Circus Maximus MMXVI: Pick up the pieces and go home

19 10 2016

Off all else, this is the takeaway:

nytimes-debate3

Three more weeks.

Advertisements




Rolling in the deep

28 10 2015

There was a Republican debate tonight and plenty o’ grading for my Friday class. So what did I do?

Watched interviews with Adele on YouTube.

I’m not necessarily a huge fan of her music—I mean, I like her husky voice and retro-soul sound and all, but she doesn’t set my hair on fire—but I am quite a fan of her.

This video is part of the reason why. Start watching about the 9:10 mark:

She starts a bit low-key, but once she gets rollin’, well, who wouldn’t want to hang out with her?

Still got to get that grading done, tho’.





Mayan campaign mashup 2012: Which side are you on?

22 10 2012

I have no idea how this debate will play.

Obama seemed strong* to me, Romney less so, but, honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney supporters thought he won.

And the undecideds?

Oh, do you want to hear another curse-filled rant? No, I am not feeling kindly toward those folks who haven’t decided between Romney and Obama.

Deciding between 3rd-party candidate (conscience) and Romney or Obama (compromise)? Okay. Between voting (principle, ideal) and not voting (resignation)? Okay.**

But between Romney and Obama ? Not okay, because in this case there are clear policy differences between the two candidates, differences which will not change between now and election day. If you don’t know if you want Romney or if you want Obama to be president then you don’t know what you want.

Oh, I’m picking on those poor undecideds, who insist that they’re really high information! Really!

Consider Buzz Bissinger, who’s so, so disappointed in Obama and so, so dispirited by his first debate performance that he’s decided to support Romney:

Buzz: But what has been the Obama policy? It seems it has been to use government to create jobs. I agree with it to some degree, [emph added] like the auto bailout (although GM still owes taxpayers about $50 billion), but government cannot become our major employer. That is not what America is about. And I think fundamentally that is what Obama thinks America is about — government as a social engine.

Jamelle: There’s no evidence anywhere that government is on our way to becoming the major employer. In fact, the economy has lost 600,000 public sector jobs in the last three years. It’s been a huge burden on the recovery, actually.

Buzz: I have absolutely no issue with Obamacare. It was right and it was bold. [emph added] I do think the costs are going to be far more prohibitive than we think. Placing cost containment in the hands of a panel is a joke: It never works.

But didn’t the stimulus and the auto bailout, all funded by the government, create private sector jobs?

Jamelle: They did, but that’s not the same as the government becoming an employer. If I get $100 from the government, buy some stuff, and that allows a business to hire more, those new jobs aren’t “government jobs.”

Buzz: You are splitting hairs. It is the government as the funder with taxpayer money.

. . .

Buzz: Call me a naive idiot, but I think Romney does care about a hundred percent of all Americans. More than Obama. All Obama is doing now is pandering to the middle to win. He does not like the wealthy, even though he has been fairly kind to them tax wise. [emph added] He has created class warfare. The wealthy in this country are not outsiders. They are not pariahs. They are part of the country. He treats them like outcasts.

Okay, unlike your interlocutor, I’ll call you a naive idiot. Especially when you continue to blame the president for the obstructionist policies of the Republicans in Congress and complain that he hasn’t done enough to reach those Republicans while simultaneously complaining that he hasn’t been tough enough.

Oh, and for saying that what really did it was that first debate performance: “I will never forgive Obama’s performance.” [emph added]

Actually, naive idiot [emph added] might be too kind.

And then there’s Scott Adams, who’s turned on the president over the continued war on drugs:

One could argue that the President is just doing his job and enforcing existing Federal laws. That’s the opposite of what he said he would do before he was elected, but lying is obviously not a firing offense for politicians.

Personally, I’d prefer death to spending the final decades of my life in prison. So while President Obama didn’t technically kill a citizen, he is certainly ruining this fellow’s life, and his family’s lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug offenders. And he is doing it to advance his career. If that’s not a firing offense, what the hell is?

Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration. But he’s enough of a chameleon and a pragmatist that one can’t be sure. And I’m fairly certain he’d want a second term. He might find it “economical” to use federal resources in other ways than attacking California voters. And he is vocal about promoting states’ rights, so he’s got political cover for ignoring dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal.

So while I don’t agree with Romney’s positions on most topics, I’m endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.

And the evidence that Romney would be better than Obama on the drug war? He’s a slimier bastard than the president!

I don’t care if these guys are voting for Romney, I really don’t, but when Bissinger claims he’s a high-info voter and Adams waves the rationality flag in support of his support for Romney, I have to wonder if we have the same understanding of the meaning of “high-information” and “reason”.

~~~

*Not that I loved everything he had to say (defense spending, drones drones drones) or didn’t say (anything about Mexico, Latin America, the drug war), but I’m not put off by a moderate-liberal Democratic president not veering too far off the America-is-aces path—given our politics, it’s gotta be done.

**Won’t explain tonight why it’s different—maybe because these are more forthrightly mood-affiliation choices as opposed to those which are allegedly about policy. Maybe if the undecideds were more honest about the fact they don’t know what they want and are simply waiting for their pleasure-buttons to be pushed I’d be less frustrated. But probably not.





Mayan campaign mashup 2012: That’s what I like

16 10 2012

Aaaand here it is:

The sweet spot is from 5:44 to 6:45—and note the expression on the president’s face at 6:36.

~~~

Why so satisfying?

1. There are legitimate questions about security at the Benghazi consulate, which existence in turn created an opportunity for Romney not only to re-fashion a better response to the killings than his initial one, but to press Obama on security lapses.

2. Romney muffs it.

3. Obama not only defends himself, he goes on the offensive, and in getting visibly angry, smacks Romney to the back wall.

4. Romney makes it worse.

Nice!





Mayan campaign mashup 2012: Helpless, hopeless

16 10 2012

Godfuckingdammit.

I am listening to/watching the debate.

Idon’tcareIdon’tcareIdon’tcareIdon’tcareIdon’tcareIdon’tcareIdon’tcareIdon’tcare!

I already know who I’m voting for and unless and until Obama  invades Canada so as to appease the god Xenu, he is that man.

Except, of course, I do care. Fuck me and everybody else if Mitt-I-deserve-everything-Romney is elected. No, I won’t be moving to Canada (I’ll move to Canada for the sole reason that I want to live in Montreal) and it wouldn’t be the end of the world if Willard M. won, but godfuckingdammit it would be worse than it has to be.

So. Not only am I watching/listening to the debate, I am reading three live-blogs of the damned thing.

Godfuckingdammit am I hopeless.

The only thing worse would be if I live-blogged it myself.

Fuck me.





Mayan campaign mashup 2012: Dum de dum dum DUM (II)

8 10 2012

Chill.

Yes, Obama’s debate performance was mediocre, and yes, Romney has bumped himself up in the polls, but just as the alleged walk-off Obama of two weeks ago was an overreaction to Romney’s bad coupla’ weeks, so too is a WE’RE DOOMED response to Obama’s bad week.

The election is November 6—November 6, not October 1 or 6 or 8.

We’ve got a month, people, a month in which much can happen. Could Romney win? Yep. Could Obama win? Yep. Will the last two debates matter effect the electoral outcome? On the margins, yes. Will general campaign performance matter to the electoral outcome? On the margins, yes.

Given that this is likely to be a close election, do those margins matter? Yes.

This is one of the reasons I was annoyed by Obama’s performance*: When your on the ledge and the other guy is hanging off of it, you don’t step aside and let him elbow his way back up; you stomp on his fingers. Yeah, the other person could still claw his way back up, but why make it easy?

Anyway, Romney is back on the ledge—which, to this Obama supporter, is unfortunate—but that hardly means that Obama is hanging off of it.

Dude is pretty steady, remember?**

*Sure, his answers as information-packets were fine, and more fact-based than Romney’s, but debates are not just about the information-packets but about the delivery of those packets. Romney threw his packets hard and fast, while Obama just kinda dribbled them out, then toed ’em on the ground; he didn’t even bother trying to intercept Romney’s deliveries.

**Pace my last post, this is a reminder to myself as much as anyone else, if only because my first reaction to setbacks is often AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!