Stones Cry Out

I know I’m biased, but Romney was mopping the debate floor with Obama last night. Even on the ObamaCare vs RomneyCare situation, he’s came out on top.

Some of the big-name liberals were astonished as well. Jeff Jarvis, media critic at BuzzFeed tweeted, "How did Obama get backed into the corner defending the death panel?" Indeed, Sarah Palin deserves an apology. Bill Maher had to admit, "i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter". Markos Moulitsas of The Daily Kos top liberal blog lamented, "Nobody likes seeing a prevent defense in action, and that’s what Dems saw tonight."

Some good Tweets from the Right, too.

James Taranto: It’s a close one, but I’ll say Obama had a better night than Lehrer.

David Limbaugh: Again — listen to Obama- in almost every answer he focuses on what is and isn’t fair. He never addresses what will work esp 4 growht [sic] & debt

Blogger Ace of Spades quotes a pollster: Frank Luntz: "I have not had a group that swung this much. This is overwhelming for Romney. This is a big deal."

Again, I know I’m biased, but I think Romney won on substance as well as style; explaining the $716 billion he would put back in Medicare (and why), why RomneyCare was at least passed in a bipartisan way (as opposed to ObamaCare), and, as I said, getting Obama to admit and even defend "death panels".

It was a great first day of the rest of the campaign. Hopefully, this will translate into votes.

Ooh, in the office today … for a while.

1. The debate as seen by/from France.
2. Garbage.
3. Porn of sorts, here and here.
4. Automation, why food, clothing and other goods are is cheap today while medical care remains expensive.
5. Irony and wit from Iran — really.
6. Why would an incumbent admit to burying and ignoring the majority of his listeners? Oh, who was it? Never mind.
7. Obamacare looking more and more like a cunning plan.
8. A report on the beginning of the debate from an academic sociopath.
9. He watched something else, I read books and worked out.
10. Libya.
11. Einsteins most famous equation (relation?) revisited.
12. Remember more detainment means you don’t have to kill them all. So why is less detainment seen by the left as more ethical?
13. A book noted.
14. Mr Obama and his Volt.

Well, … life intrudes.

1. Ah, some suggestions for Mr Romney for the first debate.
2. On those cricket races.
3. So, still no mention of the magical Obama roadmap to a nuclear (weapon) free world.
4. (One) Religious freedom returns to Germany.
5. Death of a bad man noted (HT: CB)
6. “Call me a Luddite” … no I’ll call myself confused as to why the person named as the architect of one of the reasons for the success of the 9/11 attacks still has a job in Washington (recall her “wall of separation” between agencies was one of signal factors blamed for our failure to detect the actors).
7. Let’s re-write history … or not.
8. Flower children.
9. A book noted.
10. Land of the free? Or incipient police state.
11. When speaking with others.
12. A question not answered well to my knowledge.
13. Administration lies and the liberal echo chamber hasn’t noticed.

Religious folks who have traditionally voted Democrat are (finally) beginning to reconsider.

For the first time since the black community’s political realignment with the Democrat Party in the 1960’s, a nationally prominent black Pastor has called on the black church community to leave the Democrat Party in a movement dubbed "EXODUS NOW!" Bishop E.W. Jackson’s call to "come out from among them" is apparently being heeded by many black Pastors and Christians across America and creating a stir in many churches. There is concern at the highest levels of the Democrat Party.

And here.

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki from Springfield, Illinois, is getting attention after making some strongly-worded comments about those Americans who opt to vote for President Barack Obama in November. In a column and video that was posted by Catholic Times, the official newspaper of the Diocese of Springfield, Paprocki targeted portions of the Democratic platform that “explicitly endorse intrinsic evils.” He also warned that supporting certain politicians could place peoples’ “eternal salvation…in jeopardy.”

While he noted that it’s not his job to to tell people who do vote for, the faith leader said that he has a duty to speak out about moral issues. Despite his stated problems with the Democratic Party platform — the initial removal of God, its stance abortion and its support of gay marriage – Paprocki spoke relatively favorably of the Republican platform.

If you hold to a particular religious belief, or even if you hold to none at all, whatever beliefs you have ought to inform your vote. No, this is not a case of some "religious test" that would be Constitutionally prohibited. The Constitution applies to government. The government cannot prohibit someone from running for office based on their religion. The people, however, are free to apply whatever standard each one wishes.

And now we may be seeing the beginnings of something of a backlash to policy and platform decisions by Democrats. When people start to take their religion seriously, it could change the political landscape dramatically. It ought to.

Drones. In the past years we’ve been using Predator drones and the like more and more to effect our will in unsafe territories. Dones have the advantage of not endangering US life and are very effective, but on the other side of the coin are very bad press for the US in those regions they are used and often cause civilian casualties. Drones have been used attacking targets in countries with which we are not at war.

Question: What principle decides when and were to use drones in neutral countries and how does that principle apply when considering other countries using the same rational to fly drones against targets in the US?

Good morning. So, last weekend we toured (one) school in the process of getting my #1 daughter into college. She’s very much down on the Jr college->4 year college route.

1. Regarding the “open the window” kerfuffle.
2. Still a Deda fan.
3. Drone use.
4. Missing the point, it seems to me.
5. Bang … or … Snblorg!
6. Losing the committed left.
7. and those committed left polls.
8. Of charter and union.
9. Innovation in China.
10. Fer your continuing education, an introduction to three seminal papers by a really really smart fella.
11. Changing pedagogy.
12. Disproving the “there are no dumb questions” postulate.
13. Raising of the taxes in recession, Mr Obama did.
14. Will elicit a notable reaction from Ms Minerva, I suggest.
15. Demographics and history lessons.
16. Of Mr Obama and Iraq.
17. Ms Warren’s litigation history and unions.
18. Blogging in Vietnam, unsafe at any speed.

Continuing the debates:

Arguably the very first big decision a President must make is select his running mate. Can you indicate three most important criteria you see in your selection of a running mate.

Good morning.

1. Ya throw like a gurl … with diagrams.
2. A feminist lesbian who didn’t get the memo that homosexuality is not a choice.
3. Slurp.
4. A little pro-google humor.
5. Pedagogy with a bang.
6. Elementary math.
7. For the conservative fence sitters.
8. A little conservation on the range.
9. At the end of the day (not the end of days).
10. For the teacher who perhaps unintentionally labels himself and his students as diseases.
11. Consider the drone, actually I think mass bombings of populations in WWII were later shown to have the wrong effect, i.e., they hardened not softened the will of the people. What is the psychological effect of drone attacks vs guided manned planes vs infantry?
12. OOh, Ms Warren tries the Dukakis tank picture opportunity, which worked so so well. I wonder if she can double clutch? Actually, I’m certain she can’t. What I really wonder is if she knows what that means.
13. Bad wrapping around to good.

First, Senator Harry Reid comes out with an allegation that Mitt Romney had times in the past 10 years when he paid no taxes. His source remain some anonymous person formerly of Bain Capital. He beats this drum for weeks, in the media and on the Senate floor, insisting Romney prove his innocence instead of Reid prove his guilt.

Then Romney releases a summary of his past 20 years of tax returns. At no time in the past 2 decades did his effective tax rate dip below 13%. With that allegation proven false, does the Left demand accountability of Harry Reid, for making these unfounded charges? Do they ask who his unreliable source was?

No, they ask 10 more questions of Romney!

Y’know what this sounds like? It sounds like the Birthers who, after Obama produced his birth certificate, asked more and more questions of him, and dissected the PDF file that was given to them.

And what’s really telling is, if you look at the comments on that second link, there are those who are upset — upset — that Romney did not take his full charitable deduction for the $4 million he gave to charity so that he could say he never paid less than 13%. "That jerk; he gave more to charity than he took credit for!" Wow, really? Is that the petard you want to hoist yourselves on? And really; if he had taken the full deduction and brought his effective rate down to 9%, you would have been OK with that?

Yeah, right. The screaming would have only been louder.

It’s Birtherism for taxes. I  need to come up with a catchy name for that.

Continuing (for a while … if this keeps getting ignored I’ll probably stop) the debate … a question for our candidates:

Strategy amounts to setting long term goals and objectives, tactics is the means of getting from here to there. Arguably we’ve been without a coherent Middle East strategy for decades, and we’ve replacing any strategy with a disconnected set of of short term tactical responses to developing situations. What would you identify as the key elements of a US Middle East strategy, Could you briefly describe what you envision as our strategic goals and objectives for the region?

Follow up: What do you see as the first tactical step moving in that direction?

Woo hoo! Another week.

1. Rehabilitating the term servant.
2. Is outrage?
3. An interesting line of thought,  which brought this notion to me. Performance enhancing drugs keep you awake, make you stronger, make you more alert. How about a drug that made you more ethical? What would that feel like? Be like? Would it be illegal?
4. Considering Cinderella (HT: Miss Minerva)
5. Swap in motion.
6. Tool time meets the wheelchair.
7. OK, we’ve seen everywhere that Mr Romney paid just over 14% in taxes … did you see just as widely that he gave just under 30% to charity? We have deductions for charity via itemization … how’d that figure in to the 14%? Why is that not mentioned? Could it be media bias?
8. Speaking of media bias …
9. Adaptation and learning.
10. The world’s best dad in pictures.
11. I’m struggling to make sense of this point of view. Let’s review, a Coptic Christian ex-pat disgruntled by intolerance in his homeland makes a home-made film, which is used as a proxy to spur more violence … and an ad putting forth the point of view that religious intolerance should not be tolerated. So, is the ad censuring both sides?
12. Because they’re stupid and/or misguided and/or evil? You pick.

Hobby Lobby could be the next Chick-Fil-A. "Hobby Lobby Sues over HHS Mandate"

Reverend William Owens from the Coalition Of African American Pastors in an interview with John Hawkins: "Again that’s the reason I took such a stand against President Obama. In every election, in every campaign where the marriage amendment has been on the ballot, blacks in large numbers have been against it and Americans have been against it. But he’s not interested in what the people want. He’s interested in what a few people who can give him big money want."

I don’t usually link to Sojourner’s "God’s Politics" blog for good examples of political opinion, but their non-political item — a discussion on the recent "Gospel of Jesus’ Wife" discovery — is quite good. "Five Important Questions About That ‘Jesus Wife’ Discovery"

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)." I blame global warming.

UN Secretary General George Orwell Ban Ki Moon: "Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose," Ban told a news conference. "When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."

Bullying works. "The Christian-rooted fast food restaurant [Chick-filA] agreed to stop funding groups such as Focus on the Family that oppose same-sex marriage in a meeting with the Chicago politician who had been blocking the company’s move there."

And finally, competing mottos (from Chuck Asay, click for a larger version):

Good morning to all.

1. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but of course two wrights make an airplane.
2. Bang! (or bud-duh bud-duh &etc)
3. So, do you sue the algorithm or the teeming millions whose prior search made the algorithm decide that’s likely?
4. But where is the cunning plan?
5. Speaking of Black Adder and cunning plans … I’ll be this is also part of the cunning plan known as unaffectionately as Obamacare.
6. Glass houses, stones, throwing, and all that.
7. The generation of love, once removed is the generation of spite and hate?
8. If you don’t laugh at the last picture, either you missed the movie or you have no sense of humor.
9. Of brain and mind … a book.
10. Fallacy alert, you can leave your job, ergo it’s not coercion and don’t pretend it is.
11. Mr Sandefur is a Creedal libertarian, except there’s no actual creed … that part is just smoke and mirrors. From the same source, one might note that concealed carry becomes far easier for gals in full Islamic regalia.
12. Vote for the communists.
13. Of working teats and the work-place.

A blog post out there on the Interwebs asked what question you might ask in one of the Presidential debates. I’m going to try to post, uhm, one every day or so. So here we go …

Question: One of the oft spoken assumptions about the current election centers on the economy and employment. Can you identify the most important policy changes we need to push in order to put the US on the right track. In this context, please identify the most important item on which you believe you and your opponent are in agreement and the most important one on which you do not agree.

When President Obama gave some states waivers regarding the work requirements in welfare reform that President Clinton had signed, Republicans said he was "gutting" those reforms. No, Democrats replied, he was just giving some states flexibility. Now, if your changes make the work requirements more stringent or even just the same, you wouldn’t need a waiver, so that answer was suspect to me.

Obama had previously suspended a different part of welfare reform. How’s that working out?

Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number of able-bodied Americans on food stamps.

In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, according to the CRS report, issued in the form of a memo to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

[…]

Under the rule adopted in 1996, food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependents were limited to three months in a 36-month period unless the participant in the program “works at least 20 hours a week; participates in an employment and training program for at least 20 hours per week; or participates in a (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) ‘workfare’ program for at least 20 hours per week.”

Obama’s economic stimulus legislation suspended the rule for all states starting April 2009. Delaware continued to enforce the rule anyway, along with New York City and parts of Colorado, South Dakota, and Texas. This suspension expired at the end of the 2010 fiscal year (Sept. 30, 2010) and Congress rebuffed Obama’s requests to extend it in his fiscal years 2011 and 2012 budgets. However, Obama used his regulatory authority to effectively extend the waivers to nearly all states over the past two years.

And so instead of seeing how dumping the existing rules failed, he dumped even more. This is not going to help the economic situation. It might, though, get him more votes.