Generic political commentary - the msm framing the narrative on the fiscal cliff

The disappointing commentary of Mark Shields -- he's the liberal commentator on the weekly roundup on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer with neoconservative David Brooks allegedly providing some type of counterpoint and this happens every Friday evening.  Leaving aside the fact that I'm not clubbing, a sure sign of age I do quite often get their takes on the week's political news and events.  So usually what happens is I'm sitting there and I'm slowly getting depressed and agitated, vaguely restless, irritated and I haven't even sipped from my nightly goblet yet.  It's not that the commentary is creepy or off-center and one of the few other options is the Filth known as 2 1/2 Men so I stick with it.  It's your standard fare, quite mainstream, safe even and Shields looks all serious with his folksy jowls but I'm like when's it gonna happen? it's gonna happen if not this week then the next but it's gotta happen.  No not when is Shields gonna drop the word "dick", Vampire Diaries already does that but WHEN is Shields gonna criticize President Obama even a mild anti-?  Now I know he's a liberal but he has gotten marks in the past for being a more honest and centrist kind of lib but take the current hot topic of the fiscal cliff.  Actually there is no other topic (Sandy, been there/done that).  Now I get it that one way to look at it is that Republicans according to most opinion polls will take the heavy blame if we fall off by insisting that the top 2% can't be taxed any higher than they already are and so taxes go up on the rest of us in the vast middle class -- ooooooh populism and pitchforks!  OK I get that, I'm not stupid but what Shields should be saying (also) is WHY is Obama still pursuing this class-warfare game??? the campaign's over, Romney was defeated and then taken out to lunch and so then what also happens is Brooks more often than not kinda goes along with Shields because he always has his acute neocon antennae attuned to the prevailing political zeitgeist.  Not too long ago Brooks was the one who first made the helpful suggestion that Repubs be willing to close loopholes and deductions instead of raising marginal rates on the wealthy and everyone kinda thought that was the way to go but Obama would have none of it.  Obama is now almost overtly Marxist but Shields will never be accused of saying anything ballsy or radical or even mildly controversial.  It's always safe plain yogurt, ya gotta go underground for the unpasteurized Stilton.  It's the old familiar framework, actually the media are in a rut but the story goes the Dems are somehow wiser and more right and the Repubs are wrong.  Tax Cuts along with Obesity is now the New Evil.  In the cosmology of the msm Grover Norquist is the Devil, at least Beelzebub never mind that Obama and the Dems have no intention whatsoever of cutting or reforming entitlements, of giving Boehner and his side a few crumbs and scraps off the table.  Obama is somehow getting tagged with the populist label but is ginning up hatred for the rich part of the definition of populism? not as I understand it.  The new jobs #'s are out and 146,000 new jobs were added for November and the unemployment rate dipped to 7.7% the lowest it's been since Dec. '08.  Of course alot of this has to do with lots of jobless folks still dropping out of the marketplace permanently and I think Obama kind of actually encourages a kind of semipermanent dependent circle-jerking culture/malaised social class but don't count on Shields to point any of this out or even his sidekick.  My #1 Rule for Blogging -- my commentary is my own.  The day it becomes generic I'm retiring:)

The dilution of Christmas

I say it has been diluted.  Take Business XYZ, let's say it's a major food/convenience chain that has been closed for Christmas since they've been in business.  In fact it's the only day out of the entire calendar year that they're closed but let's say they just made the announcement that going forward they're gonna be open most of the day and some will have to work.  OK leaving aside the corporate rudeness of the act, folks have probably already made some type of plans can't it wait a year? it is explained in the clearest pc terms though that the reason we're doing this is there are also Jewish people out there, Muslims etc. as if we weren't aware of that most basic of societal facts.  I say it's been diluted.  Were Jews and Muslims out complaining why is Business XYZ closed on Christmas? probably not, let's be honest.  Government offices are still closed for this day, post offices don't deliver mail and try going to the bank.  Of course public libraries are closed and often they're closed early on the day before and maybe even closed the day after.  Now bear in mind these are all pretty secular institutions and they're all closed and nobody beats the American Library Association for sheer pc'ness.  Oh about "Happy Holidays" which some around here are probably gonna bring up, I'm not against it myself per se and say it to customers out of personal habit but there's a difference between that and having to say it.  I HATE pc for the mere reason that it's pc and its main reason for existence seems to be that some folks might be potentially offended by this or that.  Often they're not offended, I'm not offended by Chanukah but getting back to Business XYZ are they gonna make such a ringing profit on being open that day that it justifies itself? probably not as most folks just wanna lay back that day.  I think Christmas has become a generic enough holiday where only the Scroogiest of people are offended.  It makes us think about charity and our fellow man and we give, it cuts across all political boundaries and spectrums and what is wrong with a little rest now and then by getting off the corporate gerbil wheel for a day and reflecting?  It's time we take Christmas back and I don't even think Moussa would be offended.

How does Jay Carney do it day in and day out?

I know he used to be a member of the media and probably swings liberal himself but still.  There's been other presidential spokesmen who have quit for reasons known only to them but is he really that into this gig?  I mean Hillary doesn't look like she's having any fun, she looks bored and tired half the time and she's trekking the globe and she's leaving.  It's like at work when you have a bad manager and we've all had them but there's always one who's his right-hand man who gets offended at the slightest critique>>>"oh no no no he knows what he's doing" and the two really dig each other but to everyone else it makes no sense.  The BS Spokesman, a job I could never do.

Will Obama wreck the U.S. economy just to prove a point?

The fiscal cliff, he's still in campaign mode.  The issue on the table: should tax rates be raised on the rich?  Now while I disagree with that position I would also say it's not an invalid position to take but should Obama dig in and pursue it at all costs even if it means the country heading into another recession?  That's the definition of an ideologue, maybe even a socialist.  My point: take your point as far as it will go, put it away for now if you have to and revisit it another day.  Obama is framing the solving our debt/deficit narrative as the public vs. the wealthy, raising taxes on those making over $250,000/yr. in order to spare the middle-class.  He says his reelection was a public mandate to do just this and maybe he's right but I daresay most presidents would vastly prefer to compromise a little on their own principles instead of throwing the country into an economic tailspin.  Why such intransigence?  Even if you're a liberal how can you not be frightened by this? and then let's say come Jan. 1 the nation falls right over the fiscal cliff and then Obama will ultimately blame the rich and pursue the class-warfare right through his second term.  My take, he's not so much a leader as somebody with some issues.  Mr. Obama, a professional angry person. 

A kind of an afterthought on the Petraeus scandal

It kind of bothers me that the FBI spent so much time on this.  Yeah that FBI the one that is supposed to fight crime and domestic terror.  It'd be like Batman going after the Mayor's mistress instead of doing battle with the Joker.  Some women simply like men in uniform, think Cop Sex.   I think the interesting thing with Obama is that his right-wing enemies and they are legion can't even seem to approach the merest whiff of an aroma of a sex scandal and don't think they haven't been trying.  I think Obama has deliberately lived his life according to those porn disclaimers re safe sex - "we highly recommend the Surgeon General's accepted guidelines of monogamy and/or abstinence or at a minimum..."  Bill Clinton being warm-blooded got caught up in Monicagate but I think Obama being so intellectual is beyond even this and knows well the practical importance of living a chaste life the better to push through liberalism without the usual distractions.  Since time immemorial women have destroyed powerful men and all their medals and honors and accolades go out the window.  Oh I know I wasn't gonna do a Petraeus blog but I somehow feel less safe with the FBI devoting such massive amounts of manpower to basically a noncrime, I mean was a law broken? but then again it's something J. Edgar Hoover would have done:)

The GOP & the Susan Rice Affair, a funny way to go after Obama's demographics

Ninety-seven GOP House members have sent a letter to the White House basically saying UN Ambassador Susan Rice shouldn't even be considered for the Sec'y of State slot now that Hillary is leaving.  This is only a symbolic vote of course as the real action takes place in the Senate but it does carry some weight.  Now conservatives in general are opposed to Obama who happens to be black.  They're not opposed to him because he's black but because he is an unreconstructed liberal but the perception still floats out there.  Now they seem just as opposed to Susan Rice's nomination and she happens to be an African-American.  This is......awkward.  Senators John McCain from AZ and Lindsey Graham of SC are leading the charge against her in the Senate.  Saw Graham recently on Meet the Press and I didn't like the way he came across.  Ya got the Southern twang going and he's against another high-ranking black, I'm just sayin' (mental image of Graham humping Ned Beatty, McCain on the banjo).  You know when you're the passenger in a car with someone, you're not even driving but you feel your whole body tense up and become stiff throughout the whole ride?  I'm finding myself cringing here and as a practical matter it might be smart to drop the whole Susan Rice thing.  Yeah I know she repeated those Benghazi talking points on all the Sunday morning talk shows but she was obviously speaking on behalf of the President and I kinda agree here to be honest that they need to take it up with him instead if there's a problem and there is.  They don't like Eric Holder either and he's of color and I think they have a strong case with Fast and Furious and some other business but the Stupid Party really needs to start thinking of the racial scorecard here.  Go all out on Susan Rice and see how it comes back to haunt you come 2016 - happy demograpics.  Benghazi is already beclouding Obama's second term here, the sequel ain't going well but I'm just wonderin' what the strategy wonks in the GOP are thinking. 

Chris Christie in 2016 - that's so not gonna happen

Word on the street is many Republican activists were not happy with NJ Governor Chris Christie's bromance with President Obama in the wake of Sandy.  He lavished praise on Obama and seemed to forget who he was campaigning for and I think the storm and the media coverage definitely gave Obama the edge, to frighten you into the loving arms of government, Obama is better on climate change, what have you.  Now Christie's taken Romney to task for some post-election comments of his having to do with maybe Obama having won the election by promising gifts to certain groups of people.  That's really not that far off the mark and it really won't help the GOP in the long run by becoming so politically correct, might piss off the base but for Christie it wasn't an inclusive and loving enough message, not broad-based enough and Christie seems to be validating Obama's ad-claims about Romney during the campaign.  With friends like this...It's clear the GOP has been shaken and wants to refurbish its image and message as being more inclusive, tolerant and broad and I think here is the faintest whiff of Christie wants to make a run.  Look he can give a gay man an anal massage on national TV and he'll still lose and then the collective conservative introspection will begin all over again.  In fact the bulk of conservative post-election analysis when they lose is perfectly worthless and the endless cycle of angst/analysis becomes annoying after awhile.  Meanwhile Obamanomics continues to crunch out the crappy numbers......

Kind of a thought

Radio host Alex Jones has called on Ron Paul to head a new secessionist movement in America.  Has Florida decided its 29 electoral votes yet?  What's up with this rogue peninsula?  I'd rather them go than Texas.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says there's no right to secede, dunno why it's right there in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  Of course if states start seceding Obama could probably just as easily pick up a few new ones like Puerto Rico, Cuba eventually after Fidel croaks?  Also to consider if your newly seceded state gets walloped by a major storm there will be no FEMA around or maybe that's a good thing.  Does all this have something to do with organic beeswax? 

Obamanomics - increasing the underemployed

This from Drudge - Denny's to charge a 5% surcharge to their customers and to cut worker hours to cover the increased cost-of-doing-business under Obamacare which come 2014 will be fully implemented.  Other companies are probably gonna follow suit and I hope BB considers this the next time he sits down to enjoy his Egg McMuffin and hash brown and morning paper.   Part-timers, the new norm.  Maybe Burger King can offer giant John Roberts soda cups as a thank you.

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?

I wonder what Glenn Beck would say about this

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to put some displaced victims of Tropical Storm Sandy in jail.  To me it's creepy and I haven't even read any conspiratorial material about the storm yet.  President Obama will visit NYC sometime next Thursday to see how relief efforts are coming along (why not Monday, Tuesday at the latest?).  Bloomberg you'll remember suddenly endorsed him very late in the game because he feels he can somehow apparently avert hurricanes and heal the Planet.  Nor have I read any religious/apocalyptic interpretations, theological offerings of these latest extreme weather events.  Where is the Rev. Pat Robertson when you need him?  Elected officials like to blame the utility companies but it's high past time the public held elected officials accountable Cuomo in particular.  To those of you with an overconfident faith in Big Government and you know who you are consider some of these massive gas lines almost two weeks after the storm.  I was saddened but not surprised to hear that newly minted President Obama is still railing against the Rich (defined as those individuals/family entities making over $250,000/yr.) and wants to stick it to them so we don't go over the fastly approaching fiscal cliff and if you don't agree with him you're not a compromiser.  You'd think a reelection that you may not have fully deserved or earned would be a humbling experience and you would have learned a few things along the way and maybe decide to change course a little over the next term.  I was pondering this thought the other day -- which is worse over the long haul catastrophic damage from the latest weird weather event from Mother Nature or our long-range debt/deficit? now that the msm has amply covered the former how 'bout the latter?  Have at it as you will:)

Rocky Mountain High

The State of Colorado went ahead and legalized recreational use of marijuana.  Not medicinal just across-the-board.  Might increase ski tourism among the OWS set but what are your thoughts?

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':) 

Maybe he had a fight with his wife

Cramps? or maybe Obama's strategy last night at the First Debate in Colorado was to keep his head down to make Romney look like he's picking on the black guy.  By universal acclamation Romney won the debate and even Chris Matthews said he was excellent.  Jeff Greenfield said Obama seemed clueless about the most basic political points and many feel Obama should have went after Romney on his 47% comments and Bain Capital.  Oh I know what it was he was depressed about that Samuel Jackson video.  The economy, taxes, job creation and education and Jim Lehrer as moderator, get the nachos out.  I don't get why Savage keeps calling Lehrer a baggy-eyed Bolshevik and other conservatives like Michelle Malkin hate the guy but at any rate Rom was up-tempo, controlled the direction of the debate and was aggressive this according to the Today Show which I popped on this morning because truth be told I deliberately surfed right past the debate on most channels but even here some new Chinese digital station was covering it from Beijing so I got some snippets in English.  OK so Romney didn't exactly speak as an arch-conservative and won't exactly win the hearts of the Ron Paulians, not even sure who they're voting for.  He denied Obama's $5 trillion in tax cuts assertion and said there's a place for government in health care, that's not exactly hardcore libertarianism.  Axelrod said Romney's was a strong performance but still a performance so that's one of them half-compliments.  Look Obama has very strong base support whereas Rom is going for the 7% swing, he's a swinger and Obama's a baseman.  O's weak performance won't affect his base of course, it was more embarrassment than abandonment.  Clearly though when Chris Matthews no longer gets The Tingle in his left nut something's wrong:)

Samuel Jackson should just STFU!

Rumor has it that if Obama loses he'll become the head of the European Union and when you stop to think about it it makes sense although Bill Clinton at one point was supposed to become the head of the UN.  Slash 'n' burn capitalism, Romneyism vs. Obamanomics.  All things considered I kinda prefer the free markets although not in a total Randian sense.  Hey did you hear about the October Surprise?  According to Alex Jones there's military intel out there that something is gonna happen next month to help Obama win the election.  I was talking to my friend about this yesterday and said I doubt this as things are not going well for him in the Middle East right now and I doubt Jones ever wakes up in the morning and has a normal day of thinking.  Don't believe the media and all the polls out there, alot of folks are saying don't be swayed and just Vote for Romney.  I'm wondering if soapie is a prepper for when the World Economy totally collapses like in the not too distant future.  I don't know if you've ever talked to a prepper or those who at least are considering prepping but they're pretty annoying.  You know folks who stock up on the canned goods and jugs of Poland Spring and go to Eastern Mountain Sports for those wonderful packages of freeze-dried beef stroganoff and lasagna.  Gotta build a cabin in the woods right now and take the family there even if they don't wanna go and think I'm nutz and while we're at it let's get some of those water purification tablets too.  Anyone watch The Hunger Games yet? didn't think so but if I could articulate a principle here it is that the more a government grows the less benevolent it becomes, think about that Mr. Miller, BB.  I think the nub of Liberalism can be defined as you can kill a fetus but can't have a Big Gulp, pro-choice in one narrow sexual zone or band and fascism spraying off in all the other directions.  There are 50 States in the Union so why does every election apparently hinge on what Ohioans want?  Look the rest of us won't vote we'll just let the State of Ohio decide things.  Obama as head of the EU, you heard it here first:) 

The Hunger Games

I bought the DVD at a FYE store yesterday and wasn't sure I'd even like the movie due to its overly dark and disturbing material, kind of reminds me of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and then there was the matter of protagonist Katniss Everdeen, how can you make a heroine out of someone who participates in the madness and kills other people?  Once I started watching The Hunger Games though my views slowly changed.  It became obvious that those teens Katniss killed were at the root evil to begin with and she had to defend herself.  The Hunger Games based on the first book in a trilogy by American YA writer Suzanne Collins is a kind of prophetic hybrid of Lord of the Flies and 1984 with a healthy dose of Serling.  I've often thought of why don't we have literary classics anymore but with the themes here that hearken back to elements in those earlier works I can see the potential for a classic itself here, a future item on a high-schooler's reading list.  So what is the interpretation?  First off I agree with Beth who blogged about this once and I hope she takes time out to join the discussion here and so I do see it as a kind of cautionary tale against Big Government and in the comments section I'll delve more into that.  Yes of course it's a kind of satire of the reality TV craze and all.  When things in the 74th annual Hunger Games get a little boring for the viewers at home the staff at the central control panels first add a blazing forest fire to get Katniss closer to her adversaries and later on noontime eerily turns into nightfall and three large black and frightening attack dogs that look like a cross between a pitbull and a panther are added to the mix, so much for playing fair.  The president of Panem played by Donald Sutherland says to one of the younger bosses, not sure what his role is exactly and they all look weird but he says to him early on to watch this Katniss character as she represents hope and hope is stronger than fear and it may be a spark now but to contain it.  The Hunger Games as well can be Glenn Beck's worst nightmares come to fruition.  There is also the theme of the star-crossed lovers Katniss and Peeta the other teen chosen from her District 12 and the two are willing to die at the end by eating the poisonous nightberries until a Voice comes from the sky telling them to stop the Games are over and they're the victors.  Then there's the central enigma of the movie, WHY do the 24 teens chosen HAVE TO kill each other?  Did the Powers-That-Be mandate this?  I didn't catch that.  Of course they could have all just teemed together to survive so there's some powerful philosophical and theological observations going on here about human nature itself, about the nature of Good and Evil and you could say maybe it was all just one big vast social experiment besides being a form of perverse entertainment.  I have to say this is really a great and thought-provoking movie well-suited for the action/adventure format and there's so many political angles to this thing so let's get started...... 

Will Obama release the Blind Sheik?

This is really a question to all the Daves and BBs out there, the Satys and Shaws, those 47%ers who are never gonna vote for Romney but is there at least a tipping point where you'll no longer be in Obama's corner? where he crossed the Rubicon, went too far, where a defense is no longer tenable or even logical?  Does the President write our material for us and does he even masturbate from time to time the various anti-Obama conspiracy theorists out there ("let's see if I release the Blind Sheik I'll solidify my rep as a closet Muslim who won the Oval Office").  Have to say this though, that guy the other night on Univision the Spanish station saying to Obama "with all due respect you didn't keep your promise" that there Latin guy should be hosting the NBC Nightly News and not Brian Williams:)