A Resurrection I can Believe In

Last Sunday, I was fortunate to participate in an event that just might have me believing in the power of resurrection.  At 2:00 in the afternoon, I met up with Ken, Jeff, and my lifelong friend Stuart at Jeff's house, sat down at my drums, and played.  It had been almost six years since I've played with a band.  The others have been playing together in a band Called 508 Park as well as separately in other projects.  I had hardly picked up my drumsticks since I parted ways with the guys in 2007.  I'm sure that fact was obvious to the guys on Sunday, but they were positive and encouraging as we stumbled through a selection of tunes from performance set lists that Ken printed which dated back to 2002.  After a few hours, I felt like I had regained some of my chops and even remembered a few of the licks I used to throw down in the tunes we played.  I felt pretty goods as I drove home after four hours behind the kit.  So good in fact, that I dare say that if the synergy I felt was shared by the other three, then it would appear Code Blue is back.

I wrote three entries about Code Blue in my Alaskapade blog last year.  If you're really interested, they can be found here:

Code Blue   |   Code Blue Part Deux   |   CB III, The Final Act

Don't look for any upcoming gigs; not this year anyway.  We have a tremendous amount of work to do before we can even begin thinking about hitting the boards again.  Foremost, we need a singer.  But before we can embark on that trek, we need to tighten up our sound so as to be at our best when we bring vocal candidates in.  Janis Joplin once said "audiences like their blues singers to be miserable."  After rereading the history of the band from the above links and mulling it all over, I've come to the conclusion that blues singers (especially the women) like their band to be miserable too.  That isn't a sexist statement, it's just commentary based on our own past experience and that of damn near every band whose members I got to know.  Still, we want to recapture the dynamics that we once had and a mix of male and female vocals is the best way to accomplish that.

So off we go.  After all, I need something else to keep me busy.  Look for updates here, a web page, and all the other promotional hoopla that goes along with the wannabe rock star life.

Your First Time

When Your 15 Minutes is Up

I commented on Sandra Fluke in an earlier post and interestingly enough, all but two comments were positive from readers who actually agreed with me.  If her performance in Reno last weekend is any indication, her fifteen minutes is up.  Fluke addressed an underwhelming crowd of about 10 people on Saturday at a north Reno Sak ‘N Save.  Imagine the money spent on airfare, five star  accommodations, local transportation, and multi course meals - all for an audience of ten people.  Perhaps America has grown weary of Fluke's whining about not getting paid to to what the rest of us are perfectly willing to do for free.

Dabate III - Yawn...

Maybe I had my hopes up too high, but I expected more from this debate.  Prior to September 11th, 2012, foreign policy couldn't have been any more boring a topic for the average American.  Bob Schieffer hit the candidates with a softball version of the Libyan debacle right out of the box and once again, Romney bunted.  I believe the first time Romney failed to engage the President on the assassination of our embassy staff was an oversight.  I'm not so sure this time.  In fact, I believe it was a calculated measure on Romney's part.  I believe Obama wanted to engage Romney on the topic and Romney knew any response with the slightest hint of aggression would be viewed with distaste from the public.  While this might prove to be a smart move over the next two weeks, I wish Romney had at least labeled the Obama Administration's handling of the attack as the incompetent debacle that it is.

The rest of the debate was pretty dull by comparison to their previous clashes.  Romney clearly looked more comfortable.  His demeanor was stable through the entire ninety minutes and he maintained his usual smile from start to finish.  He behaved presidential and demonstrated that he would not have his feathers ruffled by a political opponent.  President Obama was a different story entirely.  His intense stare, tightened lips, and turning back and forth were difficult to ignore.  I have to admit I get a kick out of the "how dare you" look the President gives off when he's being challenged.  The President's condescending comments about horses and bayonets was not only unstatesmanlike, it was incorrect.  Our Special Forces operators in Afghanistan have been conducting their operations on horseback for years and our Marines still train with and carry bayonets.  He could have taken the high road and used a better analogy, but he didn't.  We all know that everything this president does and says (absence of teleprompters notwithstanding) is carefully scripted.  His appearance of condescension is to me a prime example of Obama's diplomatic demeanor and why our adversaries view America as a weakened nation.

I felt like Bob Schieffer handled this debate at least as well as Jim Lehrer handled the first one.  He allowed the candidates to engage, but reeled them in when he needed to.  Unlike Candy Crowley, Schieffer left the interruptions to the President.

I would love to be able to call a clear winner here, but objectively speaking, it really appears to be a draw.  Romney rode the wave of his momentum from the first two debates into this one and played it safe, tempering a reported hawkish reputation towards war and relating the issues to the economy whenever he got the chance.  He clearly exemplified a knowledge of the world affairs questions posed to him by Schieffer.  Obama needed a knockout punch to stop Romney's momentum and that just didn't happen.  He stood by his decisions and actions as President over the last three years without backing down.  The conventional wisdom dictates that since Romney isn't the President, a draw gives him the win.  It should be noted that conventional wisdom isn't always wise; it's just conventional.

The post debate polls were very interesting.  The respondents to the Frank Luntz polls claimed the President won on the foreign policy issues, but that Romney won on the economic issues.  However, most of them emphatically stated that the economy was far more important to them than foreign policy and added that we can't influence the world abroad if we don't have our affairs in order at home.  So maybe it all comes down to the old Clinton campaign motto:  "It's the economy, stupid!"  We shall see in two weeks.

Round III - The Battle in Boca

Round three, finally.  As much as I anticipate the debates, I'm glad they'll be over after tonight's face-off in Boca Raton, Florida.  Even if Bob Schieffer manages to keep the candidates focused on the planned foreign policy topic, it ought to be an interesting show.

President Obama's track record in foreign affairs is about as successful as Sarah Palin's enforcement of sexual abstinence in her home. The President himself might label it "less than optimal".  I'm looking forward to seeing how the President spins the debacle that is the Benghazi terrorist attacks.  Attacks is plural here because our embassy was attacked and a forty foot hole blown through the embassy wall prior to the 9/11/2012 event.  Perhaps the "protesters" saw a preview of "Innocence of Muslims" back then.  Regardless, no effort was expended on beefing up security after this first attack even after other western countries' embassies were being attacked and they were sending their staff home to safety.  The idea that the US simply decided to draw down a security presence in Libya in an effort to normalize relations with a government that in all actuality doesn't exist is naive at best.  I'll go as far as to to give the President the benefit of doubt and nod my head to the draw down policy.  However, I'm still scratching my head as to why the President opted to bomb Libya while Congress was on recess without any apparent consideration for the consequences and clearly no plan whatsoever for a cohesive policy after the dust from these bombings settled.   Apparently, America failed to learn anything from our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  The President was busy getting loaded in college with his Choom Gang (his words, not mine). But I digress.

These two Libyan actions send a clear signal that the President's three years in office give him absolutely no edge over Mitt Romney when it comes to foreign affairs.  The experience card has been unsuccessfully waved about by David Axelrod and other Obama surrogates in recent weeks.  One need only remember that Senator Obama had ZERO foreign policy experience when he took the Oath.  Axelrod should fold.

In 1925, Calvin Coolidge said "the chief business of the American people is business."  Given the fact that America exists in a truly global economy, I believe Coolidge's statement is more profound today than ever before.  After all, if the world doesn't respect our might and recognize our resolve, then they will not respect our rules, nor recognize our role in the global economy.  Romney's job tonight is to make sure America gets that message.  President Obama's job tonight is to do his best to keep Romney from making that point by labeling him a war monger and a greater threat to global peace than Iran.  If Bob Shieffer behaves like Candy Crowley, Obama might succeed.  Obama can (and likely will, again) claim he took out Osama Bin Laden.  He owns credit for that decision, hands down.  But be that as it may, an objective thinker will consider how many times we were successfully attacked abroad by Al Qaeda since the original 9/11 under George W. Bush and compare that to how many times since we took out Bin Laden.

When I consider the poll numbers before the first debate and compare them to what they are now, I'm convinced that Americans are brighter than I might have given them credit for; or at least they're paying more attention.  For months before the debates, the President's campaign was successful at labeling Romney as a greedy, out of touch elitist whose interests were without consideration of the average American.  To his credit, Mitt Romney has largely succeeded in changing that perception through the debate process.  If Romney can remember this time (he seemed to forget in round II) to drive the Libyan debacle point home and connect it to a pattern of foreign policy mishaps, apologies, and bows, he can pretty much drive the final nail in the President's foreign policy experience position.  How that plays out in the actual vote is yet to be seen.  While I just gave the average American credit for paying attention lately, I'm still not convinced the moocher class can see past their outstretched, upward facing palms to connect the dots that are America's foreign policy and America's ability to continue to fill those palms with taxpayer cash.  I hope I'm wrong.

Obama / Romney II

I've been buried in work and have had little time to comment on the upcoming (now past) second Presidential debate.  Actually, it turned out pretty much as I expected.  Romney held his ground against an opponent who actually showed up this time.  President Obama was visually (if not factually) more aggressive than the first go round.  Candy Crowley behaved pretty much as objective as anyone could reasonably expect from a CNN correspondent.

A few brief observations:

Despite Obama's improved overall performance, he came across more indignant than ever.  I was pleased with the President's comments on the Second Amendment and I hope he was sincere when he made them, his education ramblings thereafter notwithstanding.  I wish Romney would have pointed out that we don't need tighter gun laws.  We need to enforce the ones already on the books.  After all, if drivers speed through a 55MPH zone at 75MPH, lowering the speed limit to 45MPH is not going to slow these drivers down.  But I digress.

Romney missed several opportunities to spank the President with factual responses to nebulous comments.  He took a play out of George W. Bush's playbook in his handling of President Obama's constant interrupting when he told him that his insistence that the President stop interrupting him was a statement, not a request.

Crowley was probably the worst moderator in the history of Presidential debates.  A moderator should never stand up for either debater. Their job is to be as ineffectual as possible to the outcome of the debate.  Crowley's interjections and cut-offs were blatant.  I believe her selection of the questions submitted by the attendees was reasonable, with the exception of the ones on women's salaries and a comparison of Romney to George W. Bush.  While the glass ceiling is always an issue for women, it isn't exactly a standout issue in this election.  Having Romney answer a question on the differences between he and President Bush held no consequence for President Obama.  It basically gave him two minutes to pontificate in a response and not be challenged for not answering the question - since the question had nothing to do with him.  This was a conscious choice on Crowley's part.  I thought the question Crowley held for the end was a good choice.  Allowing each candidate to speak for two minutes to dispel misunderstandings about them provided a nice finish.

The media calls it a win for President Obama and given his past performance, they may be right.  After all, any performance remotely lucid on the President's part was all an adoring mainstream media needed to make that call.  I think that had Romney been allowed to finish some of his comments, the mainstream media would have been forced to settle for a draw, lest they be exposed (again) for their liberal bias.  The President was given four more minutes than Romney was, but without a teleprompter, that time was pretty much useless.  I would like to see the numbers on how many times Romney was interrupted not just by the President, but by Candy Crowley.

The final debate will focus on foreign policy.  Given Romney's knowledge of foreign affairs and the President's inability (or unwillingness) to accurately address the question on his administration's handling of the Libya terrorist attack, the Obama will most certainly have his hands full.  I just hope Romney makes it interesting and seizes the opportunity.

The VP Debate

Well, that was interesting.  I figured Vice President Biden would outperform his boss by a long shot.  I figured Congressman Ryan would stand his own with the elder and more experienced Biden.  Ryan was confident and resolute with his comments.  Biden was a more adept speaker in this forum than he has been in months, if not years since his 2008 debate against Governor Palin, a much less capable opponent.  Unfortunately, Biden cut his legs off at his knees with his arrogance, dismissive nature, interruptions, and uncontrolled laughter.  Ryan handled himself well and maintained his composure despite Biden's awkward behavior.  Ryan behaved like a Statesman.

I respected Biden's answer on the abortion question and how he reconciles his policies with his spiritual beliefs.  I thought his response that his faith dictates his beliefs, but he doesn't impose those beliefs on others was an honest one.  Hard right Republicans could learn a great deal from Biden on that front.

In the end, both candidates appeared equally qualified to do the job.  I wouldn't call the debate a draw because to me, that's a copout.  I give the advantage to Ryan based on his ability to maintain composure and stand toe to toe with a much more experienced statesman.  Ryan stuck to the questions and spent far less time attacking Obama than Biden did attacking Romney.  Ryan's close was much stronger and heartfelt than Biden's.

When I consider the behavior and decorum of both parties' candidates, I'm much more impressed with the Romney/Ryan ticket than I have been.  Obama entered the stage for first Presidential debate with a cocky swagger and then failed to display enough respect to even look Romney in the eye as his debate performance quickly sunk.  Romney came across polite, sincere, and gracious.  In last night's debate, Ryan behaved much like his boss did a week before.  It was Biden's smug, condescending nature that stood out and watered down his otherwise impressive performance.

I found myself considering which pair I would prefer representing America in front of an adversary like Iran or Venezuela.  Biden's smug confidence might resonate with the hubris of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chávez, but Obama's persistent apologies would negate any gained ground, imagined or genuine.  I believe stern politeness coupled with a dignified eye contact would better project America's position and intentions.  Regardless of the media's interpretation of who won or lost these two debates, it's clear which pair of candidates demonstrated those traits.

Vice Presidential Debate

Well, the day Joe Biden has been dreading is upon us.  I'm not talking about his next prostate exam. Indeed, given his role in the Obama Administration and the probable result of his frequent gaffes, a finger up the poop chute might be the highlight of his month by comparison.  Of course, I'm referring to Thursday's Vice Presidential debate against Paul Ryan.  The intellectual deck stacking here is so lopsided that I'm reminded of the Battle of Chancelorsville in 1863 where the Union forces outnumbered the Confederates by over 70,000.

After his boss' inept attempt at standing toe to toe with Romney, some might say the pressure is on Vice President Biden to pick up the Democrat flag and run with it.  Likewise, Ryan is most assuredly feeling increased pressure to live up to the standard his boss set in the first debate against President Obama.  All those aspects considered, I say advantage Biden.  After all, expectations for Biden are about as high as President Obama's morale on the morning on October 4th.  His gaffes won't really be a factor either.  Everyone, especially the media and apparently his own boss give him a pass, saying "oh, that's just Joe."  I can only imagine the vitriol Romney or Ryan would have been subjected to had they made the "they gonna put y'all back in chains" comment.

Despite my previous post on this topic, I'm not completely convinced this will be a cakewalk for Ryan.  While Ryan is clearly a brilliant financial thinker with a youthfully sharp mind and a firm grasp of the issues, Biden possesses decades of public service and has experience from dozens of high profile debates.  Recent gaffes aside, he is clearly more comfortable off prompter than is President Obama.  I remember when an older and wiser (albeit different) Ryan delivered a beating to a younger, cocky, and probably stronger Robin Ventura. When I replay the video of that famous baseball clash in my head, the age and treachery versus youth and skill analogy comes to mind.  It should be on Paul Ryan's mind too.  Another thing that comes to my mind is the fact that despite the Union and Confederacy soldier counts in the Civil War battle mentioned above, the Confederacy won that one. 

Warning Over the WARN Act

The US Department of Labor website defines the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) as a program to protect workers, their families, and communities by requiring employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs.

Liberals and labor unions love the WARN Act.  In fact, when Obama was in the Senate, Democrats introduced a bill requiring employers to give even more notice to employees about impending layoffs.  In Obama's home state of Illinois, the WARN Act applies to companies as small as 75 employees.  I suppose I would love such a law too, even as a Libertarian.  I've been fired and laid off more than once and never received any such notice.

Apparently, the Obama Administration isn't so fond of WARN legislation anymore.  The looming threat of sequestration has politicians on both sides of the aisle scrambling to place blame, to spin public opinion, and to do pretty much anything except be accountable for creating the National debt that caused the mess in the first place.

The timing of the Presidential election and sequestration have created an alignment of planets that is highly unfavorable to President Obama and those who support him.  Workers in the defense industry are among the first to be impacted.  One might think that people working for Defense contractors might lean towards voting for conservative candidates who traditionally believe in a stronger American defense.  After all, it's not like their jobs depend on it.  Yet, working onsite at a defense related company, I see many pro Obama bumper stickers on the employees' cars.  I attribute this to the influence of labor unions which, in the case of the company at which I have been working, are very prominent.

One might reasonably expect a responsible and accountable Chief Executive to do his best to broker a deal that could actually avoid sequestration from taking place. Instead, what we have is a President who, rightly fearing voter retribution, is strong arming employers into ignoring the WARN Act altogether and not give their employees the legally required notice of their impending layoffs.  As if this weren't a hard enough slap in the face of these affected workers, The Obama Administration is even promising to pay the cost of litigation these companies will most assuredly face for breaking the law.  The sad reality is that many of the impacted workers aren't likely to comprehend for themselves that the debt our government has incurred - has just cost them their jobs.  It's a given that their unions aren't going to tell them either.  That said, it's even more unlikely that these same workers will see the irony of the Obama Administration's willingness to incur increased debt from paying off lawyers for defending the these companies who were given expressed permission to break the law over which they are being sued.

You will be hard pressed to find any of this reported in the mainstream media as anything remotely negative to the Obama Administration doesn't meet their political leanings.

Some Might Say...

This is how most of America feels Romney handled President Obama in last week's Domestic Policy Debate.  Some might say this is how the Republican Party handles the entire country.  In either case, I thought the photo was pretty damn funny.

Unemployment Numbers

Today's unemployment numbers are a Godsend to the Obama campaign.  The problem (for thinking people) is that the numbers are misleading.  The unemployment rate is comprised of multiple components including the number of people working, people looking for work, those who have given up looking for work, and those who never bothered to look in the first place.  These components yield the Workforce Participation Rate.  What makes today's number misleading is the way the pundits view and spin the Workforce Participation Rate.  When fewer people are essentially available to work, the numbers are skewed dramatically.

Look at it this way...

You have a sixteen ounce glass that represents the Workforce Participation Rate and this glass has four ounces of water in it.  Therefore, the glass is only 25% full and looks pretty empty.

You have another glass; four ounces this time, with three ounces of water in it.  This glass looks pretty full at 75%.

There's no more water in the four ounce glass.  It just appears to be more full by comparison.  The reality is the available amount of glass has shrunk, just like the available amount of participants to work has shrunk.  The 114,000 jobs that were added were primarily Federal, State and local government jobs, the salaries for which are paid by you and I through taxes.  If all factors are considered, the real unemployment rate is 10.7% as opposed to the 7.8% being crowed about in the news.  These are Labor Department numbers; not mine.

When laymen look at the numbers (or swallow them as spoon fed by the mainstream media), it's easier for them to think we're getting better when the reality is we're not even getting by.  I suppose the good news for the Obama campaign is that it's easy for them to spin the appearance to look favorable to an uninformed audience who can't (or won't bother to) tell the difference.

Choom Gang

I wonder if these guys ever cut an album?

The Day After

I bet the entire Obama campaign slept like a baby last night.  That is, they woke up every hour, realized they were full of shit, and cried.  I'm sure Romney slept well, at least after he left the hospital after having the hemorrhoids removed from his toes that he contracted from kicking Obama's ass so hard.  Dennis Miller said it best: "Obama better hope that a "kicked ass" is covered under Obamacare"

I woke up this morning thinking Obama should heartily thank his prep team.  Not his debate prep team, of course.  He should thank Jen Psaki and her peers for prepping the media for his dismal performance in the first debate.  Tactically speaking, lowering America's expectations was probably a smart move on their part as that was about the only aspect of the debate that worked out in their favor.  It was widely reported that John Kerry was Obama's practice debate opponent.  If that's true, I suspect Mr. Kerry will have significant free time in the upcoming weeks.

I particularly enjoyed this debate, not just because of Romney's performance, but because it was a genuinely engaging debate.  Most debates are simply a series of carefully prepared remarks with no conversational flow.  This one was not.  Jim Lehrer is being chastised for not maintaining control of the candidates.  Lehrer behaved like an NFL referee (the real ones) whose job is to be as invisible as possible and not impact the game.  I believe Lehrer masterfully saw what was unfolding before his (and America's) eyes and handled it accordingly.  Still, the mainstream media is excoriating Lehrer, saying his actions (or lack of therein) intentionally favored Romney.  Do anyone really think PBS was in Romney's corner?  News flash:  PBS has never even been in Romney's zip code.  

So now the race is on to assess blame - on anyone but Obama himself.  Al Gore offered a great excuse: altitude.  Said Gore, “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust — I don’t know.”  Really?  We are talking Denver here; not Mount Everest.  Gore's theory is even less credible than those with which he attempts to substantiate his global warming hoax.  If Gore's assertion was right, the Broncos, Nuggets, and Rockies would all be undefeated at home.  Interestingly enough, nobody has blamed George Bush for Obama's performance.  Not yet, anyway.

The voices of the mainstream media (echoing from deep within Obama's tank) are trying to pin Obama's poor performance on Lehrer, on Obama taking Romney too lightly, and on Obama's having been too busy running the country to prepare. The reality is that Obama didn't lose on any of those.  Obama lost to facts.  President Obama has never had to face the facts and be accountable for his policies and actions (or lack of therein).  He's been surrounded by sycophants for five years and no one has dared challenge him, lest they suffer the wrath of Valerie Jarrett.  As such, he had no defense of his dismal first term and offered no new ideas for a second.  We all know the popular definition of insanity.  Not to heed it here would be...well, insane!

The behavior of both candidates was telling.  Romney behaved Presidential.  He was cheerful, confident, and genuine.  When Obama spoke, Romney looked him in the eye.  When Romney spoke, Obama looked down, shook his head, and sighed in Gore-like disdain.  I get that because I could never look my mother in the eye when I was full of shit either.

Both men share a pretty close educational pedigree and their debate performance made it easy to see who actually got an education versus who just got a few degrees.  Romney's background and debate performance was reminiscent of a man who has embraced the teachings of people like Adam Smith.  Obama's past (and present) and debate performance resemble that of a man who has embraced the teachings of people like Frantz Fanon.  After watching both candidates last night, ask yourself which of them you would want to represent America's interests in a face-off against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Democrats and the mainstream media have spent months painting Romney as an elitist.  Romney's performance went a long way to combat that.  He spoke to the American people without condescension and he masterfully explained the faults in the Dodd-Frank Bill in terms even I could understand.  Romney's performance exemplified the way Calvin Coolidge served as an early twentieth century mouthpiece to explain to America how capitalism works.  Very effective.

I have to give Obama credit for not bringing up Romney's comments on the 47% who pay no taxes.  Tactically speaking, that was a smart move because the Romney campaign has owned that statement from the beginning and Americans who actually think for themselves know what Romney meant.  I believe Obama was well aware that Romney was prepared to address any salvos thrown his way and the only way Obama could win on that topic was not to raise it.

Looking forward, I expect the mainstream media to get REALLY ugly with attacks, not facts.  This may prove effective as significant portion of the American public responds more to (or at least comprehends) salacious accusations than they do genuine facts.  Since the Democrats can't campaign on any of the issues that truly matter without taking a black eye, I expect a serious increase in racial attacks, Mormon attacks, class warfare attacks, and even attacks on capitalism itself.

The Democrat spin doctors were undoubtedly up all night formulating responses that will most certainly fail to present Obama's debate performance in anything remotely resembling a victorious light.  They have to try because even the replacement NFL refs couldn't give this win to Obama.  Dollars to doughnuts they're doing their best to generate spin to a degree that the Theory of Spectral Rigidity will come into play and reverse time itself.  If they do, perhaps they can back up time far enough to give the Texas Rangers another shot at the division.  But I digress.

The good news for the Obama campaign is that America is now somewhat distracted from the Libyan terrorist attack and the rapidly uncovering cover-up.  President Obama can't run from that one for long though.  The Foreign Policy debate is October 22nd.

Against the Ropes

President Obama:  From the first minute to the end of the debate.

The Great (?) Debate

The first of three Presidential debates is tonight and I for one am excited.  Will it be great?  Who knows?  Although the planned topic is domestic policy, I seriously doubt either candidate will stick to the format.  Nevertheless, President Obama off the teleprompter is always interesting.  As such, the Obama campaign is already floating a strategy of lowering expectations for his debate performance.  I can't imagine it being any lower than his Presidential performance.  After all, he can't brag about the economy, gasoline prices, or foreign policy, and there will be no one in the crowd to apologize to.  So I predict Obama will stick to the class warfare line as it resonates well with a voter populace who lacks a worldly perspective to see through it.  That combined with the tactic of running from the record he can't possibly run on will prove to be a politically safe strategy.

Obama Campaign press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters "He has had less time to prepare than we anticipated." It's difficult to schedule significant blocks of time when you're the president, regardless of your party."  Remarks like this are why I would be kicked out of the Press Corps.  I can't imagine not cracking up after hearing this statement when I consider the rock star party schedule the President has kept the last few weeks.  If he is ill-prepared, it certainly won't be because he was busy meeting with world leaders at the recent UN conference, dealing with the terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy, attending his daily National Security briefings, or working with Congress to get Americans back to work.  But I digress.

I really don't expect Romney to do any better than Obama.  Like Obama, I believe Romney is intelligent, accomplished, and honest. I can already hear the comments: "Obama honest?"  Yes.  He laid out his plans to fundamentally transform America early in his 2008 campaign and I believe he has openly pursued that goal.  The people who work for him are filthy liars, but I believe that President Obama has essentially been honest with the American people.  Back to Romney's performance.  While I find Romney intelligent, accomplished, and honest, I also find him boring.  He generates about as much excitement  as that sock dipped in flesh we call Nancy Pelosi would in lingerie.  America as a country suffers from ADD and expects excitement from its candidates.  You just don't get that from a guy whose Prophet claims to have read the divine Word out of a hat.

So while Romney might deliver the best answers - or at least the most pragmatic and honest ones, I don't expect the mainstream media to remotely acknowledge it.  PBS' Jim Lehrer is a pretty good moderator, but I would love to see both candidates try to stand up to Chris Wallace.  I doubt either would sign up for that one.

Tune in.  Listen.  Be informed.

Art vs. Hate

I suppose this could have been included in my Fairness Voter Guide entry,but it's a rainy waste of a Saturday and I'm bored.

Say, did you hear about that obscure anti-Muslim video on YouTube that was responsible for the murders of six Americans in the middle east?  It's embedded below if you want to watch.  Honestly, I didn't because my concern for the "my invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend" argument can be measured in micro give-a-shits.

Seriously, once again the global double standard is being applied up for Muslim tantrum throwers around the world.  I find it interesting that the infamous Piss Christ image is again being displayed in New York City.  Apparently Mayor Bloomberg approved the display because the piss quantity is 16 ounces or less.

A friend sent me this link.  Take five minutes to listen to what this man is saying.  It's profoundly obvious, yet needs to be repeated.

Atlas Shrugged Part II

If you didn't have the balls to see the Part One, you probably still don't for Part Two.  After all, if Alfred E. Newman's motto was "What? Me worry?", then the liberal motto ought to be "Why face facts?"  Based on the book written by Ayn Rand and released in 1957, The Atlas Shrugged movie series is an accurately frightening reflection of the effects of collectivism on America today.

Transforming great books into great movies is tough.  Some of the best novels ever written have been absolutely mangled by the movie industry.  View almost any film based on a Stephen King novel and you'll see my point.  Nevertheless, the producers of Atlas Shrugged have done a masterful job of interpreting a very long and very complex novel into a movie that can be understood my the common person without insulting the intelligence of those who actually read the book.

If you haven't already, take the time to see Part One.  I plan to watch it again just before seeing Part Two.  Then check out Part Two when it hits theaters.  See the movie parts and compare the scenarios played out in them to what is happening in America today.  Even if you disagree with the Objectivist philosophy within, at least you'll be among the informed.  If not, well, never mind.  After all, why face facts?

Part One is available on Netflix and its trailer is below.  The trailer for Part Two is beneath Part One.