known this was just around the corner.  Folks' income is not going up either and well if I were running the Romney campaign I'd strongly advise against getting personal and attacking the President.  The economic situation is Romney's best hope, going full-bore negative might turn off those crucial independent swing voters who as some pundit on Gwen Ifill's show last night said hate the neverending conflict and incivility in Washington.  Put in the more street vernacular a guy's down you don't kick him in the nuts.  Obama's latest campaign slogan seems to be patience which as George Will noted ain't a strong suit of the American people.  The Messiah has turned into Job with a hairshirt, the Speech was probably the weakest of his career.  The shelf life of It's Bush's Fault, they keep redating that thing.   He needs to get down on his knees and supplicate the Earth Goddess (Oprah) but enough, I've probably overdone it myself.  The #'s speak for themselves.  Going forward:)

When socialists can't find true love they fall for Obama

This is what I find fascinating.  Saty a self-avowed and proud socialist prefers the Dems and Obama over Romney and the Repubs.  That's to each his or her own individual choice of course but you would think a socialist would only prefer other socialists.  Socialist-minded folks in general seem to vastly prefer the Dems and Obama however over Romney and the Republicans.  Now if Obama is not a socialist and for the purposes of this piece let's say that he's not AND if the Democrats are not socialist as a party either then why do they the socialists actually prefer them?  It would seem to me the Dems and Obama are actually closer to socialism even if they're not actual socialists themselves else why would socialists like them so much?  Moving on......

Fire up the abortion machinery

So far for my money David Brooks of PBS' Newshour is giving the best commentary.  Cecile Richards daughter of the late TX Governor Ann Richards is now the president of Planned Parenthood and gave a brief speech and there was alot of talk all night about reproductive rights and gay marriage and Brooks asked San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro whether something weird was going on after all this was supposed to be economy night in an economy election and later said the Dems seem weirdly abstracted from the historical moment which is to say we're still in some kind of economic morass and they were quite deliberately focusing on those reproductive rights and gay marriage all evening.  Sandra Fluke of course spoke after 10 and hers was brief too, I'll at least give them credit for getting to the point and they seem to be more aware than the Republicans that the attention span of the average American is rather short.  Obama seems to have a strong socioeconomic message for the country-at-large and it is this: you may not have a job or a home but at least you can still get an abortion and get hitched to whomever.  Must be some weird vibe in the ether, first Clint Eastwood and now this.  The barn is burning and Farmer Joe is having sex with the cow.

So getting back to my original question if Obama is so not a socialist why would......

All things DNC - a running blog

I have to say I very lightly sampled the first night of the whole affair.  Honestly I hit the hay before Michelle Obama's big speech not because I hate her but I had to be at work by 7 to set up by myself and if they really wanted folks to watch it she would have been on at the top of the hour.  Look things aren't going well for them but the DNC is like a defense attorney, you have to say something.  I get that, it doesn't bother me and you can't expect them to be all walking around dispiritedly with placards saying WE SUCK.  Actually they did seem rather dispirited the whole night.  One guy was particularly pathetic and got into the whole class warfare thing (is that a winning formula?) and strongly implied Romney didn't pay all his taxes.  Nita Lowey is actually one of the richest members of Congress, did you know that?  There was alot of talk about women and heavy on the Goya.  Masturbating the base, dead fetuses and gay marriage but no real talk of the public debt which David Brooks of the Newshour said is what those independent swing voters care so much about that and economic growth.  Caught Harry Reid early on and in his speech I heard the phrase "some Tea Party ideologue" or was that my imagination? ho-hum and changed the station.  Kathleen Sebelius and health care, I think I switched over to Globetrekker.  Actually the whole night seemed rather boring and I was heavy on the channel-surfing.  I could have gotten more out of my evening by meditating on the grease spot on the ceiling, I mean Clint Eastwood may have been weird but he got people talking.  I was wrong though, I thought the Dems would hold more of a moderate convention but it doesn't appear to be so far.