Let me hear it one last time..

"We Out. Hey Joe, I know this spot got fish fresh off the grease..."

"My President is black, my Lambo is blue..."

It is a sad day.

As Sporty said, don't forget to set your clock back 350 years tonight.

It's always hard going back after a long vacation. You'd gotten used to silly things, things like a movement towards justice, concern about the environment, healthcare and human rights. Then back comes the UGH. In one fell swoop, it's like the world just went gray after you've gotten used to sunshine and hope and compassion. True it wasn't all great, there was always that undercurrent of problems you'd thought you'd left behind - of bad rhetoric and opposition, but you were on vacation. It didn't seem to matter as much. You even dreamed that the vacation might get extended. That you could potentially move and be on vacation forever.

But alas no. The UGH is back, and it seems like everything you left on your desk is still there, but now with all the stuff you missed while you were away. And it even seems like more stuff since they now realize you take vacations. The UGH. You'd almost thought it was going to be a distant memory.

That just means we need to start planning for our next vacation.

Thank you, President Barack Hussein Obama.

This is the part where somebody screams "TAKE ME WITH YOU"      

Have I got a deal for you...

This is a political post.

I'll be honest, the first time I looked since this "dust-up" I had a little trouble finding the Ukraine on the map...and I like looking at maps. But I didn't comment because a) I had other priorities and b) and didn't know all the facts, except that the photos made it look like a baby civil war taking its first steps. And as it turned out, I was right.

The pictures I glanced at of the Yanukovych's estate were impressive, and the boat restaurant was a nice touch. In my opinion, I think his departure may have allowed them to sidestep a great deal of bloodshed, despite the deceptively named "military exercises" Russia's has decided to have and the mysterious troops with no insignia who just happen to speak Russian. Sure, not Russian though. Really. Sure.

So what to do? How about Ukraine just sell Russia the Crimean peninsula?

Why you ask? Because that's what it's all about. Unlike our own forays in retaliation in Afghanistan or outright revenge in Iraq, the Russian's major goal right now is securing the port of Sevastopol. This city on the Black Sea is the home of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. Without Sevastopol, their ability to field a navy in Atlantic ocean is severely hampered for six months a year by this pesky thing called ice. It is a major strategic point, hence the designation geopolitical argument. This major base became part of the Ukraine in 1991 when they declared independence and since the Russians have LEASING it from Ukraine. Because they had no choice.

And geopolitically speaking, even as a novice, I'm going to guess that having your main southern military port under your own control is generally a preferable situation.

Up until a few weeks ago, the ownership mechanic wasn't really a problem, because Ukraine relied on Russia for quite a bit of its resources meaning even the previous western leaning leaders had understood their role. Despite overtures from the EU about membership the then current Yanukovych government was pretty much pro-Russian. This would be understandable after Russia cut-off the gas in 2006 and 2009 during the winter months, plunging the country into cold and darkness, to pressure the government to be pro-Russian. The whole thing was a sham of sorts, independent but not really. However, a large part of the general population did and still do believe the ruse and are interested in joining the European Union. Hence this, well, let's be honest, coup of sorts.

So, again, how about Ukraine just sell Russia the Crimean peninsula for 150 billion rubles? Or maybe just Sevastopol, the surrounding ten or fifteen miles for 100 billion, and we'll throw in the undercoating, no charge?

As it appears, Ukraine will have be split into it's East, West and Crimea component parts, which is already a stye in Putin's eye - he wanted it whole in his quest to rebuild old Russia. No, he's got to walk away with something. So Sevastopol, which is home to five Russian naval units including subs and surface ships, and where they're already "protecting" Russians frightened by recent events would be the perfect prize.

You see, while the Republicans here scream at the top of their lungs that this whole event exposes a truth, that Obama's foreign policy appears weak to the rest of the world, the reality is that Putin letting his country's major southern military port slip out of his hands will actually make him weak.

Further, here is an opportunity to learn from our previous mistakes in um, ...Nation Advising? Effectively the EU and America are now backing an off brand coup, which is some ways is reminiscent of change friction in Egypt - the banning of political parties, sweeping changes that upset the general populace, etc. Which means the whole thing could fall apart as quickly as that did. So even when this tense part is over, this whole thing is not gonna be over soon. But just so we're clear, everybody needs to holster their weapons and clear their throats. Words are needed here. Careful well thought out words.

But first things first. Putin. He's not leaving the Crimean peninsula. Way too much at stake. And they think we're all for sale anyway. So, Tell you what, Sevastopol, the land and a I'll throw in a flat screen TV. Forty inch plasma. 95 billion. My manager is gonna kill me. 

Sometimes Batman Only Works in the Shadows

This is a political post. 

I have avoided talking about the government shutdown because there was too much information, from too many angles, coming too fast. The wheels that turned Washington were spinning in every direction as the board continually shifted, the final prize transformed by the hour, the pieces and parts flew together at odd angles daily and new surprises kept popping up as you watched people who wouldn't acknowledge the audience's disgust put on plastic performance to a crowd only standing around to ogle the inevitable train wreck.

As I read through the posts from my "No, I'm a Libertarian" FB friend, who seems to only posts links from staunchly conservative sites, it became increasingly clear that the a large number of the people in this country really don't know how this country works. She just found out today that Boehner and the Republicans changed the House rules so that only Majority Leader Cantor could bring a vote to the floor to avoid a pure majority vote undermining the Republican position. My FB friend and her fellow "whatever they ares now" cries to not to raise the debt limit have echoed through the internet, as though raising the debt limit somehow issued the First Lady a fresh credit line at Macy's. Claims that it would be fiscally irresponsible considering how much debt we already have showed a disconnect, because it reasoned that somehow not paying those debts we have now is fiscally responsible. As I've pointed out before, the debt limit only authorizes borrowing for bills Congress has already told the President he has to pay. America, like most large corporations, operates on a credit line...not a cash basis. We're just expanding that line like any growing business does.

And further undermining the "don't raise it" argument from the other direction, all the people we actually owe money to - China, Wall Street, etc., - were giving Congress the stink-eye for even thinking about not raising it. You see, its not a well known fact, but pretty much all current financial markets around the world are built on the bedrock idea of US debt never defaulting. Troubled market? US Treasury bills please! Worldwide. A default would reverberate throughout the world markets, slowing further an already slow global recovery. So how would defaulting be a good thing? Why were the pundits with no finance background were so sure of what would happen when the people who did this everyday were terrified of the possibility?

Another reason I didn't really talk about the shutdown is the affects real people. Sporty works for the Federal government. Spanky is a contractor for a government contract. Other friends of mine as well.  The suggestions by Senators that they and their co-workers take out loans exposed the callousness of the those who scream for our "freedom." You need to go into debt so I can hold out to make sure you also can't afford health insurance! Yeah, real catchy.

Looking back, I keep wondering if this was all planned to some degree. I was pretty sure I knew how it would turn out, but since politics turned into a zero sum game in the past few years, someone still might have closed their eyes and jumped. In the trenches, Reid did a lot of the dirty work to get it all set up, the President in sync with him this time. I want to think maybe planned because here we are, roughly a year removed from the next midterms and the Batman President's quiet methods are systemically dismantling his opponents, this time outfoxing the Tea Party rebels by not negotiating with himself as they expected, a sort of political rope-a-dope if you will. While they danced in front of the cameras, outraged at the results of their own actions, he waited. While they demanded he lead, he waited at their destination. The Chicago came out. "You want to burn it down? Let me get you some gas and some matches. Oh, you've changed your mind? I thought you would."

Not a lot of press conferences. Few statements. Boom. 

Game. Set. Match.

The Republikans Strike Back...

This is a political post.

com·pro·mise  /ˈkämprəˌmīz/
noun
1.  An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

The Republican argument is they're willing to compromise their demand of the complete repeal to just delaying the implementation of law until next year. They seem to believe they can purchase enough elections by then (they hope) to completely repeal the bill. But they are willing to "compromise."

Only, the "compromise" they're asking for makes no sense. The offer hardly qualifies as a "compromise". The Affordable Care Act passed in both the House and the Senate, was signed into law in 2010 and upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court. The only way to un-make it a law is to repeal it, which the Republicans have tried to do more than forty times. They cannot. So how can delaying the implementation of a duly constitutional law - in effect temporarily repealing the law in a way they cannot themselves do - in exchange for ....er, doing your job...qualify as a compromise?

Even worse, the "compromise" the Republicans are offering is just enough financing to keep the lights on until December....at which point we get to do this all over again. That is Government by hostage, and a success here will only encourage a repeat of such a proposition. That's not good governance by any estimation. This time they asked to repeal Obamacare, what next time? Will Boehner ask the President to step down and name Ted Cruz Grand Exalted Super Cool Leader? It could happen. Because then the argument will be just accepting Ryan's budget sounds "reasonable."

I'm fairly certain that having a faction of one part of one third of government dictate the actions of the whole violates at the very least the spirit of the constitution. The real question here is how long will this go on, how long before the effects begin to trickle down to the man on the street? That's when the real action will begin. Now, to clear, my conservative FB friend is just ecstatic that the government is shutdown. Because according to the people she listens to, we don't need any government! So let me tell you a little story (I wish I had written this, but I didn't):

This morning you were awoken by your alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy. Then you took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, to make sure you were ready for what the day might bring, you might have turned on your TV to one of the Federal Communications Committee regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be, using satellites designed, built and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. You watched this while eating breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected food and possibly taking a drug or two which have been determined to be safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology at the U.S. Naval Observatory, you got into your National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration approved adequately safe automobile and set out to work on roads built by the Local, State and Federal Departments of Transportation. Along the way you might have stopped to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. You might have even dropped off some mail to have delivered via the U.S. Postal Service. It's not even 9am.

After work, where you didn't lose a digit or inhale toxic chemicals due to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, at a company whose patents and trademarks are protected by the local, state and Federal Court Systems, you drove back on the same roads built by the Department of Transportation and returned to a house which had not burned down in your absence due to state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which wasn't plundered of all you consider valuable thanks to the local police department. Then after watching some more of the FCC regulated television, and speaking to your mother by phone, who has retired and receives monthly checks from the Social Security Administration about her trip to the doctor which was paid for Medicare, you get onto the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, to read this blog.

And yet some people believe that the Government can't get anything, anything at all, right.

I wonder why they think something like that.

The Chair Recognizes....(sigh)

This is a political post.

The other day, Presidential hopeful and Barack Obama Legitimatizer, one Ted Cruz stood up in front of the Senate of these here United States and decided to make a stand. Not against the congresses entrenched partisanship, our lack of commitment to government and instead gamesmanship. Or even that they'd raised the price of the brownies in the Senate cafeteria.

He stood up for 21 hours and talked about everything under the sun to ....er, well, it wasn't to stop a vote. Not like in the movies or nothing. Principles! Yes, principles that it. He stood up to argue on principle that the government should defund Obamacare, because it's hurting the country (although it hasn't actually started yet). Just like the Sequester that is hurting the country. That he did vote for. 

And he did this,  theoretically, to the person the program is named after. The man's signature piece of legislation. The one he will be known for. We've accomplished so little in the past six years, and now we want to take back one of the few things we actually did get done. Because....AMERICA!

If I was Obama, well I probably wouldn't have made a it to a second term, but anyway...if I had been the position the President was in I would have gotten together a motorcade, stopped by the local Five Guys and gotten the two patties and the large fries, dropped by the Senate,  got a front row seat and watched for a while. With a little easel behind me with cue cards, just to see if I could get him say something stupid. Well, stupider.

I am belittling the man's accomplishment. Because this was no 300-style epic stand against the invading horde. Not the Tank Man in Tienanmen Square or the stand at the Alamo. This wasn't even Custer at Little Big Horn. This long rambling "green eggs and ham and another thing speechifying" didn't delay a crucial vote, nor did it break new ground, it wasn't sweeping, informative, inspiring or  moving, most of it wasn't even on the topic, no, it was...

...grandstanding. This was his I would like to be President next time around and now I have a glorious moment to point to where "I stood alone" against the Marxist Socialist Fascist Time Traveling Kenyan and his liberal hordes! This was his chance for unfettered camera time. I know, because when I clicked that link to the CNN live feed at 3:35am he was still talking...telling me it was 3:35am. This is cold calculated political maneuvering. When his campaign starts he will pluck from it choice sound bites and piece and parcel of heroics to display. And if he opponents are smart, they auto tune him rambling on and on about nothing when he had the chance to make real arguments. 

Is this what government has become? An extra long episode of American Idol sans judges? A reality show we're ashamed to say comes on The Learning Channel? 

(sigh) This is why I try to watch as much Cartoon Network as I can.

Can't win for Losing...

This is a political post. 

So like Syria. Again.

In a few of my previous posts, I have alluded to Obama as a kind of political Batman, someone who has all the angles figured. In the comic books, the Caped Crusader is a meticulous thinker, considering the all the possibilities and keeping something in his back pocket, er...utility belt, for each one. But sometimes, because they also make movies of Batman, and there is only so much they can cover in a movie (to our great disappointment), our hero sometimes finds the solution to the problem just plops down in front of him, all nice and neat. 

That is what I believe happened this time. Obama got lucky.

I keep looking at John Kerry and I can't believe I voted for him in 2004. How he went from dinner with al-Assad in 2009 to calling the man a two bit dictator boggles my mind, but then maybe he ordered the souffle when Kerry was ready for the meal to over? Luckily, the Secretary of State's dismissive off the cuff solution of the Russians taking over Syria's chemical weapons seems to have found a life of its own, gone viral as they say. And I believe it really was an off the cuff remark because the more I hear him the more difficult that is to believe it might have been a setup and he turned in an Oscar worthy performance. Out of sheer luck, his solution was exactly what was needed: A quick and relatively painless negotiated end to this specific type of hostility.

But according to the pundits, well, at least the conservative pundits, Obama lost. To whom I'm not exactly certain, but somehow in a game we weren't playing, we lost. But then these are the people who, after I re-read the text of the President's speech for the third time, seem to believe through their on-air comments that the President wasn't clear enough in his plan or motivations. How much clearer he needed to be I'm unsure. Maybe they wanted a list of targets,  the bombing schedule, and the missile serial numbers? The funniest complaint I read online was wanting to know how much it was going to cost. I'm not sure how to put this, but why would sunk costs be a factor? The navy's costs aren't really going to go up that much from fifteen to thirty missiles launches, will they? We've already bought the ships, paid the sailors...and we've got spare tomahawks, we won't even miss these.

The President's Administration managed to get Syria to the bargaining table and agree to give up its chemical weapons without a shot fired. But we still lost. Giving credit to Putin and the Russians makes us look bad. We let Putin take the reins of the world according to Fox News. Only, as it turns out, this plays out along the lines of a plan outlined by Roger Ailes, head of Fox News. But now it's a bad thing because Obama is doing it. Which is par for the course in Fox News' semi-reality. These are the same people upset that the First Lady suggested we all have an extra glass or two of water a day. You know, something every gym teacher, physical trainer, doctor, any person trying to lose weight and your mom has suggested at one time or another? You know, water?  

One headache down, Eight thousand five hundred seventy...

So to sum up, the Obama Administration stumbled onto a way to get a potentially explosive situation handled without a shot fired...which according to his critics is bad. Confused? You should be.

Question: Does he still have to give back his Nobel Prize?

The President needs to stop mumbling again.

This is a political post.

Things are a little rough right now.

So, Syria.

You would imagine the powers that be sitting around the table riffing through the Iraq file for notes and  muttering that they wouldn't want to go through that again. Well, that's the picture you have if imagine that they have sense. The refresher from Egypt over the past two years should clearly demonstrate what happens when power vacuums exist, which is what will occur in Syria if al-Assad suddenly falls. But, I'm fairly certain the President's staff is missing a key person - maybe the Politics to English Translator, who can stand up and explain exactly why we're even considering this one more expedition, kicking in one more door, so to speak. Because right now, the impetus isn't being properly articulated.  That or the media is still all miffed about the whole NSA thing.

Clarification Note: The NSA thing stems from the Patriot Act, which passed way before Obama became  President. His only crime is not turning it off...provided the self appointed guardians of freedom in the  NSA even told him what was going on. But...it's his watch, so, there you go.

Just so we're all clear, Obama is not trying to "win" the civil war now raging in Syria, if such a thing can even be accomplished. First, it's not really our business. Second, at this point there are too many players,  too many factions, too many cloudy motivations for a "winner" to even emerge in the region. The political posturing and ideological gamesmanship on display here has far exceed the scope of the action intended by the  original Arab Spring beginnings. The quasi-apartheid/dictatorship of al-Assad is both a bad actor and a stabilizer for the region. The rebels are both freedom fighters and opportunistic fundamentalists. The outside players are all over the map.  No matter what happens in Syria, it will neither be pretty or quick. The best the Syrian people can hope for at this point is that someday their kids have a country to come back to.  

So why? Why even contemplate military action? The quick answer is Chemical weapons. The kind of weapons that fail to discriminate between combatant and civilian. Weapons so bad that the even Hitler, the default most evil man of the 20th century, thought that their effects were beyond the pale. There is evidence they've been used in Syria, and that violates the status quo that nobody uses them...ever. And if somebody gets away with using them, then the next guy, especially in a war with non-state actors, gets the idea that he can too. Which is bad for everyone. Why again, you ask, again. Because if Chemical weapons, and their bad tempered brother Biological weapons become viable weapons...then its just a matter of time before someone invents something nobody can either stop or control. If they haven't already and just haven't found the stomach to use it. 

Not that all this information isn't in most of the articles on the subject, just not in the headline. Or the first paragraph. Or the third.

Learn to speak again Mr. President. This action you've asked Congress to contemplate is based on principle, not politics. This action is in line with the treaties we've legally entered into. It doesn't involve troops on the ground. And, since, you could call in a military strike if you deem it necessary under the War Powers Act anyway, you've asked Congress for authorization because you honor democracy, understand the country is war weary, and like totally aren't a dictator like the people who hate you want to make you out to be. 

Should the President strike in Syria? I don't have that answer. But I do know that he could tell why he thinks we should a lot more clearly.

The Scandals that Weren't

This is a political post.

When you don't like somebody, everything they do is wrong. If you don't like somebody,  you can rationalize the validity of the statement "Look at them, sitting there eating cookies like they're better than me." And although they've been subtle about it, we are beginning to get the impression that maybe some conservatives don't think of the President as their pal, ha ha.  Okay, all jokes aside, we all know that if Obama personally cured cancer they still would not like him. Which I believe makes every assertion made towards him more than a little suspect.

Now the sad part is there is plenty to get mad at Obama about: the continuing existence of Guantanamo which serves mostly as a radical recruiting tool, the comically dubious nature of the drone strike program, and the ridiculous backlog of claims at the VA. Any one of those is fodder for a semi-serious critical analysis of the President's term...as well as many other things. But instead we got the week of fake scandal. Not anything about jobs, or growth, or deficit reduction, or the continuing abuse of financial privilege. No, we got this.... 

Benghazi

Once you become convinced of a conspiracy, until you find said conspiracy, you will never be satisfied. No matter what facts emerge, unless you can link them up to make your theory valid, you will believe that there is more to find. Even when nothing more exists. Which brings us to Benghazi.

The conspiracy cadre wants so dearly to learn that awoken in the dead of the night and told the
diplomatic mission was under attack, the President said "f**k'em" and went back to sleep. Or even that somehow the President was in Benghazi that night leading the attack, Hillary Clinton with a fake
mustache by his side, in an effort along with the ACLU, the Unions and gays to bring down the country. Unless Obama and Hillary confess to something like this, then these fools think they must still be hiding something! Because this is bigger than Watergate...which just goes to show you how few people remember the particulars of Watergate, why it was so bad and why this isn't even close to that accident of history. And at this point I'm not sure what they're still trying to prove Obama did wrong. I don't think they even know. 

IRS

So let me get this straight. The problem is that the taxing agency of the US used inappropriate criteria to select applicants for review which resulted in delays and asked for too much information from said applicants. Yes, really, that's the whole scandal. It sounds simple, but what it caused is for conservative groups to be treated unfairly. Maybe. But let's look deeper, let's look for context.

In 2010, with the Citizen United decision having been handed down which loosened the rules of money in politics, there was a sudden upsurge in requests for 501(c) tax exempt status. The problem was a lot of the applications were more than a little suspect, as the organizations requesting to be classified as "social welfare" groups clearly were not anything of the sort. Social welfare organizations can't favor specific legislation or a candidate, and cannot be focused on political campaigning. A large number of the applying organizations clearly were political, and thus ineligible for this classification. So the IRS spotted possible widespread tax fraud, something that seems to have been forgotten when discussing the scandal. The problem is they took the wrong steps in their initial investigation.

Only this doesn't even appear to be a coordinated effort by the sitting administration, but more a group of bureaucrats looking for a workload shortcurt. Or rather, one person. Which is terrible. Unless of course you actually work for living, then you kinda understand how overworked people look for shortcuts. And if you look into it a little more, you realize that this not only happens all the time, this instance doesn't even reach the level of normal shenanigans. History shows FDR, Nixon and most recently in 2004, then President Bush targeting Greenpeace, the NAACP and churches who spoke out against Iraq using the IRS as a weapon.

So there must have been a cover up of this horrendous and illegal practice? Um, but Congress looked into this last year, and the Acting Head of the IRS testified on this very subject before a Ways and Means subcommittee. Answered every question they had too. And although inappropriate, the act is hardly illegal.

So the real scandal is organizations who submitted forms for tax exemption, during a massive surge in applications, that that appeared fraudulent got got delayed and received extra scrutiny? Oh, the horrible shame of the IRS tying to do it's job. 

Associated Press

It's funny how the people who implored the administration the loudest to investigate the national security leaks, well, not implored, more like screamed at the President to do something, are the ones now outraged at the actual investigation. Even worse, the things they're mad about aren't even the right things. Again, going with context.

The Justice Department tries to do all sorts of things of dubious legality in an effort to be legal. They write up an opinion, stick in the file and like magic "they can do that." That's why we think "waterboarding" somehow is exempt from the term cruel and unusual.  The Justice Department did not just seize two months of Associated Press phone records. Repeated use of the word seize has colored this whole episode with such a bad connotation. It gives the impression of men in dark suits showing up and just taking things. Would you be as mad or interested if they used another word like, er, "asked for", "requested", or "subpoenaed"?

Because the Justice Department did get a subpoena. You know, like on Law and Order. Which means that this time they didn't use "opinion magic", they like...went through legal steps and junk.  Eric Holder had even recused himself - meaning he had no part at all - in the investigation to avoid any irregularities. And since they had to then serve the Associated Press with the subpoena, and wait for them to comply...AND the Associated Press cited it understood the existence of security concerns and waited to run the story....why is there outrage? The AP handed over the info...then waits a while?

That the leak that is being pursued was of classified information seems to have been overlooked. That a person without the proper clearances receiving said information is against the law has been pushed aside in the rush to damn Obama and his administration. Inflammatory language to gives rise to the imagery of jack booted thugs isn't helping. But then the AP, and the Conservatives, are trying to make its case in the court of public opinion.

The practical upshot of this week of...er, ...mess? On the plus side, we've spent a week unconcerned about the unwholesome antics of what ever talentless starlet would have normally been our focus. But on the downside, our attention was on the ludicrous political circus of pettiness, greed and jealousy that needs to end before we head down the rabbit hole.

Second Term (The Remix)

This is a political post. 

Because I spent this day, um...celebrating my freedoms. No, wasting time before the studying ramps up to the next level tomorrow. Less than 30 days. But after watching the Inauguration this morning, I decided to do the REMIX.

Because that's what we do nowadays. Remix the good stuff.

"You cheated by winning!" screamed the loser...

This is a political post.

In the aftermath of what was the most contentious presidential election in modern history - with
attack ads, voter suppression efforts, bold faced lies and willful deceit, we have apparently learned one thing : Absolutely nothing. We are right back where we were some two years ago, only now a bit less polite about it.

GOP accuses Obama of fruit theft from Job Creator

The entire affair reminds me of a high school fight, where one combatant has "talked up his game" only to get knocked around and finally suplexed in the hallway by the cafeteria. Right in front of the cheerleaders. And then, instead of lying their quietly and feigning injury or perhaps re-evaluating their life choices, they stagger to their feet and still woozy and yell "Is that all you got?"

The reasons being floated by Conservatives for the Democratic win of the Presidency are mind boggling, ranging from the President won because the "urban" (read as black) voter turnout was high to the "white establishment " now being the minority to the President handing out goodies to minorities as political bribes. It's as though they want you to believe the Chapelle Show reparations skit was about to come to life. What's most significant is not that these theories are constructed to de-legitimitze the election results, that's expected, but it is that they're coming from Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the top pundits at Fox News and not the far right wing fringe.

Despite the reality bubble that conservatives had constructed for themselves completely collapsing - they're simply continuing to hold onto "the faith."They're not out of step with the majority, the whole thing was all a trick! People love us! In fact, they're not only still living in the rubble of that bubble, they're building a new one, using as the foundation a conspiracy about Benghazi, who knew what when, and trying desperately to inflate the Patraeus side piece story into something they can impeach the President for. Because they so want to. Really they do.

Only Newt Gingrich is making the rational argument and instead of asking what's wrong with the
electorate, instead suggesting a reexamination of conservative policy. The rest who are even suggesting any change at all are more along of the lines of a need for some touch up paint around the edges to soften the message. Not change the message...just change how it's told.

Instead of even the beginnings of cooperation, we have the Conservatives...lead by the conservative entertainment complex (phrase via David Frum)... heading right back down the rabbit hole, seeking a nice "comfort conspiracy" to soothe themselves of the crazy idea that their message no longer resonates with the majority of Americans. Benghazi! We have people who screamed USA at the top of the lungs at political rallies filing petitions to secede simply because the majority of country sees the future of the country differently. My "new" conservative black friend still posts things like a picture of the President playing golf, pointing out his leisure while people still haven't recovered from Hurricane Sandy - as though the President should be up a pole stringing power cables or personally guiding the operations (which of course would be evidence of him being power mad). Nothing has changed.

We're back to the kid in the hall. Bleeding, staggering, missing a tooth, totally embarrased...shouting at the guy who just finished beating on him... "Oh, you scared?" 

So, several billion dollars and two years...just to get us back to here. Absolutely nothing.

2014 people. Because stress is like...damn.

That Damn Batman....Returns.

This is a political post.

Excuse me, I have an engagement that...just came up.

I read online somewhere a suggestion that we just scrap the electoral college and go to a straight popular vote...if only so we never have to hear about Ohio and Florida at election time again. That the fate of the nation comes down to eight to ten states every time is telling as to the makeup of this country. But as I watched the analysts crunch the data, explaining to the talking heads how they could confidently call races with so much of the vote still outstanding, the astounding work the Obama campaign became clearly evident. The creation of the idea of Romney as a blank slate who would hold firm no position only appeared to have been their opening salvo, but the real plan was a precision targeted effort in those crucial demographics in the key states, some four years in the making that was, dare I say it...a plan straight out of the Batcave. Batman Obama. 

The goddamn Batman.

But in the end, we have the same President, facing the same congress. Are we not in the same position we were just a few months ago? Are we not still in a gridlocked struggle for the future of a country?

Yes and no.

One can only hope the early cracks in the conservative assessment that showed last night as I flipped through the coverages (MSNBC, Fox, CNN, CSPAN, TV1, Comedy Central) grow into great fault lines of blame. Some are arguing that the GOP went too far to the right and turned off the moderates. Others are suggesting they didn't go far enough, and should become even more conservative. That a president who supports gay marriage and women's rights was reelected should be the first clue in that..er, discussion. And as someone who thinks the ideologues and extremists have hijacked the party, a internal civil war might initially shrink the party, but could get the Republicans back into a position to appeal to those moderates who always struggle to decide. It may even result in a legitimate three party system.  

But it is the fiscal cliff, as it's being called, that will force some hands quickly. With the sequester looming, and the President relatively immune to the political fallout for the foreseeable future, a lot of cards are about to fall onto the table that weren't supposed to. This, and the effect the machine may have had on the Republican reality bubble may be the first step to change in this country. 

Now as the Tea Party reshuffles (one only hopes it becomes a footnote in history) and the conservative leadership comes to grips with the idea that they've starting buying into their own bullshit - Romney didn't even have a concession speech prepared! - the realization that change has to come if they wish to remain relevant becomes painfully obvious. The Obama campaign machine wrecked nearly every conservative pundit concept put forward through the past few weeks. And it promises more in the future. The map was NOT the territory. This is a reality. The problem is that they have demonized their enemies and turn viciously on even the slightest deviations. This fracture with dogma and reality may be enough to get a conversation started between the outliers and Democrats, which could start a trend. Or so we hope.

Most importantly, this victory also means that the Supreme Court may come to better reflect the mores of the world today than those of thirty years ago and Ronald Regan. No doubt some of the more staunchly conservative justices who had recently flirted with retirement are now about to rethink their positions. But as they enter their late 70s it is only a matter of time before age and fatigue catch up to them. And a shift of these nine unelected "tribal fathers" might border on tectonic for the future of the country.  

The last question - as my brother put it - is if the machine is truly a "Democratic Machine", or just an Obama Machine. The Republicans are already looking ahead to 2014 and 2016. And although Obamas are now out of the game - they like the Clintons, are going to cast a long shadow...for a long time. The search or "grooming" of the next candidate begins now.

Because that's how Batman does things. 

I just like this pic. I do.

Bar Chatter

Bar Chatter #28
Sometimes it's not enough to make a whole post...but still it deserves to be said.

I voted. And now we wait.

Election 2012 - The Endgame

This is a political post.

As we enter the endgame of the 2012 presidential race the campaigns are furiously at work trying to gather as many of the swing state hearts and minds as they can. I feel a little sorry for the people of Ohio. It promises to be a fight to the finish.

 And I have no idea why.

When is the alligator lurking in political swamp going to snap? Mitt's been dancing in a veritable alligator farm for the last...well, since forever really. Is Fox News really that good?

That Romney has lied to the people of the swing state of Ohio, in claiming that Jeep is moving its operations to China  AND THEY KNOW HE LIED appears to have had no effect. I am amazed that even after the company refuted the allegation - in fact revealing plans to create even more jobs - the campaign has continued to press this as a failure of the current administration's policies. One would have imagined that bold faced lying by a candidate would cause a something of a shift in the polls... but apparently not. No alligator.

One would think that Romney having completely changed his tune about FEMA,  five minutes after the "wind shifted"  would have some effect. But then a number of the Fox supporters probably believe that Obama turned on a Hurricane making Machine to boost his profile. I'm not even going to get into the Romney's campaign's absurdly transparent attempts at to appear like they were providing some aid.  One imagines had Romney simply written the Red Cross a personal check for two million dollars how much better it all would have come across. But other than get New Jersey's Gov. Christie to admit the Federal Government CAN do some good...again no 'gator. 

Think about it. His tax plan is reminiscent of the underpants gnomes, his foreign policy is Obama's with the name crossed out and his version of the past reads like rapper Rick Ross's autobiography. Still...no alligator.

So I worry.

My new conservative friend keeps harping on the attack in Benghazi, which is apparently Obama's 73rd or 74th Watergate moment. That has be something of a record for squeaking by comeuppance, beating out even Charlie Sheen for comebacks. The conservative slant keeps demanding "the truth", which in reality means "tell us you're an incompetent boob." Because unless the demanded "truth" espouses their predisposed notion, then in their opinion there is still something left that's being covered up. This despite reports emerging that show the government used everything but the top secret teleporter technology to get assistance to the scene.

Then again, you kinda figure that even if Obama announced at 8am that he personally had found the cure for cancer and was giving it away for free...that the GOP would have a press conference by noon denouncing the administration for trying to put doctors out of work. I mean, even though Obama oversaw the saving of the auto industry, brought the stock market back, got corporate profits to record highs and got passed the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), according to his detractors he can't run on is record. Because to them, if Obama were any good he would have also balanced the budget, paid off the national debt, personally captured all the terrorists AND cured cancer. But then Fox news would report that he was only trying to put accountants, the military and doctors out of work. And what's really odd is that apparently half the country believes them.

So I worry.

Tuesday it's all over. Thank God for Tuesday.

At least I hope it's over on Tuesday.

And Obama lands an uppercut.... (Debate No. 3)

This is a political post

Mitt apparently had no binders on foreign policy

 ~ tweet from John Kerry

I watched the debate on CBS this time. I make it habit to watch it on different channels because the commentary at the end is different and you kind of get a sense of how different people react to different things. Of course, after Fox news reported that Romney had somehow beat the President in the coin toss backstage during the second debate, I realized I would have to temper my viewing a bit. To get a clear head, and stay outside the selective media bubble we've all decided to inhabit, I've taken to waiting a while then reading the commentary on BBC and Al-Jazzera to get a better picture of what actually happened. It's shame that it's come to this reality. 

But onto my view of the proceedings.

The difference in the moderator styles as we went through this whole series was palable. It was though we went from the replacement refs to the real refs, with Bob Schieffer at the helm for this last tiff. There was very little over talking, very little going long on answer. And when it was time to move on, dog gone it they moved on. And both men, perhaps because they respected Bob, perhaps at the insistence of their wives but more likely a political operative that informed them doing that was polling badly, followed instructions. Not as much political brawl, as choreographed duel.

Romney looked strong at first, but then I'm not sure if that's I've grown used to his face or because the words coming out of his mouth were actually those of the Obama.  It became evident quickly, as in the Biden/Ryan debate that the points of difference were missing. On the big issues, Iran and Syria, all Romney could do was agree with the current actions, only swear he'd have done them better. And his attempts to make seem like the President had tarnished America's good name around the world sounded hollow in the face of facts.

Then came these two telling items:

"Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world, its their route to the sea. "

At first I wanted to write this comment off, as a throwaway line. The candidates had really wanted to talk about the economy as it seemed like every other answer segued back to how a strong economy is necessary for foreign diplomacy to work, so I discounted this statement's importance. But the reality is this line says a lot. There are two issues, here. First, Iran sits on the Persian Gulf, which has it's own route through the Straits of Hormuz to the India Ocean which is a fairly large body of water, it being called an ocean an all. And that Syria is Iran's route to the sea only if Iran goes through Iraq. In fact the part they would have to go through, currently controlled by the Kurds is actually pretty well run and could be model for how the rest of the country could be run. But this may have been a brain freeze... so I'll pick that flag up.

But the second one basically is the Governor actively refusing to admit that the Obama Administration really is poised exert that strength Romney keeps claiming only he'd be able project. As we used to say as kids, "don't talk about it, be about it." As part of the efforts to put the stranglehold on Iran, the US Navy has placed multiple carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. Obama has effectively parked missiles in a "floating Cuba" off Iran's southern coast. It was the kinda of thing you try not to mention, or even pretend exists, if you're trying to make your opponent look weak.

"Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets"

In response to a claim the Navy was shrinking was the zinger of the night, the kind of shot that Romney had been hoping to score since he'd started practicing for the debates in August. You almost wanted Obama to lean over the desk and remind his opponent that the defense budget is part of the regular budget, that thing we're trying to cut. You can't expand one without expanding the other, and since we're trying to cut expenses, giving them more money won't add up. Dummy.

Our current defensive needs aren't more warships or tanks, we already spend more than the next ten countries combined on military expenditures and we have brand new tanks rusting in the desert now because the military doesn't need them. We're no longer fighting Russia, we actually need this former enemy to go along with our plan for Iran for the sanctions to work. Antagonizing them won't help us in the long run. Our new enemies are non-state actors and for that we need a different kind of military. Obama couldn't have made it clearer that Romney had other intentions with the need to expand the military, like adding to the bottom lines of military contractors.

Then there was the look the President was giving Romney during his answers.

I would think the look that Obama was giving Romney when he spoke was the same look he uses on the basketball court - a look of fierce determination, an almost "try me" look, daring the other person to do anything other than pass the ball. It was a marked difference from the almost loving stare both Romney and his running mate do when listening that comes off as practiced and a little creepy. You could almost see Obama waiting to pounce.

Then around 10pm something happened. I'm not sure if Romney had a sudden gas attack or suddenly realized he was merely repeating what Obama was saying. The loving gaze faded for a moment and a fine sheen of sweat appeared on his brow. This might have been a Nixon moment.

And just like that it was over. I thought Obama won and came through strong, roused up enough to even start cutting at Romney over his record - which suddenly Romney called personal attacks. If your state was at the bottom of job creation when you were in office, how is mentioning that out of line if you're using your job creation skills as a selling point? I'm also sure Fox news, Red State and other conservatives sites have it for Romney, despite him parroting the President most of the evening.

And now, we return to our regularly scheduled diatribes on love, relationships, places I've eaten and things I think about while waiting through the commercials. Wait, in two weeks, NO MORE POLITICAL COMMERCIALS. Even better.  

Debates - Round 2. Better...but not best.

This is a political post. 

Romney don't look happy. Image via Tom Joad, Facebook.

I realize that I'm expecting way too much, but I don't think I'll be satisfied until in the middle of the debate, the President just does a Joe Biden and calls his opponent out. Or even better,  just leans back, throws his head to the sky and in the fashion of almost friendly arguments everywhere yells "You must be out your goddamn mind!"

Expecting. Way. Too. Much.

What I found most interesting about the debate this time wasn't actually in the debate, but that the moderators of late are exercising journalism, asking followups, correcting the speakers. In today's partisan news cycle, where the news acts more like propaganda to see journalism is refreshing...twice in one year.

I say that the journalism was interesting because the people in the arena calling themselves undecided are apparently the people in the country who don't do serious political analysis, or even simple political analysis. Those questions weren't hard questions, or questions that even made the candidates think. Despite claims that the two choices aren't really choices, the two candidates couldn't be more different. The idea that you're still weighing options mean the vast majority of the undecided have discarded everything but the one issue that affects them most - jobs, healthcare, abortion, whatever. They're essentially flipping a coin to say if they hold fast their convictions or drink the respective kool-aid, from the point of view of whichever direction it is that you are coming from.

I was also interested in that the candidates seems to rattled by a format they should be familiar with. Two minutes, that's it. Both Obama and Romney found reason to keep speaking past their time. I realize these were impromptu questions (kinda) but I still think the moderator should be able to turn off a microphone after two minutes and thirty seconds, but that's just me.

In reality Mitt has changed the entire concept of debating. Since truth, facts or explanations are no longer required, and everything is spin and self promotion, what does one do, short of kicking the opponent in the teeth? Because of this there were times when neither candidate engaged the crowd, to busy verbally kicking one another or promoting themselves. And that's bad for us all. That's not the purpose of a debate.

Does the President need a debate coach. I realize that the President isn't culturally allowed to do what Joe Biden did, or go HAM on him, or even play a smoothed out Katt Williams, but I think he can still do better than he did. Case in point: when he has to check Romney, he needs to state the man is wrong, state why is one or two sentences, and move on. He should know what Romney thinks are the pressure points by now...and his team should know which ones are lurking. Have the responses memorized. He also needs to work in a few key buzzwords and terms he can repeat over and over, like his opponent does. I mean his staff writes great speeches, do they need help for snappy answers? We're available.

Though this week, two questions presented themselves that make me wonder are any of us really listening?

First, Stephen Colbert asked the question (in a skit while debating himself) that if Romney is going to lower tax rates by twenty percent, then close loopholes and deductions to make the reduction revenue neutral, then why lower the tax rate? And second, if Romney claims the government doesn't create jobs, then why is he promising to create twelve million in four years if he's elected? And I'm not even a reporter, you would think more than just a TV comedian and myself would think of these questions.

Are we really this slow as a people?

Obama, you're taking too many punches kid!

This is a political post. 

I would like to believe that the President is employing some kind of political rope-a-dope in this situation, letting his opponent talk himself into a corner. But watching last night I think Obama got caught flat footed by Romney - who presented yet another version of himself that I don't think anyone saw coming.

Romney won. I think this despite the fact that there is something about his voice that I find generally annoying. I'm not sure if its his patter, his cadence, or what, but there is something there that I find unsettling. And despite that I still think he debated the President to a standstill. But then that maybe because Romney last night didn't sound anything like the Romney of the past few weeks as he denounced his own previous statements multiple times from the podium. Suddenly he's for regulation? When did this happen?

Jim Lehrer didn't help, letting both candidates go over time, talk over one another and dance around questions as though they trying out for the Russian ballet. I think the next moderator should have a little buzzer and if the candidate hasn't started actually answering the question in 30 seconds they get buzzed, the moderator repeats the question and says quite clearly "That's not an answer, try again." After their third try the moderator just turns their mic off.

But the first round is over, and Obama's corner men need to man up and tell him he sucked last night. He took a lot of jabs, didn’t move his feet. Obama is going to need to counter-punch, work the body and do all of the following:

1. Facts to back up facts.

Romney's budget plan, one which is too complicated to explain to anyone, does haves a five trillion dollar tax break. This figure comes from the estimated revenue loss created by making the current tax cuts permanent, Romney's proposed twenty percent additional reduction, and the elimination of the estate tax, all over a ten year period. It's not set in stone because Romney has been cagey with specifics. Obama should have known this is where the number comes from, who created the math, and been able to hold Romney to that figure. Or where any statement he was going to make is based on, so that when called on it he could easily respond. This is bad prep, plain and simple.    

2. Add Logic to the Discussion.

When Romney trotted out that old Republican chestnut that "profits create jobs", I wanted to cheer because this is the easiest of all topics go at with a logic weedwacker* in the past three years. Basic economics - markets create jobs, not profits. But the President didn't start educating, touting instead his own efforts to cut taxes. Because I doubt the next moderator will be as easy, he may have missed his chance, but whenever possible Obama needs to be able to in the Clinton-ian style walk people through the logical flaw (or question) in thirty seconds or less.

3. Employ Republican tactics.

The Republican party has for the past decade used the fairly simple idea of "if you repeat it often enough, then people will think it is true." In the debate, time and time again Romney repeated the idea that “he is for jobs” at least five times. Early on one phrase of the President's caught my ear - Economic Patriotism - but he never used it again. Obama is going to need two or three phrases which he can repeat over and over, that he segues to with ease to hammer home the idea he will be the better President. 

4. Let the Truth ring out.

When the President mentioned his use of Romneycare as a model for the Affordable Healthcare Act,  Romney turned it into a study of his own collaborative works. Obama should leapt on the chance to use this to delineate the difference that he's clearly received no support at all, if not outright hostile opposition from his Republican colleagues, since he's taken office. Idea put forth : Democrats work with you, Republicans don’t. Instead, we got nothing. Obama shouldn’t be afraid to state things that everyone can check for themselves.

5. Watch your language.

The President should be aware, as should his whole team, that any bad phrasing will be exploited by the opposition. After all, they made a bad juxtaposition of words into the theme of their convention. And Romney’s attempt at a "you are no JFK" moment in stating he doesn’t know of a tax break for taking jobs overseas should serve as a clear warning. I’m politically knowledgeable, and I realize the idea trying to be put forth is that we have granted to tax breaks to firms who then took jobs overseas anyways. Not stating it clearly is a gaffe. Language is very important. And not being able to correct him was just more of the previous bad prep work.                                       

In the future, Obama needs to prep not for Mitt Romney, but for the audience. Romney has demonstrated that he is not gonna be who any evidence has shown him to be. One can predict the usual questions, so prep to defend the administration's positions with short answers, and personal real people stories where appropriate.

Now, there are a lot people who think the race is already over, and that Obama has already won. Mathematically speaking, he should take the electoral college handily, but nothing is set in stone. There are still a few tricks left than be played that can make a difference, and a little difference is all that’s needed for the election to go into overtime. I realize Obama doesn’t have a lot free time here to get ready...what with running the country and all...but he’s gonna have to man up, down a few five hour energy drinks, burn the midnight oil and miss a few family dinners. I’m sorry his anniversary fell on debate night, but this is just too important. 

We don't necessarily need this guy to show next time. Okay maybe we do.

*The supposition is that businesses need profits so they will hire people. But corporations currently have high profits and they're not hiring. The response is that  the times are uncertain, and businesses need certainty. But I this conflicts with the idea of the job creator who gets the reward for taking the risk - if there is certainty, why is the reward for risk justified?  And this flies in the face of basic economics which says markets dictate business creation, not profit.

Where are you when I need you?

Ramblings Post #199
This is a semi political post, but since it's really more about other stuff, it's going in as a rambling item. And as I thought about this, the picture I was going to add in originally had been saved as name that would have ensured it came up in every search under the sun. But I changed it. Why? Because pandering to the lowest instinct is not right. And this isn't that great a post. And I'm better than that.

Why does this make is sound like the other sections aren't willing? 

I've been defriended. Again.

This time, because of my Facebook app Social Fixer, I was informed fairly immediately.

As I've said before there are a lot of folks I don't even remember befriending on my friend list so I'm certain it must be the same for other folks with me, so I should be getting igged on the regular. But since this is the bookmark of relationships that hasn't been happening. One almost asks why bother? Well, that one asking would be me. But then I don't really share that much on FB. But for those who update as many as 15 times a day - like Schmoopy with her fitness tips, or a certain conservative christian friend of mine - I guess you become aware of who you're sharing with.

The loss this time was one of my rather vocal conservative friends, the one from college who I know is counting down the days until the national nightmare that is Obama is over on his iPhone app. This is a guy who was backing Mitt when the Republican field looked like an early round of American Idol. Of those who post regularly, his rantings seemed the most grounded. Well, not really, but at least they made some sense. Listening to him, seeing the links to his sources and looking back at their sources, gave me insight into why those people who have a different viewpoint from me have that viewpoint. Echo chambers are great if you're planning on cheering on your football team. For real life, not so much. The idea of living in an informational bubble to such a degree that any opposing viewpoint must be heresy has no appeal.

My remaining conservative friends are more akin to ....well, the metaphor I want to use will only offend, so let's just say have their blinders on. They, much in the vein of my conservative christian friend,  are prone to making contradictory statements in the same paragraph, not even checking the sources they're willing to repeat as gospel and/or seem to have internalized a dislike for the President as though he's been personally been stealing the newspaper off their front stoop for the last four years.  I understand that they don't like the president, but the reasons they present are myopic at best, and gross disinformation at worst.

This becomes important now, because my old buddy would have been able to fashion out a media distortion angle for Mitt's unexplainable smirk after his initial comments on the sudden swell of violence in the Middle East, and championed the free speech argument for the film that started it all. My old buddy would have defended the Romney budget plan as sound even after Ryan admitted they haven't run the numbers. He would have a rational...um, he would have a reasonable...um, he would have come up with something to explain away Mitt's audio tape debacle, press the issue why it's unimportant (if not completely true!) and why we need to check Obama because of X or and Y. He would have come out swinging on this. Or at least ducking and weaving. Now, I get nothing. Or at least, nothing that I can use to educate myself.

Barkeep, who are you voting for? No, Jim Beam is NOT running.

Bill Clinton vs. The Dallas Cowboys

This is a political post. Kinda.

I remember a cartoon from a long time ago, Regan's second inauguration if you will. By happenstance, the inauguration fell on Super Bowl Sunday. I kid you not. And the cartoon suggested that Regan take is second oath of office at halftime, that way we could be sure someone noticed. I didn't think it was that far fetched an idea. Because sometimes, you have set the silliness aside and focus on the important things in life, like football. Okay, that time I was kidding.

Really? Whose brilliant idea was it to hold the Democratic National Convention at the start of football season? I mean come on. That was patently unfair to those of interested in the future of country as a whole...AND in what Bill Clinton had to say. Yes, that is correct, I equate the success or failure of my favorite football team with the success of the country. I'm only almost partially kidding. I clicked over the convention (because I was watching the game!) and they were telling Bain horror stories, nothing I didn't already know so I figured I'd check back later.

I missed almost all of Elizabeth Warren watching the Cowboys offense give'em the peppa! As much as I know I can get the text someplace or run through the clips later, you should want to hear it live if possible. But the Cowboys were leading at the half 7-3! As a long time Cowboy fan, do you know how fleeting that is as of late. The way we were handing out points in the second half last year, we Cowboy fans have to savor those precious moments that we're up while we can.

Then then sent out ole' Slick Willie. And then I was truly torn. Because this year the 'Boys have actual cover corners, guys who might be able to stop a pass every now and then.  But Bill Clinton knows how to turn a phrase, and although we want Obama back....let's just say the President should be happy ole Billy Boy can't run again.  So I clicked back and forth between the game and convention. I missed the second touchdown, but caught the part about us being better off.  I missed the Giants field goal as the former President waxed on about math being the key to the economy.  With just a seven point lead I was now pressed. Would Coach Garrett make Tony Romo throw the ball all over the field for no reason, increasing the possibility he'd throw a game wrecking second pick? I was sorely tempted to go make myself a drink.  Instead I clicked back over to Clinton breaking down what the Republican budget plan means in real terms.

I listened to Clinton toss out zinger after zinger, doing the dirty work, something he knows the President won't be able to do in his own speech.  Then I watched Miles Austin make a leaping catch on first and thirty, then scamper into the end zone to make it a two touchdown game. It is at this point I wish I could say I relaxed a bit. But then the Cowboys gave up three games last year where they were up by 12 or more fourth quarter, including one to the Giants.  I continued bouncing back and forth, but they were cheering so hard I could barely hear Clinton speaking. And when the Giants closed the gap, I feared that the 'Boys would somehow figure a new way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I don't really sound like a fan do I?

Let's just say I've been disgusted with the way Jerry has done my team as of late, all ego and bluster amounting to much disappointment. But through thick and thin, you stay with your team. I wish I could say I did the responsible thing and watched Clinton. What I watched was the Cowboys RUN for a game winning first down as the Giants were out of timeouts, only to get it called back for holding. I really needed that drink about then. Then Romo didn't choke and threw for a first down! And then Romo didn't fumble the ball on the kneel down! Then the Cowboys won the game!

Well damn.

And Clinton gave a great speech as well. At least the parts I heard. Thank God for the internet.

Barkeep, a tall glass of ice tea and chicken sandwich. I got some reading to do.  

Second Term

This is a political post

I saw something like this on a few micro-blogs I check out from time to time. It looked cool, so I made my own.

Obama and the Supremes

This is a political post.

My conservative FB friend seems excited that his insurance premiums are about to go up and he can go back to be being denied for insurance because of a cold sore in the future, what with the constitutionality of Obamacare being debated in the Supreme Court. In an extra hours session of oral arguments, the best points were be put forth by the brightest minds both sides can muster (well, the best the conservatives could muster, the Administration's guy shanked it) in front of America's council of wise men, er, the eight justices. Yes, there are nine justices, but in my opinion Clarence Thomas doesn't count because because he's already indicated he doesn't listen to oral arguments (he thinks the brief is enough) and because of that idea he doesn't ask questions during these sessions. In like six or seven years. Plus, he always votes conservative, so it's almost a "why bother?" situation.

But this year the conservative court is all for Obama. They can give him the election. All they have to do is decide that the Individual Mandate part of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Or not.

Wait what?

The Supreme Court is facing a public perception problem. After the disastrous Citizen United decision which basically put the election process up for the highest bidder, accelerating this country's pace to a kleptocracy, this third leg of government has a higher profile than ever. Supreme Court arguments don't usually get the kind of coverage we'd normally accord to NFL Playoff game. The Supremes have boxed themselves into a corner. Their last few decisions have communicated the idea that the court is "out of touch" or perhaps too partisan. The prohibition against "pre-existing conditions" and other parts of the law are very popular. But the key to making it all work, the Individual Mandate is not, at least among conservatives. Another ruling against what are perceived as the common interests of the general population - akin to money equals speech, corporations are people - only takes us further down a dark and twisted road.

That the mandate is clearly constitutional is beside the point. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. This is clear. Health care, as our conservative friends like to point out, is nearly one sixth of the economy, so it qualifies as such commerce. And the court is firmly in the corner that if Congress can regulate the commerce, it make laws to make that regulation possible. And when I say "the court" I mean conservative Justice and everyone's favorite constitutional originalist, one Antonin Scalia. He actually said so in a court brief. Well talking about something else, but you can see how this should apply here.

But, all this is moot, because, as I learned in my law school class from Professor Segall, the court really isn't a court. They don't even have to pay attention to ethical behavior.

Strike down the Act, Obama gets re-elected. Uphold the Act, Obama gets re-elected. He's got it both ways. Why?

If the Court strikes down the Act, or weakens it to the point of ineffectiveness by severing the Mandate portion, the argument becomes we need to replace these justices, they're old, out of touch and are obviously ideologically tainted. And the only way to get new justices is keep Obama in office and pray the Justices Thomas and or Scalia wake up one morning and decide they've had enough and move to Fiji to sell timeshares. Or take up professional poker. A loss here will only complete the narrative that has been just under the radar for the past two years: the President is fighting the very well entrenched establishment that has joined forces with the fringe thinkers, and he still needs your help. Because after this and Citizens, a thinking liberal can raise the specter of a reversal of Roe v. Wade...and that's the real third rail of American jurisprudence.

Now, if the Court upholds the Act, Obama's signature legislation becomes he centerpiece his re-election campaign's "It only gets better from here" idealism. The we've only started we can keep going if you give me more time type of thing. That and it looks like oil prices might come down and suddenly, well then the problems his enemies are throwing at him go back to the soul of America, the most specious argument one can give right now.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. It's just a thought. From the folks at Lowcountry DTUD & BBQ.

Ain't American politics grand.