And We're Off!

Gonna give this a try...been a few years since I've tried to work at a computer with a sleeping cat in my lap...

So here we go with the full swing of the election now. Biden chose Harris as his running mate and the Republican Party froze for a minute trying to decide if they should go for the misogynistic attack or the racist one. Then smiled and said, Why Not Both? Plus adding in how she's just SO FAR LEFT! Which, of course, if you are actually around anyone who is SO FAR LEFT you know that she is not. 

The next stretch will be the worst stretch and considering how bad it already is that's saying a lot. But the ugly personal attacks will start from the Right and from the Right's surrogates. The ACTUAL far left will not be happy that Biden chose a moderate and a cop so they will be going after her as well. It's going to be incredibly frustrating and I have so little patience for it all. 

You all know how I'm voting. I'm voting Blue No Matter Who. I'm voting ByeDon. That has not wavered at all. And I know it has with other people as the person they really wanted to win didn't. It made them think that they really weren't Blue No Matter Who because that's just what's wrong with the two party system, man...

And I'm trying my best to keep my mouth shut. 

Most of the time. 

I fail here and there when people are just ridiculous, in my opinion. I mean, fine, you don't want to vote for Biden for current policy issues then fine. But you really need to stop bringing up every single decision he's made since the 80s as if that defines who he is now and what he would do as president. People are allowed to change and grow. If you based who I am now on who I was in the early 80s you would be sorely disappointed in me and surprised we are even friends. And you absolutely need to not make shit up about him, or parrot the Right's talking points, they are busy enough without your help.

And I totally get it. People get SUPER mad about being told if they vote third party it's a wasted vote, or a vote for Trump or whatever. But...it's just a different way of looking at the election. We have a two party system for all intents and purposes. I don't like it either. But I really don't like Trump being president. I absolutely don't like the idea of Pence getting a crack at it. So right now it's time to be clear eyed and realize that one of the two are going to win. Trump or Biden will be the president. That's the way it goes. And for me there is nothing more important than it not being Trump. That's my priority. It doesn't have to be yours. So, no, it's not a wasted vote to vote for someone you believe in. But do know that it's not going to get them in office and might get someone else in if your other choice would have been one of the two with an actual chance. So maybe not wasted, but moot?

So what do I think of the current Democratic ticket? Well aside from them not being Trump/Pence which is the best possible thing I can think of I also am fine with them. Do they perfectly represent everything I believe? Nope. But they are miles closer than what we have now. And I don't need perfection I just need movement toward a goal. And I think Kamala is incredibly smart and strong and I think Joe is incredibly kind and empathetic and I think those qualities give us a really good chance at being decent again. Maybe not. We might be too far gone and the US might never ever recover, but I'd like to give it a fighting chance and I think Biden/Harris is that chance. 

---

And that worked for the most part. Partway through too much exciting stuff happened and he had to climb down to investigate, then his brother needed bothered but at least I got a little bit written. We'll keep working on a schedule!

Occupied...

Did you know that there is a psychological phenomenon that happens when you try to get someone to change their beliefs by force? Not like physical force but that forceful YOU'RE AN IDIOT HOW DARE YOU? argument style. It will take someone who might have been persuaded otherwise, or someone who had some nuance in their argument and harden their beliefs like a rock.

We have a Federal Force occupying Portland right now pulling people off of the streets in covert arrests. Lobbing tear gas at people and shooting them with "less lethal" munitions. In the head.

Let me say it again. Occupied. Like we are a foreign country at war with the United States and they have moved in to take over.

The city of Portland.

In the State of Oregon.

Occupied.

These federal forces weren't asked for by our local mayor or governor. They were sent by the president to try and feed red meat to his base. And that's what they are doing. Fox News and OAN are showing the tear gassed protesters on loop. Like this is a good thing.

And I get it. The spray paint on the buildings and broken glass is not attractive but police brutality and extrajudicial killings are a bit beyond that don't you think?

I view it like I view the mask debate that we shouldn't even be having. Yes, sure, wearing a mask is uncomfortable and inconvenient but my mother-in-law is still dead so...

Sure, the protests have been large and traffic has been blocked and there is graffiti and broken glass but George Floyd is still dead.

And yes, the first couple of nights there were groups of people who used the protests as a cover to loot downtown but Breonna Taylor is still dead, and nobody has faced any sort of punishment for that.

And sure, it was a bummer to watch them take down the elk statue in the middle of downtown because it was being damaged by the bonfires being set but Tamir Rice would have graduated from high school this year if he weren't, you know, dead.

And I could go on and on about this. You know the list of names is long.

So Trump has decided to make Portland his focus on protests. Instead of the brutality. Instead of the imbalance in our justice system. What has been decided is that the protests are the issue. And what better way to meet protests about police brutality than with more brutality?

If you read the statement that Acting DHS Secretary Wolf put out about why they are here and what they are doing it's either terrifying or ridiculous or a mixture of both but in different ways depending on who is doing the reading. He lists all of the (clutch your pearls) horrible things that have been done in Portland since the protests start. Most of it is graffiti. Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse Get that? Violent anarchists did that! People with spray paint tagged the courthouse. But I guess with a lot of attitude so.... violently? There are also a lot of other dubious claims in his list. The number of people attacking officers, for instance. Not really. Not unless you count yelling, "STOP THAT!" or "NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!" as an attack. Which, apparently he does.

There was also this little gem in the release: "A federal courthouse is a symbol of justice - to attack it is to attack America." No it's not. And no it isn't. A federal courthouse is a building. And to be perfectly fair right now it's as much a symbol of injustice as it is justice. And to attack a building (again, spraying it with paint) is not attacking America. Protest is our language of change. The whole fucking country was founded on protest. Though, if you study it the Boston Tea Party was as organic as the Tea Party movement hundreds of years later...but I digress.

And then again we see the dubious nature of the claims. The whole thing has been live-streamed every single night. It's no longer the official word of the police is the only one we get. We get the videos. We see what is actually happening. The feds shot a man in the head this last weekend. Their official stance is that he threw an incendiary device at them. Ohhhkay...except what he did was move the tear gas canister (or smoke, I wasn't there I couldn't smell it, only see it) away from him that THEY threw at him. Then they shot him in the head. He was holding a boom box over his head at the time. Both hands full. You tell me how this was justified?

And again, the canister they said he threw at them? THEY FUCKING BROUGHT IT AND TOSSED IT. It's amazing to me to watch. They throw the things at the protesters and if the protesters send them back THEN it's a riot and all hell breaks loose. But see, the cops are the ones in gas masks and riot gear so aren't they prepared for it?

Look at who is dressing for a riot to see where the rioting is starting.

And read the articles. We watched one last month evolve from the reports of people tossing firecrackers to the police saying they were being bombarded with IEDS. IEDS. Shut the fuck up. You are trying to make people envision roadside bombs in Iraq when you got a string of blackcats tossed at you. There was a report yesterday when ACTING Secretary Chad Wolf decided to come to town and they said that some officers had their clothing singed from firecrackers. Oh my. Singed clothing. Meanwhile, Philando Castile is still dead.

They've moved on from reporting having water bottles thrown at them as justification for tear gas and batons to FROZEN water bottles. Because people like me kept pointing out they were awfully scared of water.

(Sorry this is so long but goddamn it I'm just so tired of this bullshit)

And now there have been reports of police being shot. And that's horrible. It always is. Being a police officer is a dangerous job. But here is the thing, when you post a story about a cop being shot as a response to why protests against police brutality are happening you are saying something really bad. You are enforcing the us against them narrative. That cops are separate from us. That they are somehow on one side of battle. And they aren't supposed to be. That's what all of this is fucking about. They are supposed to be part of us. They are supposed to be a protective force for actual justice. Because there are bad guys out there. But when you reply to a Black Lives Matter post with a Blue Lives Matter answer you are saying that Black and Blue lives are in opposition to each other and that is EXACTLY what we need to fix.

First off blue isn't a life it's a fucking job. If you can take off the color at the end of the day and blend back into the crowd then it's a choice not a whole life. Secondly, stating that you think blue is more important (which is what you are doing) is super problematic. And third, when a police officer is shot and killed the vast majority of the time an arrest is made and the guilty party is sentenced. Meanwhile the cops that killed Breonna Taylor are still on the job, save one.

Being a police officer is a dangerous job. Being a citizen shouldn't be.

Defund the police (for those of you with stubborn brains, you can think of this as re-fund or right fund, whatever you need; don't be an asshole you know what it means). Take some of those out sized budgets and redistribute them to other programs that might actually be helpful. Mental health. Job training. Housing. Community based resources that fix issues at the root.

Demilitarize our local law enforcement. You are seeing right now in real time what happens when you arm police like a military force. They treat AMERICAN citizens as enemy combatants. There is a theory that part of why concussions got worse in football is because the equipment got bigger. It provided a sense of invincibility. Why have big helmets and shoulder pads if you aren't doing bigger hits? Why have a tank and gas masks and full body armor if you aren't going to use extra force and tear gas?

Stop thinking that a few diversity training classes are a fix. They aren't. I mean, come on, ANYONE who has ever had a job and had to do training courses they didn't want to knows how seriously they are taken. Even if you don't have a problem with the message you generally view it as a waste of your time when you really need to be working. They are an ass covering mechanism at best and completely ineffectual or reinforcing the We are Better message at worst. Seriously.

So you know that psychological phenomenon I mentioned at the beginning? We live in the suburbs. The protesting doesn't really reach out here. We see parts of downtown boarded up and painted on the weekends when we drive through after picking up breakfast. (And it's really only a core of downtown, the videos and reports would have you believe it's a much bigger area than it is) My take on it has been it's a mess and I hope that we see some real change come of it. Now? Now that the feds are here and shooting people in the fucking head as well as pulling people off the streets in covert arrests? Well let's say that the nuance in my argument is fading into a rock solid belief.

Get the fuck out of the city. You weren't asked for. You don't belong here. You are making it worse. YOU are the violent fascists the anarchists warned us about.

Vote in November. Get Trump out of the White House. Get these thugs off of our streets.

Defund the police.
Justice for all.

For. All.

It's Been Awhile...

I haven't posted anything political in awhile, which just seems weird for an election year.

But...

Nothing has changed. Since the last cycle I've been firmly in the Blue No Matter Who camp and here I've stayed. I know a lot of people who said they were here. Who would say it over and over again during the primaries. Firmly pledged to it. Right up until their favored candidate dropped out of the race and then they had issues. Now they are trying on Green or Libertarian or just sitting it out.

Fuck you.

I mean that in the nicest way possible.

You were never Blue No Matter Who, you were sure your favorite would win and when that didn't happen you are now Hey Let's Help Trump Win Again.

And I get it, oh I get it. You want to vote for someone who stands for what you want and not just against what you don't. You are so tired of being locked into a two party system. Joe Biden is old. He's a white guy. He has a long and complicated political history. He says things that make you shake your head. The Right has waged a really successful Creepy campaign against him so you now are pretty sure you've always thought he was creepy, which is weird considering you were sharing all of those Uncle Joe memes and Obama/Biden jokes in 2016, but okay....

And honestly he and Trump are pretty much the same. Just like Clinton and Trump were pretty much the same last cycle.

And that's when you just lose me completely.

I was livid last time when Clinton kept getting grouped into the "same" pile as Trump. No. She wasn't. Not at all. You might not have liked her. And I could argue with you as to why. But to tell me she was the same? That it would be the same no matter what? You were wrong then and you should realize it now. You absolutely cannot look at the past few years and think they would have been the same with a Clinton presidency. You just can't. Not with any sort of intellectual honesty.

So yeah, you trying to do it with Biden just lets me know that you only want what you want and you will make any sort of nonsense case to make yourself feel better about it.

Joe Biden is not Donald Trump.

He might not be who you wanted at the start but he is who is there.

He is also a decent human being. Everything we've ever seen about him shows that. It shows he truly cares about people he interacts with. He honestly wants to make the world a better place. Barack Obama trusted him enough to name him his Vice President and that trust never wavered in 8 years. You want to talk about things in his far political past and give lesser weight to his recent past. You want to freeze him at points where he did the wrong thing instead of the right thing. He has both. I get it. He's not perfect.

But he's not Trump.

And right now he is the best shot we have of getting Trump out of office.

Honestly.

Blue No Matter Who was never just a thing I said. I meant it. Blue No Matter Who.

Vote ByeDon

Dang It!

I broke my own new rule today.

Already.

I say already because it's a really new rule for me.

And I broke it because it's going to be really hard for me to maintain.

I'm going to try my best to not argue politics with people this cycle. Or at least the "you should be voting for..." type of arguing. I will continue to post things that I think are important. I will continue to try my best to counteract lies with facts. But I'm not going to talk to people about who they should vote for.

After today. I failed today.

But I'm back on the horse trying again to stay quiet.

If at this point in time you don't see that you should vote either for Biden or against Trump I don't know what to say to you. You can vote for Biden because you like him. Or you can vote against Trump (by voting for Biden) because he's shown you exactly who he is as a person and what he is as a president. Either one is a vote for removing Trump from office. And that I understand.

But if you are voting third party, or voting for Trump, then I don't understand you and I'm not arguing with you about it. At this point if you don't get it, you won't, so why waste my breath, or typing time.

The last cycle I tried. Oh my gosh I tried. I talked to people who were voting for him and gave them tons of "He is exactly who he says he is!" links. I talked to people who just couldn't vote for that woman because...reasons. I tried to stress how much more prepared she was. I talked and typed until I couldn't anymore about the stark differences between them and what it would be like with him in office. I actually felt guilt when he was elected that I hadn't been able to sway more people.

As if it were my responsibility to move them all.

It wasn't.

It never was.

All I could do was what I did.

But now?

I shouldn't have to do anything.

He's shown you who he is and if that's not enough to get you to vote him out then nothing ever will be.

And I don't understand you.

Vote Blue No Matter Who.

I've been consistent and I will remain so.

From two dozen or so at the start now to one candidate still running. That's who I am voting for in November. And if you don't understand why that needs to be, I can't help you.

Things I don't care about:
Your hurt feelings.
Your but "if only people" wish list.
Your need for a perfect candidate.
Your my guy or no one mentality.
Your fucking 401K, which, honestly is in the tank right now anyway.
Your cult like devotion to a personality.
Your fake news mantra when you really mean I don't agree with what you said.
Your whataboutism.
Your vote for anything other than to get Trump out.

Thinks I do care about:
Getting Trump out of the White House.

Vote Blue No Matter Who

Feel free to remind me if you see me mistakenly take on the burden of changing someone's mind again. I'll try to take it graciously. And I will thank you for it once I calm down.  Honestly.

What Will it Take?

The President of the United States constantly claims that the press is the enemy of the people.

He claims an investigation in to Russian interference in our elections is a witch hunt.

He claims that our Department of Justice, the FBI and and the CIA are all part of a deep state conspiracy because they agree that the Russians interfered in our last election.

He now wants the government to step in and regulate what search results come up when you look for Trump News.

Any story that is not flattering to him is FAKE NEWS even if he is later forced to corroborate the story. And any news organization that reports on him in any way that is not flattering is the FAKE NEWS MEDIA and again the enemy of the people.

How are you not bothered by this? I mean honestly. How can anyone, I don't care what their politics are or were not be bothered by this?

I keep telling myself that even though the whole country has gotten so polarized lately that I would still be able to look at a progressive doing this sort of thing and unequivocally come down on the side of "That is wrong." And yet, I have conservative friends who aren't. Who are okay with it. Who even if they might not like this aspect of his public life won't condemn it because they like other things he is doing. Which face it what they like is the remaking of the judiciary in a conservative image.

But how can that be so important to you that you are ignoring the authoritarian drum he is beating?

In a meeting with evangelicals this week he warned that if the left wins the midterms they would overthrow the things he passed (never mind that he didn't actually get the Johnson Amendment repealed) violently. So violently. That doesn't even make sense. If democrats take back over the House and the Senate why would they need to be violent in stopping him? They would have the political power at that point. Violence wouldn't even be necessary.

And this has been part of my problem for so long now. Logic. There is a lack of logical reasoning going on almost all of the time. I used to fight with people about the Clintons' and their dead people conspiracy. People want to tell me that if you cross the Clintons you will end up dead. And yet...Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Juanita Broaddrick, they are all alive. Wouldn't you think that if the Clintons killed off their troubles we would not have heard from any of these people? Use the logic path.

The flag incident with Trump. He shot himself in the foot with that one and yet conservatives rushed to show that NO! FAKE NEWS! LOOK! and would quote the flag code. Which, yes, does give a prescribed amount of time. And if he had just left it alone it would have been petty for sure but you could argue he just wanted it done by the book, but he didn't. He came back after getting push back from veterans' groups and made a decree and then re-lowered the flag. He could have made that decree as soon as Senator McCain passed, but he didn't. He tweeted sympathy for the family and moved on. Which, I will tell you I didn't have a problem with the tweet. They didn't like each other, anything else from him would have been disingenuous to the point of distasteful. HOWEVER... lowering the flag until Saturday when McCain will be buried is respecting the service of the man and he should have done that without being forced to. Use the logic path. He didn't do what was right automatically, he did what was petty automatically and then backtracked.

The logic trail is not being walked by a lot of conservatives right now. If Trump has nothing to hide and did nothing wrong then why not let the Mueller investigation just play out and finish in a natural timeline? If Sessions is actually implementing his twisted little plans the most efficiently of all of Trump's appointees (and he is) then why keep threatening to fire him, unless it's because he wants the Mueller investigation stopped? He is hiding something. He has always been hiding something and the logic trail keeps walking us to that conclusion. But for some reason conservatives don't want to look at it. They are too busy trying to find side paths that they can take that will distract them.

There was a threat against The Boston Globe where the person used the "enemy of the people" line and tied it to the Mueller investigation. Because the President of the United States keeps saying it. What will it take for people to see this is a problem? When will conservatives see that he's a wannabe dictator?  That his stance isn't "the good of the American people" but "Trump first?"

Follow the logic path. It's actually pretty well paved at this point...

The Widening Gulf...

I'm worried. I've talked about it a few times already but for the first time in my adult life I'm actually worried about the future. I've always been optimistic by nature. It's who I am. But it seems more and more like optimism is foolish. Like fear is the prudent course of action now. Which is at war with everything in my heart and head and how I want to live my life. But here we are...

The reason is because we've divided ourselves in to warring tribes. One side vs. the other. Fairness is out the window. Hypocrisy leads the day. Winning is really all that matters. Kindness is out of fashion.

We cannot see the world the way the others do. I watched President Obama make his farewell speech and then I watched President Elect Trump give his press conference. There could not have been a more stark display of the differences between the men. There could not have been a more drastic example of how things are going to change. And it depended on where you stood when they started on how you saw them. If you thought it was a good thing or a bad one.

This week I've watched a few friends of mine post the "video evidence!' that Trump did not mock a disabled reporter. I watched the video evidence and saw a man that mocks everyone. This is supposed to be proof he didn't mock a disabled reporter. It's a video that shows mocking is his go to move. And somehow if you are on one side of the divide this exonerates him. For me it, once again, shows that you are missing the important part. Why did he mock that reporter? Because Trump lied. He lied, then he tried to use an article that reporter wrote to back up his lie, when that reporter said, "No, that's not what I said." Trump worked to discredit him. And everyone fell on to the mocking part. But back it up. He lied. Then he lied again. Then he mocked the person calling him out on it to distract from the lie. And it worked. And when I point this out I am told that he didn't mock the disable reporter. PAY ATTENTION! He's lying to you and he's showing you shiny things so you don't notice or care that he's lying to you.

Right now there is the story about Russian's having salacious information about PE Trump. He is working overtime on Twitter screaming about fake news. I'm pretty sure the story isn't true. It's too fantastical to me, too petty, too weird. But I don't know. And honestly, I don't care. If you like watching pee shows, whatever. I don't care. But what I do care about is the fact the Russians meddled in our elections. That we still haven't seen Trump's tax returns so we don't know if he is in business with the Russians. That he still won't stand unequivocally against Putin. And I know that I am on one side of divide here. People that for my entire life have been against the Soviet Union and then Putin's Russia are now totally cool with the authoritarian leader whose critics disappear or die horrible deaths by radiation poisoning. A country where the Russian church has made it a-okay to hunt gay people down like animals. This is all great with a segment of our population now. And I stand on the other side of the gulf wondering what the hell happened here.

He's nominating people to head departments whose only qualifications seem to be that they have spoken out about getting rid of those departments. He's talking about repealing and replacing the ACA with a "great plan, a better plan, a cost saving plan" and he's going to do it "soon, maybe even the same day, the same hour" but if you ask for specifics on the plan there are none. There is no plan. So they are going to defund the ACA and leave people with no coverage and then....well something. And people keep telling me I have to give him a chance. A chance to do what? Something great? Just watch? There is no there there. And somehow the party of "trust but verify" has turned in to to the party of "shut up and fall in line." Again.

See I went through this with Bush the younger. When I spoke out about the wars I was told I was unpatriotic. Anti-military. By people whose only service to this country consists of putting on camo and carrying their guns around pretending to be...what? I have never figured it out. My family has always served. Not wanting people to die or go to war makes you pro-Military. Wanting them to live. Wanting them to get actual help not just lip service during election years. But you feel free to tell me how I'm unpatriotic because I think their lives shouldn't be sacrificed for your macho pride.

Now I am getting the whole "bubble" argument. Six states. Blue collar to white to no collar at all. Republican to Solid Progressive. Under the poverty line to comfortable. Military wife to civilian. Evangelical to agnostic. That's where I've been. Tell me again about my bubble when you've lived in the same town your whole life and still socialize with the kids you went to kindergarten with. Where you all share a religion, a zip code, a skin tone. And tell me again why you matter more than I do? Why do I have to buy the argument (AGAIN) that somehow middle America is the real America? That the coast doesn't matter because...why again? Because a lot of people live there? That always seems to be the argument. That cities don't matter because of all the people. But mid-America matters because of...all the land? It's truly infuriating.

I'm supposed to understand that you feel like your culture is being taken away from you. That you are being forced to believe things, accept things that you don't agree with. And this is somehow supposed to make me apologize and want to capitulate to you? Why? Because I've been forced to live under your beliefs for most of my life. Friends of mine couldn't get married because your religion said no. Rights were denied to people because you thought it was wrong. You want me to say it's cool to make decisions based on religion...well unless that religion is Islam then no way. You are so worried about Sharia law that you don't pay attention to the fact that you've been forcing your religious rule on the rest of us.

Oh everyone is too PC! You know this one I agree with. To a point. I've railed against this for years. That we are limiting discourse and discussion by shutting people down with political correct speech. But there is a difference in levels. Are you upset about this PC culture because you cannot have an open and honest conversation without being shut down because you used the wrong term for someone who wants to be referred to as zee or are you mad because someone called you out for using the N word? Hey, guess what, some people are too easily offended but that doesn't mean you should take that as forgiveness for being an offensive asshole. Take some personal responsibility.

So I'm afraid. I'm afraid that we've reached a point where we cannot ever come back to the middle. I'm afraid that people I love will lose rights. I'm afraid that people who hold beliefs that I find reprehensible will feel empowered to act on them. I'm afraid of a bully in the White House leading us in to war because he cannot tolerate people saying things he doesn't like. I'm afraid of what pieces will be left after this administration is through stomping around.

But hey, here is one area where we might have found common ground with those on the other side of the gulf. For the first time in my adult life, on November 10th I asked Brent if he thought we should get a gun. He had already thought the same thing. So there you go. You've finally convinced us that the world is a dangerous place and being armed might be a good idea.

Congratulations....

I see you...

Since the results of the election were known the media (social, mainstream, specialty only you believe this boutiques) have all been unified in saying that we failed to See the Trump voter. That we isolated ourselves from their real and true concerns and this is why Clinton lost.

Put aside the fact that in looking at actual voter numbers and turnout Clinton lost because people who voted democrat in the past stayed home. Trump didn't actually get more votes than his republican predecessors, he got fewer total votes than Romney, in fact, and there was no hand wringing over how we needed to See the Romney supporters. Set aside the fact that Clinton lost in key areas because of that lower turnout, but still won the popular vote. The majority of the people voted for Clinton. But we need to See the Trump voters.

Okay. I see you.

In fact I might see you more than you like.

I see you when you like Facebook posts and comment on them. If your friend has their post set to friends of friends or public I see that. It shows up in my feed. So I see you. More than you know.

I see you posting that you prayed for a Trump victory. The same Trump that you called ungodly just a few months earlier. The same one you chastised for not being a "true Christian" when Carson and Cruz were still in the race. Now granted, I left the church years ago (not in small part due to shit like this) but I don't remember the part where God gave a fig about our politics. Weren't you just posting memes about not caring who sat in the White House because God sat on the throne? Oh wait, that was when you thought Trump was going to lose. Yeah, I saw that too.

I see you wringing your hands and being completely upset over protests. I see you remained silent when Joe Walsh (the former congressman, not the Eagle) called for armed insurrection if Trump lost. In fact you didn't really say much when Trump himself said he would only accept the results of the election if he won. But I see you now calling for the babies to quit their whining about the fair results of the election. Only losers who want a trophy for everything contest such things...Though I saw you voted for a man who not only contested the results of the last two elections but the very Americanism of the man who won. I saw that too.

I see that we are not to question if you are a racist because obviously you are not. How could you be? Haven't you been calling out Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for race baiting for years? But I see you are silent on the appointment of a White Supremacist to Chief Strategist for Trump. I see that.

I see you posting how thrilled you are that a woman of "real class" will now be the First Lady. Yet you were, again, silent when people called our current First Lady "Moochelle." Or worse. Our current First Lady who is an accomplished woman in her own right who has made kids and Veterans her causes while in the White House. Who has handled herself so beautifully and so graciously, that the first big speech our next First Lady made was cribbed from one of Michelle's. I see that you equate class with something other than I do and I have to wonder if it's just skin tone. Because otherwise I don't see how you could think one was classier than the other. Now see me for a minute, I don't have a problem with our next First Lady and I do not agree with anyone who tries to slut shame her for posing nude. It's her body and she gets to decide what to do with it. Just don't talk to me about class when what you mean is white.

I see you not understanding why people are worried about the next four years and how they could lose newly gained rights. I see you posting links to articles where Trump says gay marriage is fine, and the settled law of the land because that's what the supreme court decided. But I also see that he is going to appoint people to the supreme court that will work to overturn settled law of the land that has been in place for 40 years, not 2. And I see that our Vice President Elect believes in conversion therapy (shock the gay out of your system) and religious freedom laws (pray in the discrimination) I see you don't have anything to say about that. I also see you slamming people for being worried about the next four years when you are the proud owner of 4 new guns and more ammo than you will use in a lifetime because you were pretty sure Obama was coming for them. I see you.

I see you now liking and sharing posts about Trump when a month ago you were deeply insulted at his casual banter about sexual assault. I see that you now refer to it as salty language or vulgar talk. Pussy. Cunt. Fuckface. Asswipe. Douchcanoe. I can go on, and many of you have seen me do it. That's salty, vulgar talk which I use pretty fucking constantly...I just grab them and start kissing, I grab them by the pussy and you can get away with it too...the word pussy isn't the offensive part in there. Something you knew a month ago but somehow forgot. I guess the republican party just grabbed you by the pussy until you voted for Trump and they got away with it too.

I see you posting that your only reason for voting for Trump was his new found anti-abortion stance. Your. Only. Reason. I see that you trust him to take away this settled law while ignoring other issues of settled law. And that your deep concern over the unborn did not lend itself to deep concern over those already born and living in this world. The refugees seeking safety, for instance. If only they hadn't been born yet, they might have fallen in to your reason for voting. I see that's what only reason means. Do you?

I see you blasting the left wing Hollywood elite. While voting in a reality TV star (and after voting in an actor in the 80s) and sharing Mike Rowe's EPIC TAKE DOWN OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS! I see that your problem isn't with celebrities sharing their political views, it's with celebrities not sharing yours.

I see that you are unhappy with your economic situation and that you voted for him to bring back manufacturing jobs. While he wore clothes made in China, after hiring undocumented workers and using cheaper Chinese steel to build his buildings. I see that republicans are pro business, anti regulations but somehow he is going to regulate and tax businesses back in to manufacturing products here. I see that you believe this but I am having a hard time understanding how both things can be true. Less and more regulation.

I see that you are in favor of a wall. I see that you want to keep our borders secure. That the undocumented immigrants are ruining our country. But the largest increase of undocumented immigrants (or illegal aliens if you are having a hard time following) entering the country right now actually come from Asian countries and just overstay their visas. So why do you think Trump focused on a Wall between the US and Mexico and not on the real issue?

And I see you on my own feed. Liking my posts when I call out the bullshit on the left and ignoring or arguing with me when I call out the bullshit on the right. All the while trying to say you didn't vote for Trump just because of that R. Okay...

So the media wants me to see you. To understand your frustrations. To acknowledge your hurt. Okay. I see you. I've seen you all along. I just don't think you realized how much I've seen. And now you should know that I will keep watching. It's up to you to show me something different.

Conventions...

Okay, so we are finally through the two weeks of political conventions.

I really went back and forth about watching this year. Especially watching the RNC. I am not voting Trump. I will never vote Trump. There is nothing that can be said or done that would make me think voting Trump is a good idea. I am in no way shape or form open minded about Trump. I think a vote for Trump is irresponsible. I think it's dangerous. I do not believe he has the temperament to lead our country. I do not want to imagine a world where our foreign policy is lead by a man who, according to his own wife, if you hit him he hits back 10 times harder. Any slight, no matter how slight, he responds to. And responds with unequal measure. If you cannot handle someone talking about how small your hands are without freaking out you should not be left in charge of the military. Just shouldn't. And let's not really even get in to his businesses. I mean, to put it in a Trump sort of way, I prefer to think of good business people as the ones who don't have multiple bankruptcies.

I am going to vote for Clinton. At this point something catastrophic would have to happen for me not to vote for Clinton. My Bernie friends are SCREAMING with outrage over the fix being in. I could argue with them about those emails not showing what they think they show but arguing with a true believer does no good. There is a reason they are true believers. I don't happen to agree with what they agree with so we will not see eye to eye on this one. I will not vote for Jill Stein (and I voted for Jill Stein 4 years ago, she has changed, going after the Berners and the Far Lefters made it impossible for DOCTOR Jill Stein to simply answer Yes to a question about vaccines. It turned in to a mess of an answer including big pharma and Monsanto and weave and bob and dodge.) I will not vote for Gary Johnson. Now I like Johnson. I like him personally. I actually like him politically. To a point. And as a social liberal, fiscal conservative I probably line up with him more than half the people who are protest voting for him. But I don't agree with the Libertarian party on a multitude of issues. And like it or not, a third party is not going to win this election so any vote their way only (as far as polling looks right now) increases the chance for a Trump presidency. And I will not do anything that makes that more likely to happen.

I know a lot of people think it's wrong and somehow immoral to vote for Clinton just because she's not Trump. But to me? It is a solid and perfectly moral choice to make. And in fact, those voting for anyone who makes a Trump White House more likely are, in my opinion, the ones making the immoral choice. Clinton might be flawed, I have said since this cycle started she's too hawkish for my tastes, but she's not even close to Trump as far as flawed goes. Not even close. And either Trump or Clinton is going to win. You want to make change with third parties? Get down with your bad self, I've voted third party for a lot of positions. They are out there. Read your voter pamphlets, hell run for fucking office as a Green Party or Libertarian or Constitutionalist or what ever...but this election? The presidential election? Third party is not going to win and your protest vote means nothing except one step closer to a Trump White House. And at least one, and up to three spots on the Supreme Court. So, please, take your moral outrage and park it in the corner and think of the fact that we just got marriage equity last year. ONE YEAR. It's still fragile. Please look at states dismantling Roe v. Wade by bits and bites. Please understand that Mike Pence was one of the first to sign a religious discrimination...oh excuse me...religious freedom law. I'm voting for Clinton because I'm voting for the Supreme Court. Scalia was put on the bench by Reagan. You know Reagan right? The man who was president before a lot of you were born? Yeah, that's how long a Justice sits on the court. That's how long they sway decisions. That's how important the court is.

So, all of that out there, there was no real reason to watch the conventions. But I like to watch them. I like to hear the rah rah speeches. I like to see the hats. I like to watch the excitement of the people who were chosen to attend. I dig them.

Usually.

I did not enjoy the RNC. It was horrible. The ugliest convention I can remember ever watching. They were only a few pitchforks short of an ugly mob. "Lock her up!" instead of "Burn the witch!" but very much the same vibe. And the vision of the United States they believe in? Terrifying. No wonder they are so angry. I am not sure how they had the guts to leave their homes and even go to the convention. I mean bands of roving criminals in the street, terrorist attacks around every corner. I am not saying we don't have issues, but come on, we aren't living in Armageddon just yet. We aren't even close. But hey, have no fear, (or actually have LOTS of fear but you know what I mean...) here's your candidate to tell you that HE can fix it. Just him. All by himself. He's the only one with answers. With solutions. And they are the greatest answers. Believe you me. He knows all of them. Including the fact that when he is sworn in we will have LAW AND ORDER! Our streets will be safe again! Which made me wonder, do his voters understand what he just said? They've been screaming about Obama instituting Martial Law for the past 8 years and now they are cheering it? Policing is at the state and local level. Not the federal level. Sending in the National Guard is what he would have to do to restore LAW AND ORDER! Does he know that? Do they? Do they even understand it?

Either way it was a dark, dark convention. His kids did a good job speaking. Though I still wonder if their mothers get tired of everyone giving him all the credit about how well they turned out.

The DNC was a mess at times. Bernie Sanders' supporters yelling down speakers. There weren't as many there by the end, but they were loud. Losing isn't easy. Losing when you are a true believer and you really believe you were robbed is harder. But it doesn't mean I was okay with them being rude. I cannot abide by rudeness. If I had been at the RNC convention I would have listened politely to the bullshit being spewed by a few of those people. Being polite is free. And you might just learn something. But this is actually not anything new with the Democrats and one of the reason I find them as a party to be incredibly frustrating. They are always so worried about being inclusive that quite often nothing gets done. There needs to be a point where you mark you differences and move along.

But overall the feel of the DNC, the themes of the DNC, the atmosphere of the DNC was soothing. It was like a layer of aloe vera on the scald marks from the week before. The messages of America is already great, yes it can always get better, and WE can do that. We. Us. Stronger Together. That was the overall arch. And yes, it's in direct response to the I, Me, Only Me, themes from Trump. And I am okay with that. Showing that this is why it's different is valid to me. The joint messages of being against both bad policing and being bad to police. They are not mutually exclusive. If you believe all lives matter then you should already be holding black lives matter and blue live matter in your heart. Taking care of our military. Honoring our military and the sacrifices they make. It was very patriotic. It was moving. And most of all it wasn't terrifying.

There are big problems in the world that need solved. Scapegoating isn't going to fix them. Finding someone else to blame because you aren't as successful as you wish you were isn't really going to make you more successful. Hate doesn't ever fix anything. Life is complicated. There are a lot of moving parts. We need to fix a lot of things that are broken. But I cannot fix things while hiding under my bed in fear. And I will not hand the keys over to a man who thinks building a building is the same thing as losing a child on the continuum of sacrifices made.

Because that's what Trump did in reaction to the DNC. He talked about how he wanted to punch the speakers. He got in to a spat with the parents of a solider who lost his life protecting those he was serving with. His Vice Presidential candidate and his military adviser tried to pin the blame on Obama and his softness for rules of engagement for the death of Captain Khan. Who was killed in 2004. Let that sink in for a moment. He is now saying that he believes the elections will be rigged setting up not just his story for why he lost but a dangerous foundation for the people following him to try and destabilize our peaceful transition of power we are so very rightfully proud of.

So the conventions this year did nothing to sway my choices. They just reaffirmed why I'm making the ones I am making.

I'm voting for the Supreme Court.
I'm voting to keep the crazy man out of the White House.
I'm with Her because She's not Him.

And that is a perfectly good reason.

I know it's early...

I watched both of the Republican debates yesterday. I know it's awfully early to be watching this. The field is still too wide. There is nothing decided. Technically I cannot vote in any primary because I'm registered unaffiliated. But I still felt like I should watch. One of these people is going to get the nomination and I want to hear what they say when they are talking to their base, on their news station, in front of their audience, when they are trying to break through. I don't want to just get introduced to the them when they are trying to appeal to me, but when they aren't.

I also am not a fan of soundbite politics. I knew that the almost 3 1/2 hours of coverage yesterday would get trimmed down to the juiciest of bites today and that those might or might not have anything to do contextually with what was actually asked and even answered so I wanted to watch.

The first debate was quieter. Very small audience so not raucous cheering and booing like we saw in the second. And not a lot of cross talk between candidates. This group seemed to at least be somewhat aware that though they are running against each other for the nomination they are running in the same party.

Things I took from that one:
Rick Perry is doing better this time than last. But he was heavily medicated and recovering from back surgery last time so that's not a huge stretch. He is REALLY interested in border security. That's pretty much it.

Carly Fiorina came ready to throw down. If she could insult a few people or the entire group of "progressives" in her answer she was thrilled. She was also very composed and ready. But I still have to ask why they drop the "in to the ground" part off every time they announce she ran HP.

George Pataki was asked a question leading with "you are the only pro-choice republican candidate..." so pretty much the finish to this is "bye, Felicia..." Sorry, George, not sure why you came out tonight.

Rick Santorum is still Santorum and ready to fight gay marriage, though it seems everyone else is pretty still about that one being settled. But you know, he's not ready to allow the Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage anymore than Lincoln was satisfied with Dred Scott...which actually made me say out loud to the TV, "What the fuck? Seriously? Gay marriage is equivilant with a ruling that black people are property not people? Are you high?" So yeah, Santorum has no shot of getting the presidency. Sorry, dude, but you have to appeal to a wider swath than who ever it is that you appeal to.

Jim Gilmore. Well now I know who Jim Gilmore is. Sort of. I mean, I had to go look up his name just now because I honestly couldn't pull it, all I could think was, "the other guy...used to be a governor of ummm..Virginia?" So yeah, he didn't make a huge impression.

Bobby Jindal. When asked why people should vote for him when his own state can't stand him you sort of understood what Fox believes his chances are. He is trying to take the hardline stance. One of those being that there should be no hyphenated Americans, and anyone who immigrates here should be forced to only speak English, so there was that...

And then there was Lindsey Graham. This man must never make it to the Oval Office. I'm not even super comfortable with him knowing where the Oval Office is to tell the truth. If he were elected president we would be going to war. Like now. And forever. He was very clear about it. Said it over and over again. No matter the question he would pivot back to war. Just scary as fuck.

Over all they are all going to repeal Obamacare (though what they are going to do about the millions left uninsured was left unanswered), tear up the Iran deal (though how they think they are going to get a better one was left unanswered except, we just will), defund Planned Parenthood and fight ISIS/ISIL either by more air strikes or by WAR BITCHES!! CONSTANT ONSLAUGHT OF WAR!

In my opinion if there was a winner it was Fiorina. Perry maybe came in second.

Then the main event and I won't break down each of them. You all were more likely to have watched that one. Just my main takeaways...

Man, Fox does NOT want Trump in the race anymore. They built the monster and are now trying to figure out how to take it apart. He's having none of it. The opening salvo of "take a pledge to support who ever gets the nomination and swear fealty" struck me as awful. Especially when you have some really divergent beliefs over the 17 candidates. How can you say you would support any one of them? Crazy. When Trump makes the choice that strikes me as the least insane and most thoughtful there is a problem in the room.

Scott Walker was asked about abortion and made clear that he is not backing down from his no exception to rape or health of the mother stance. I wrote about that particular bullshit addendum here a while ago, so I wasn't surprised by his stance, but I am surprised he has the fortitude to stand by it. And to then drag Rubio over to it as well. The Planned Parenthood debate rages on...

Jeb Bush seemed a little out of sorts to me. Is it because we all (well most of us) think his brother wasn't the brightest bulb in the box that we now look at Jeb through that lense or is he really not that bright? Like he's barely keeping up with the rest of the class?

The only candidate asked about race was Ben Carson. So that's not racist at all... I mean everyone needs their one black friend to tell them how all black people feel about things, right? Just had to shake my head. The man is a neurosurgeon and seems like a nice guy but he is not ready to be president. Just not. If he wants to be in politics he should maybe start smaller and get at least a little bit ready?

Rand Paul yells a lot. Like A LOT. And he yelled at as many people as he could. He and Chris Christie basically re-enacted the debate Guillani and Ron Paul had last election cycle about surveillance so that's obviously not going anywhere either. He also took a shot at the "hug" from Obama that Christie got during the hurricane Sandy time. That shit makes me crazy. You want to talk about what is dividing the country? It's shit like that. The man was governing a state that just got hit by a massive natural disaster, the President of the United States is there and offering support and the federal dollars that his state needs and you all are upset because there was a moment of friendliness in the face of disaster? What the actual fuck is wrong with you people? Seriously...

Kasich came out well I thought. Seemed thoughtful and like someone who might possibly find some middle ground in issues. He obviously had home-stage advantage too, but the fact that the crowd liked him (unlike Jindal your state hates you from the early debate) so it was interesting.

The candidates were asked about the standards, immigration (BOO! WE HATE IT! BUILD A WALL! Let's watch Bush get uncomfortable because he has a more nuanced take on this); ISIL, (BOMB THEM! Mock the well established fact that people without options are easier to radicalize than people with jobs and opportunities); Planned Parenthood, (Defund them! Investigate them! Make them an excellent fundraising point!); Obamacare, (Repeal and replace the same fucking thing we've been saying for years and haven't done or come close to doing or come anywhere near finding what we would replace it with!); God, (He loves Republicans and not Democrats and will tell us exactly what to do everyday we are president and God Bless America, just look at how we are being persecuted for our beliefs as we stand on this stage invoking God and his blessing on our country and candidacy and nobody finds this odd, see the persecution??).

The things I found most interesting and it was clear in both debates, Fox seems to know exactly who they want the front runners to be and questions (tone and content) seemed to show that. They might have all faced somewhat challenging questions for them on perceived weaknesses but the difference in level was interesting. Watching the first debate they really seemed to want Fiorina and Perry to come out well, and they mostly did. The second it seemed like they really wanted Bush to make a strong showing but he didn't help them out at all. They wanted Trump to flame out not thinking that it's his flame outs that people seem to love. And why is it okay for him to slam Rosie O'Donnell but not Megyn Kelly? You have to be mad when he's an ass to the less attractive lesbian if you want me to take you seriously about him being mad at the smoking hot news-personality. I think Rubio came across well and Kasich. I still think they (and the dems) should be more worried about Rubio than they are. He's young. He's smart. He's got a good back story. He's got Florida. I think he's a challenger.


Oh Huckabee and Cruz were there too...yeah.

Quick dash of politics...

So this morning I posted a Rock the Vote video to my timeline. In the video they have people talking about why they are voting, what their issue is. I liked the idea of it. I think we are horrible voters in this country. We don't do it in large enough numbers and we are rarely actually informed about who and why we vote the way we do. Just a hint, picking a party and voting for all of them is fucking ridiculous. And truth be told I would rather you stay home and don't vote if you can't be bothered to actually do a bit of research as to why you are voting the way you are.

Anyway...I got a notification of a like and when I clicked to see I was taken to the original posting of the video and got to see a half dozen comments about it. Basically what it boiled down to was the video was too liberal. The people stating their reasons were Hollywood types, and you know how those conservatives hate celebrities, why I believe it was Ronald Reagan who once said...."Ted Nugent, my boy, what can we do about all of these actors and singers saying political things? Maybe we should call Clint Eastwood and get his opinion."

Anyway...

So all of the things these celebrities were turning out to vote for were liberal issues, not conservative. Like women's rights and deforestation and education reform and prison reform and...wait? Why are those things liberal issues? That's just stupid. It's like back in the days of Bush the younger where the conservative party decided they were the party of family values and people just let them get away with it. What? Like liberals don't care about their families? Are you now trying to tell me that conservatives don't care about education? Because I'm pretty sure the majority of the people I have seen not happy about common core have been a little more to the right. That's education reform.

And guess what? Turning out because gun control is your issue doesn't mean you are left or right. You can be for MORE gun control or LESS gun control. Whichever way you go, it's your issue. Find the candidate that agrees with you and look at what else they agree with and then decide if that's who you are voting for.

GMOs are on our ballot this year. I will be voting on GMO issues. I have a strong opinion about them so I will vote. But just by my stating that you don't know which way I will be voting. Just that I will. (yes, I know those of you that know me know exactly how I will be voting, but that's beside the point!) There are ballot measures, candidates, issues, potential laws so many things that need decided. It's not a liberal issue or a conservative one to say look at your issues and then vote! Sheesh...but if you insist on viewing a video and deciding you don't like it because it is encouraging a lot of liberals to go out and vote this fall my suggestion to you is to make that point when you repost it and encourage your conservative friends to educate themselves on the issues and vote as well.

Educate yourself.
Get yourself armed with information.

Then rock that vote!

Can you cut that on the bias?

It's a ranty one. Just to warn you.

Okay, so I was going to stay away from politics for awhile but I have to post something that has been bugging me for a week and I just can't hold it in anymore.  It's all about bias and how it colors your world and in particular how you are ruining things by letting it do so. Or in particular one thing. Which I will get to in a second.

Bias is really interesting to me. I'm always fascinated to see how it plays out in life. Reading yet another book right now that talks about how we make judgements based on biases that we might not even realize we have. I've read a lot of books like this. I've read a lot of articles about this. I find it incredibly interesting. I also really try to be aware of them when I am talking to people about their beliefs. The more strongly biased they are in one direction or the other the less likely you are going to be successful in changing an opinion.

I also know that I have my own biases that color my thoughts and I know that I have some I'm not even aware of. And when I become aware that I have already made a judgement about something I try to figure out if it's valid or if it's strictly my own bias. As you all know there are some things that you are never going to change my mind on. I'm strongly biased in one direction. But there are other things that I am willing to look at other ideas and ways of thinking and shift. I lean left in my politics but I am much more centrist than a lot of my other left leaning friends. And much more centrist than a lot of my right leaning friends. And because of this I feel I am in a pretty good position to tell people to stop a certain behavior that is driving me crazy. Just stop it. STOP IT.

What is it? Ruining a joke. Political jokes to be specific. I want to point out something that should be obvious but isn't. You cannot just substitute one president or prominent political figure for another and expect the joke to work. Presidents and other figures have personas. Those personas work within a joke. Last week in my feed was a joke that was popular in the Bush era with Bush as the punchline and I saw it again yesterday from someone else. It's a clever joke all about word play. I'll link it here and another version here. Now this joke is making the rounds again but with Obama substituted for Bush. And it doesn't work. Let me tell you why and it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with personas and the story.

When you think of Weapons of Mass Destruction whose presidency do you think of? Bush or Obama? When you think of a President who would have to count on their fingers for a math problem who do you think of Bush or Obama? See? It doesn't work to drop in Obama. You can dislike the man and his policies but being a bit on the lighter side academically isn't part of his persona. It would be like if Mitt Romney had won the election and someone sent out this joke, "The Presidential luncheon took longer than planned as President Romney realized that Speaker Boehner had more croutons on his salad than Representative Pelosi and wouldn't move forward until they were redistributed equally."  Doesn't work for Romney because that's not his persona, it's Obama's.

And it works with all jokes. My brother sent me one today (the tipping point for the rant) that I originally read years ago as stupid things people ask airline employees. It was funny, even if you doubted the veracity of some of them. But being from New Mexico I can absolutely vouch for the general lack of geographical awareness of some of our fellow Americans. (It's the GIANT state between Texas and Arizona) But the version he sent me had been changed so every stupid thing was now supposedly said by a prominent Democrat in Congress. I get it, it's fun to make fun of politicians but now the joke doesn't work. It goes from being slightly unbelievable to completely unbelievable  From being a general oh my gosh, some people! To a specific, THOSE people. And it stops being funny. Because it doesn't work. It wouldn't work if you changed them all to Republicans either. I can't stand Newt Gingrich's politics, or smugness, or religious hypocrisy but I also know he's extremely smart.  A Gingrich joke has to focus on multiple marriages or overconfidence, not on a lack of IQ, or it doesn't work.

So let's all try to agree, when making jokes try very very hard to set your bias aside and make sure the joke works before you send it out.

For instance:
Jokes about chasing women: Clinton
Jokes about marrying women: Gingrich
Jokes about binders of women: Romney
Jokes about living with a lot of women: Obama
Jokes about misspelling women: Bush the Younger

My name is Denise Mastenbrook and I approve this message.

It's a Multifaceted Ranty Type Thing....

Okay so you all know that there are times when a subject has been sort of half formed in my brain for awhile and then the stars line up and I.MUST.GET.IT.OUT.  Today is one of those days.

On my Facebook feed over the past two days I have had the normal variety of this is what I/my kid/my pet did and isn't it funny/sad/disgusting status updates. But along with those I have had an abundance of preachy posts. There have been preachy posts about politics ('tis the season). Preachy posts about eating meat. And preachy posts about religion. And for the most part I have refrained from commenting on them as I usually do. Because I don't care who you pray to or what you eat. I do care who you vote for because it can end up affecting me, but I also know that me pointing out how very very wrong you are isn't likely to make a difference.

So for the most part I don't post when I see something I don't agree with. Or I limit it down to only pointing out when something is actually factually wrong (though I know it doesn't matter and they will ignore it or decide my source is too biased for them to pay attention to) or when I am feeling feisty. For instance, today....well I posted on a link a vegan friend of mine, Chris, posted. Because though her facts were accurate they were misleading. And I hadn't poked at her in a long time about her posts so I went ahead and did it. And I ended up asking her a question I had been meaning to for awhile about her lifestyle choice, actually not just hers but all vegans. But then I left the conversation because I know that we can't discuss her choices for long without me getting offended.

See, I have a lot of vegetarian friends. I live in Portland after all and I think we probably have more and more variety than most places. So I've been friends with vegetarians, pescitarians, octo-lavo vegetarians, vegans and meatless Monday wannabes. And people who are doing it for a variety of reasons. Some who are vegangelical about it and some who are militant vegans. Now my friend who posted today is newly vegan. And as I say about any new conversion, there is no converted like the newly converted. So she is posting a lot about her new lifestyle choice and that includes the vast array of "isn't this awful!" films that are out there. It's part of the conversion process. And I've seen them all before over the years. Even prompted me to warn people what I would do if they sent me another one.

So why would I be the one to get offended if we kept up the discussion? If I've seen it all before, and I've had these discussion over and over again why would I end up mad about it? Good questions. And we will come back to them in a second.

Last year another friend of mine made a really thought provoking post about how much she didn't like the word tolerate, or being tolerant of people you disagreed with. I would link it to you but she made it as a status update and I am so not searching through a year or so of updates to find this one. But the reason why it stuck with me was because Kat made the point in her post that to tolerate something you must believe that you are right and they are wrong. That just by saying you are being tolerant of someone who doesn't believe as you do you are being condescending. You are implying that you have the moral high ground. Ever since I read that post I have been really conscious of the times I have used tolerant or tolerate. It always makes me think now. (Sometimes I hate having really brilliant friends who can write a status update that is deep and thought provoking like that. It means I have to work too hard to keep up!)

So taking that tolerant thought line and going in to the posts from my friends about their politics, religion and eating preferences. When you end up in a discussion with someone who you don't agree with where are you standing? Are you standing on the other side of an issue and making your point or are you on a soap box full of righteous indignation preaching down to the unenlightened? And do you even know where you are? I will tell you that on the issue of gay rights I am on a soap box. I know it. I am fully aware of it. Yes, what you believe on this issue colors my opinion of you. I understand what you are telling me about your religious beliefs and it makes no difference to me. I can know that we are never going to agree and accept that. And be tolerant of your belief. Your ignorant not as good as mine belief.

So one of the political posts from a friend came with the tag line, "Even someone on the left could understand this." Even someone on the left. Let that sink in for a second. The implication being that people on the left are somehow mentally deficient. It happened to be a post about economics so I watched it. And he was wrong. I don't get it. It was all about trickle down economics and how it's good sound policy. Nope, sorry, it's not. It's good sound theory. But when we've put it into practice what we discovered is that people don't act like the model. Instead of trickling down they find bigger buckets to store the wealth in, like say, bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. And when another friend of his who leans left pointed that out he was met with the condescending, "you just don't get it" head pat. Don't get it? We lived it. Twice. And now the candidate you wants us all to vote for would like to give it a go again. Third time's the charm? But you see the basic stance there? It's the "I know better." There is no room for debate there. It's strictly a place of feeling superior talking to those they find inferior. And you get it from both sides (see my stance on gay rights).

Religion. Oh gosh. Here is the basic standard bearer of all "tolerant" things right? What's the most famous line you hear when in a discussion with someone about gay rights? Hate the sin, not the sinner. Is there a more condescending stance to take? Oh, honey, I don't hate you I just hate what you do. And because I hate what you do I am going to deny you the rights I have. But I'm very tolerant of you. So when I see the religious posts spring up I just walk away. Though I am always very tempted to say something I know that no good will come of it. We don't believe what the other believes, or doesn't believe as the case may be. There is no middle ground except of tolerance. Though I don't tolerate your religious beliefs. I just don't believe them. I don't care about your beliefs until they infringe on other people's rights.

So back to why I knew that I would get insulted if I kept up the discussion on my friend Chris' post. Because I know what she believes. And to believe what she believes (that meat is murder) that means that she believes I am a murderer. Now, I don't believe this. I think there is a huge and vast difference between animals and people. I know that the meat on my table comes from an animal, I know it had to die for me to eat it. But I also don't equate that to murder. I can have that argument in a lot of different ways depending on the person I am having it with. But I don't want to have it with my friend Chris, because I like her. She's funny and smart and a good mother and has a huge heart and is passionate about her choice to become vegan. And I like all of those parts of her. So I didn't want to get farther along in the discussion where she has to take the stance where she will tolerate my meat eating. I know that she does. I know that all of my vegan friends do. But it's human nature for that to hurt your feelings. When you really know that someone thinks less of you. So I don't pursue that line of discussion.

And I also know that my religious friends are waiting for my conversion and my right wing friends are waiting for my lean to shift. And I know they are doing it because they feel like they are right and I am wrong. And not only wrong but profoundly wrong. And less than. I've actually had people tell me that they knew what I believed they were just waiting for me to figure it out. Oh my....

So as we are hitting the full force of political season and as we talk about what we believe in passionately something to keep in mind is where you are coming from. Are you really listening to the other side or are you just being tolerant?

My stances:

Food. I don't care what you eat or what you don't. I'm an omnivore. I would be a cakevore but I'm trying to have more self control than that.

Religion. I'm agnostic. So both atheists and the religious get to be tolerant of me and I am accepting of both of you because I don't know which one of you is right. I just know that I don't know.

Politics. I lean left. Strongly. But I'm also pretty fiscally conservative. But in a left way. I think we should have the money to pay for new things which means we get rid of old things that aren't working and we look at our completely out of whack tax code and let those adjust as they need to. And as long as your politics don't veer off in to the crazy birther type areas then we can have discussions where I will listen to what you have to say and offer up my point of view. If they match great, if they don't, that's okay as well.

Gay rights. I will tolerate your point of view if you disagree with me.

Political Leanings...to the left...

Here we go.  Last week I gave you my top line take away from the RNC this week it was on to the DNC.  

There are a few overall things I want to touch on before I go on to the individual speeches. First off I was amused as what I have always felt is a difference in the parties was on display from the start. The main speeches of each convention were held between 7-8 Pacific time. This was to capture them during as much prime time coast to coast coverage as possible. And with the exception of Condoleezza Rice's speech starting early one night and the final night going a little long the Republicans held to this time slot. So I tune in on Tuesday and it's 7, then 7:10, then 7:20 and finally the first prime time speaker starts. Democrats have never ever seemed as organized as Republicans. It's part of why I have never considered registering as one even though my social values line up with them. I've always felt like they were too busy trying to make sure every voice was being heard to actually get shit done. 

The second thing is that I believe there is an advantage to going second. Between the fact that President Obama is running a re-election instead of an election and going after the RNC I think the DNC was able to tailor their message a little more. We spent a lot less time being introduced to President Obama than we did Governor Romney. There were some over arching themes of who he was through the eyes of people closest to him. But this seemed more in response to the RNC painting a picture of him that the democrats didn't feel was accurate. But there wasn't as much of the "He's a nice guy" theme that we saw the week before.  And by going after the RNC was over they were able to see what seemed to work for the RNC and what didn't and adjust on the fly.  Which takes me to the speeches.

The first night we got the Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro. He was a very dynamic speaker and didn't fall in to the same pattern that we saw with Governor Christie the week before. Instead of it seeming like a 2016 bid for Mayor Castro it really was a speech for President Obama. He gave his story. Which we hear variations of all the time. Immigrant parents, hard work, better life for their children. For a country that gets awfully freaked out about the number of immigrants who want to come here we still love a good moved here for a better life story don't we? Mayor Castro also started laying out the groundwork for the themes of the week. Strong middle class. We were going to see this hit time and time again. That we need a strong middle class. That people need to be able to see the possibility of reaching the middle class and the ability to stay there or move beyond.  And he talked about specific differences between the candidates. And here again was a difference we would see all week. He talked about specific programs instead of general themes. I think the democrats read a lot about how unimpressed people were about the talk of "hard choices, tough times" with no specifics that came out of the RNC and decided to get more specific. No numbers as of yet, but at least we were hearing about actual differences. I liked him, though I could just see future Glenn Beck shows featuring the Obama/Castro signs from the audience and his unique take on them.....

The next speaker was Michelle Obama. Again, she has an advantage over Ann Romney in that we didn't need her to tell us who her husband is, we already know. So instead she could talk about what she and Dr. Biden have been doing as First and Second Lady. She could talk about what the past four years have been like. She also gave one hell of a speech. Now you all know I wasn't as impressed with Mrs. Romney as I had expected to be and part of that was the hype surrounding her. I've heard Mrs. Obama speak before and I was expecting a good speech and she delivered. Now here is where I have to give the wry look and the commentary about after the speech. She spoke about her life, her children's lives and about the President. She talked about what it was like when they met, (yes the just folks angle that we all must hear about) and the choices that were made. She also stressed the strong middle class and the healthcare debate. It was a smart, strong, energizing speech and when she finished the crowd went wild. The week before when Ann Romney spoke they cut back to the NBC commentators who gushed all over themselves how wonderful she was, how great the speech was, how much of an asset she was to Mitt Romney and when Michelle Obama finished? The same group thanked us for watching and signed off. Typical Left Wing Biased Media.... (insert wry look here)

Okay on to the next night. Again with the Left Wing Biased Media on NBC which chose to show the opening night of the NFL instead of the DNC. Anyway...after a channel switch and the wait time for the start of the speeches we got Elizabeth Warren. I like Elizabeth Warren. I've been listening to her speak for years on the financial crisis and I think she was done wrong by the Obama administration. But she isn't a dynamic speaker. She's the college professor that you hang on every word she says and then you crack your books and want to learn more. She's the smart friend that we all wish we had. But she's not super energizing. She's the red meat we all say we want then find out it's harder to eat than the cotton candy we are used to. All that being said I really enjoyed her talk but it wasn't what the crowd was there for and I think they were all relieved that she only made them think about hard things for about 10 minutes. I would have liked to listen to her for longer but it wasn't the right venue for what she delivers. However....

Bill Clinton. Now here is what the crowd had been waiting for. Not only the type of speaker he is but for the man himself. And he went out and did a tight 20 minutes sticking completely to his notes...okay you know he didn't. I actually made a note in my phone when he was done so I wouldn't get the time wrong. He was scheduled to talk for 28 minutes and instead went on for 48. But the crowd wasn't complaining. They ate up everything he dished out. Myself included. And here, for the first time, we actually got hard numbers. I started to take notes to check up on them but stopped when I realized that there were lots of people who were doing it already and I could just double check their work in the morning. So I just sat back and listened. I loved when he said that we just needed to do the math. I use this line all of the time. Math is math is math. It's one of the things I liked about being an accountant. I love cross footing. It's when all of your columns come up with the same answer. It's when the math is right and it works.  And, folks, the math is not working right now.

He then touched on Ryan's speech from the week before and used what is one of my favorite lines of their convention when discussing the $716 billion in Medicare changes, "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did."  He also went on to speak about needing a strong middle class and bandied about more numbers on job creation and growth. The thing that amazed me was even though he went off script his facts checked out. Now this doesn't mean that they weren't spun and polished and cherry picked and all of the things that made them a little iffy in my book but the difference was I think they were spun and polished and cherry picked but they weren't flat out lies like the week before when I was yelling at Ryan. Yes, by all means make your party look good, but when you have to go on to say that your campaign isn't going to be dictated by fact checkers? Basically admitting that spin to win is fine even if you are lying? It's just not right. Well after speaking the crowd went nuts. Cheering for him like crazy and then they went over the top when President Obama took the stage as well and they hugged it out. These two have a complicated history and Clinton touched on it during his speech and the newscasters talked about it ad nauseam before he took the stage but right then, during that hug? While the crowd was screaming? You wouldn't have known. 

On to the next night. Since Clinton took Biden's spot on Wednesday we were going to get both the VP and the P on the final night. Due to some weather issues their big showy outdoor packed stadium/firecracker finale wasn't going to happen and we heard a lot about that. Which again, makes me a little sad. Shouldn't we care more about the context of the speeches? About the character of the person making them than if there will be fireworks? But on to the speeches. I have to admit I love when Joe Biden takes the stage. I've always liked the man but I always like that element of ...what will he say? that he brings to the table. Because you never know. Brent commented that reading about him he is one of those guys that is always on. I said if he weren't a politician he would have made a good Ad Man. He just wants you to like him and like what he is telling you.  

I thought his speech was very good. It was free of any overt Bidenisms. And when he spoke of the military? Well I'm sorry but you just had to tear up. Four years ago Biden brought the foreign policy experience to the ticket that Obama was lacking and the democrats made a point to stress this during this convention. And not just with Biden but with the entire ticket. Much was made over Romney leaving out mention of Afghanistan during his speech the week before. But I thought it was just as interesting to watch the Democrats mention the troops and war and foreign policy over and over again. It was interesting to see the shift between the two parties, traditionally the Republicans are heavy hitters in this area and the Democrats are not, so to watch the shift this year was interesting. But back to Biden. When he speaks and gets emotional you believe he is feeling it. Or at least I do. It doesn't seem planned, it doesn't seem like he is putting on a face he wants you to see, he is just who he is. His speech wasn't a barn burner but it was emotionally satisfying. I think a concentrated effort was made to reign himself in a little after the shackle speech a few weeks ago. It was solid. 

Then on to the man of the hour. I've read a lot of mixed reviews over this speech. But isn't that the way of Obama? When I hear him speak I think, strong and intelligent while other people I know think condescending and arrogant. I think smart they think snob. I see reserved they see aloof. Where you finish is all about where you are starting. I think part of the issue for the people that were disappointed is that he isn't as dynamic a speaker as former President Clinton is, and he wasn't as energetic as he was four years ago. Personally I liked the tonal shift he came out with this time. Four years ago he was all about Hope and Change and the optimism that was overflowing from him in to the crowd and then well...reality set in. 

I know the Republicans hate HATE to hear this and think it's a cop out but the economy he inherited as president was bad. BAD. And it was about to get worse. And you can say all you want that it wasn't Bush's fault because he wasn't president anymore and I will roll my eyes at you all I want. Because that's not fair. I think Bush the elder was a decent president. I think when you look back at the economic crash that pushed him out of office you will see that it wasn't his fault. It was the patron saint of the Republican party Reagan's fault. It was his wonky economic policies that caused the issues that Bush had to try and fix. And he got a really good start on it when he was pushed out of office by Clinton who then got a lot of credit for the recovery. See how that works? It's all tied together. You don't walk in to office with a clean slate on day one. You walk in with the mess or the benefit that the guy before you left. 

And Obama was left with a mess. And I think the President we saw speak on Thursday was a reflection of what that does to a person. I think he came across as more solid, as more realistic, as flat out more presidential than he did four years earlier. So though he didn't light up the room with the momentum to DO SOMETHING BIG! He cast the glow of we can still do this. We have it in us to be strong, to make changes, to do the hard work that needs done and here is what it will entail. He spoke in more generalities that I would have liked but in more specifics than we usually get so that was nice. Again, I think the going second part helped here, he was able to address some of what was said at the RNC and to speak to his own points. He cast the clear division between what the theme of the DNC had been, either going forward with the plans he has been setting in place or going back to what we had four years ago. The same policies that put us here. It was a solid speech. It was calm and strong and as I said, presidential.

Now it could be my own bias is too strong, Obama wasn't the guy for me in 2008. I watched him skeptically. I didn't think it was his time, so maybe I just liked this speech more than that one because I like the man better this time around. But I think it was more that it played to what I want from a candidate. I don't want to hear how nice you are, I want to hear about what you are going to do as president. And I completely understand that the sitting president has a huge advantage over the challenger because only one of those men really knows what being president means. 

So what did I think overall? I think the main difference that I saw in the speeches is that the democrats they chose to speak really believe Obama is going to win while the republicans were split between wanting me to know that Romney is a really nice guy and jump starting their campaigns for the next cycle. I think that was as telling as anything else that came out of the conventions. It was a different feeling. The speeches on the RNC side were "I did" while on the the DNC it was more "the President did." I thought that the RNC did an excellent job in getting their, "Mitt is a really good guy" message out there and not as good of a job at getting concrete idea on what they will do out there. I also, as I've mentioned, hated the Ryan speech and the blow back that facts are for liberals message they seem to be hitting. Facts are facts. Math is math. Lies are lies. Now give me something real and true or hush. I will give you the spin, up to a point, meaning I will say that even if it's true it's still spun but if you flat out lie to me? I have nothing for you there.

And now we have two more months. Two months of hard campaigning (thank goodness I don't live in a swing state) we have the debates and we have the hard push. It should be an interesting ride to the finish and at this point the race is too close to call. 

Should be....umm.....fun? 

Political leanings...to the right....

Okay, even though I am still feeling a little less than inspired right now (figured out part of the blahs were the beginning of a cold) I want to get this blog out of my head before the DNC starts next week and crowds out my impressions of the RNC.

Yes, I watched the RNC on television. Mostly just the prime-time keynote speeches. A few of the rest (thank you PBS for showing all of the speeches instead of just two a day) but mostly those were on while I was cooking dinner so I didn't absorb as much from them as I did the main event speeches of the evening. So those are the ones I am going to talk about and give my impression of how they went.

Now, as you all know I lean left in my politics though I am registered as unaffiliated I admit I am so socially left that I have a hard time with the Republican party as it stands today. Brent and I were discussing it this week, after I shared with him an NPR story where they interviewed formerly prominent Republican politicians that had been forced out of their positions by more hard line Tea Party candidates. These guys are the moderate Republicans, the ones I am more likely to vote for. The true socially liberal, fiscally conservative people, not the ones that bandy about terms like compassionate conservative just because they think it makes them sound better. As the two parties move more towards the edges they are leaving this wide berth in the center that just seems ripe for a third party to settle in. One that cares more about financing things in the ways that make the most sense than in a pledge that a man named after a muppet forces you to take before you ever even step foot in office and actually SEE what needs done. One that believes freedom means freedom and not just in the areas we say so, but in marriage equality, pregnancy choices and the like. But, alas, we aren't there, we are stuck with the two parties and watching them drift farther and farther apart.

So on to the RNC last week. I will take it night by night and give my top-line impressions. Governor Christie came out and started it off with a bang. Started what off? Why his candidacy for 2016 of course! What else could it have been? I think he might have mentioned Romney twice in his speech? Most of it was all about what he had accomplished in New Jersey. And that we were in for some hard choices and tough times. But he never really got in to what those might entail so I have to think he is waiting a few years to let us in on the details. It was a good speech, a solid speech but it didn't really move me any closer to what THIS candidate for president had to offer me.  Though he did mention that he trusts and likes Mitt Romney. Which was to be a recurring them over the next few nights.

Next up was Ann Romney who as expected just ripped her husband to shreds, he snatched her up at a high school dance and forced her to live in a basement,  he was never home, he was always at work leaving her to raise 5 undisciplined boys on her own, but that's okay because women, we are made to do more work for less appreciation, am I right, girls? Okay, that's not exactly how it went, but I have to admit I wasn't impressed with her speech, though I know a lot of people were. Including every anchor on NBC. I think my biggest problem was that she had been built up so much, eloquent, secret weapon, wonderful speaker, that I was expecting an Elizabeth Dole level speech and I didn't get that. What I got was a woman who is clearly in love with her husband who thinks we should be too. She trusts him. He is a good man. He is such a nice guy. And you know what? I am sure he is. This is my own bias showing through here, but every Mormon I've ever met has been Canadian levels of polite and nice so I have no doubt in my mind that he is as well. And she also said something that was repeated throughout the week, not only in speeches but in interviews with other prominent Republicans, you might not agree with Mitt's policies but you have to admit he's a nice guy.

Okay, swell. He's a nice guy. But if I don't agree with his policies why in the hell would I vote for him? Didn't we all fall for this once before? "He just seems like a guy you'd want to grab a beer with." I heard that over and over when Bush the younger and Gore were running against each other. And it drove me nuts. Then go grab a fucking beer with him, but don't make him president! Okay, Mitt seems like a nice guy, then like him all you want but if you don't agree with his policies then don't put him in office. That's just silly.

Anyway, she also finally hit the success thing on the head. This has been driving me nuts all election season. Why did he want to downplay the fact that he has money? Now, during the convention they spent a lot of time trying to say that the Democrats demonized his success, and there might be some of that (though I think it's more how he got his money and the amount of taxes he has paid) but be honest here, you know he has been running from it as well. Finally Ann Romney was owning it! He's a success and this is a good thing...but then she had to go back to the "we are just folks" well.  I am really tired of hearing about that basement apartment. About eating ramen and tuna. Because there is nothing behind it. In an earlier interview (earlier in his career) she mentioned that they once got so broke they had to sell stock. Let that sink in. Because for most of us "just folks" there was no stock to sell. Once Brent and I got so broke that we...well...we scraped by with what we had until payday. And that once was really once a month. Sometimes twice. That's the difference. Safety nets are great things. Don't try and pretend you didn't have one. Be grateful and talk about how we all can get one as well.

She also mentioned that they didn't have a fairy tale marriage, they had a real one. Because she had cancer and MS. So they have suffered which makes them real. All that shows is that disease doesn't play politics. Republicans get sick as well as Democrats. And I am glad she is doing well. And I am glad she had the healthcare and the money to get sufficient treatment. I just wish they could see that it does make a difference. Yes, everyone gets sick, but the options you have for treatment are different depending on how much you make. Tell me how you are going to make it okay for everyone in this country. How you are going to make sure that everyone who gets one of these terrible diseases has a chance to get the best treatment without it bankrupting them. I am glad you are healthy, but what about everyone else? This is what I want to know. But that's not Ann's place to tell me, she's just here as a character witness for her husband, who is a nice guy that we should all trust.

So the next night I missed the beginning of Condoleezza Rice's speech because I wasn't watching PBS and she went on a few minutes early. But I got the main thrust of it. Again, not a whole lot about Romney there. And even less about the president she served under, which is sort of amazing to me. Maybe in 2016 they will allow his name to be mentioned more than just once in a convention and only then if he is seen in the company of his father. But again this was a great speech. Rice seems to have something about her that let the whole Bush mess slide right off her. I like her, and you all know how I felt about him. I think she might have been throwing her hat for 2016 right next to Governor Christie's. Her speech was just as you would think it would be. Calm, eloquent, firm. She spoke of the problems in the world and that to help fix them America needs to lead. Which is great, but the Romney/Ryan ticket is a little light on foreign policy experience, maybe a Rice/Powell ticket in 2016 would be stronger.  (yes, I know I am back there again, but seriously, that would be a TICKET folks!) At the end of her speech, though I disagree with a few things in there I was ready to vote. The problem is I was ready to vote for her, not Mitt.

And then the big ticket speech of the night. Paul Ryan took the stage. The policy budget wonk was going to come out and dazzle us with actual plans and numbers. Right? This is why he is on the ticket. Because he understands what needs to be done. Here was going to be the red meat of the "hard choices" we had heard about. And then....well...then. This is where I started talking back to the television. I'm sorry, folks, but when you play so fast and loose with the facts that Fox News feels the need to post about it on their front page you have a problem. Just repeating false statements over and over doesn't make them true. Pretending that it was all Obama's fault and listing out things to "prove" your point that you had a hand in defeating or passing? It was just silly. And it made me mad. Because you know and I know that there are those out there that believe what they hear and never take another second to actually do the research themselves. So the lies become their truth. And we are stuck with people trying to argue from a point of fantasy instead of fact. Yes, he was dynamic. Yes, he fired up the crowd. But if I am supposed to trust Mitt Romney so much why is his running mate standing on stage lying to me? Though who ever his speech writer* was that came up with the line "trying to sail a ship on yesterday's wind" needs a raise. I had to stop mid rant and tell Brent how much I liked that line. It's pure poetry.  Not enough to stop me from coming away from Ryan's speech with a bad taste in my mouth but a great line nonetheless.

On to the final night! First off the worst kept "secret" guest of the night. Clint Eastwood took the stage and...I still have no real words for this. Just a head shake. Okay, wait, that's a lie, I have the words I used when I told Brent about it since he missed the whole debacle. Mean. Crazy. Rambling. Disrespectful of not only the sitting president but also of the candidate he was there to endorse. And I have to say that if it were done on the left the right would be having a field day with the "Hollywood elite" angle. Watching Ann Romney the next morning on news shows as she was asked her impression of it I was reminded once again how polite and nice most of the Mormon people I have met are, "We appreciate his support" smile pause....subject change....

Then Marco Rubio took the stage and gave another good speech. This one with three moments that stuck out for me. First off he hit that "disagree with his policies but nice guy" angle again. He also quoted the Bible and was met with a resounding silence in the room. He was describing all of the good things that Mitt Romney has done and relating it to his success and his ability to do more because of that. "To whom much is given, much is required." Oops. Overstepped there, Marco. This is not a room that wants a reminder that the Bible tells them that they need to help out other people. That if you have a lot you should give a lot. You know, like pay your share of taxes instead of using every loophole you can find and making more if you are in a position to do so. I am always puzzled at how the party can blend their Ayn Rand beliefs and their biblical ones, her principles of looking out for #1 work fine for an atheist (like herself) but not so much for a Christian who is told in the Bible to take care of people who need it. And I think the silence he was met with showed this. Then he also misspoke and hoped that our children would know that we chose a path of more government and less freedom. I felt badly for him at that point. But as anyone who has given speeches knows it's very easy to drop a word or switch a sentence and end up saying something you didn't mean to. But nobody seemed to notice that so on to the man of the hour....

And Mitt Romney gave me exactly what I had expected him to. Not a whole lot. No plan. No numbers. No indication of what hard choices I was going to be expected to make under him. Just a lot of how Obama had failed. How the proudest moment we all had was in voting for him (Ummm, Mitt, I'm pretty sure the people in that room didn't) and that now we should just move along. Well, I need more than that. Because actually President Obama repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell which was a pretty proud moment for me. He also gave the order to kill Bin Laden which as much as it feels wrong to celebrate the death of someone else was a pretty good moment for me as well, if you can call staring at the television listening the president with tears streaming down your face and a sense of "finally" coming over you as you hear your neighborhood start to come alive with people whooping and cheering a good moment. No wait, it was an excellent moment.

There was talk about becoming energy independent. Okay, great, how? And how are you going to achieve that while still protecting the environment? Because that's important to a lot of us. There was talk about forcing China to change it's money policies. Oh really? You can do that as president? That's new. Standing by Israel. Have you ever wondered how many Israelis vote in our elections? Because they seem to be a pretty sought after demographic. And a threat to Iran. So we are getting out of the two wars we are in right now and starting another? Fabulous. And doing that while cutting more taxes? Amazing. A mention about making abortion and gay marriage both unconstitutional, because the rights of the fetus are more important than the rights of the adult. And, of course, repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act. Because, god forbid, anyone but the wealthy get a chance to live out the rest of their real marriage when one of them gets sick. The rest of you are on your own. Good luck with that.

So what I got over all was that Mitt Romney is a nice guy and I should trust him. His policy choices might not be what I would want (and it seems as though they aren't) but I should go ahead and vote for him anyway. Umm...yeah, no. Unless and until you give me a strong numbers driven plan that shows me exactly how you are going to lead this country out of the mess we are in you don't have my vote. I understand that the RNC is really a rally point for the faithful but I would have liked a little effort in there for showing me why I should vote for you. More than that your wife loves you.

Next week the DNC. What do you think the odds are that I will get anything concrete out of that one? Yeah, that's my thought as well....but if the RNC was any indication at least I will get to see who is planning a run in 2016.

*Edit 9/8/12 After posting this blog I Googled the line and found that it actually came from a Louis L'Amour book.