It looks like Obama’s debate performance hasn’t really turned the tide of the race. There’s disagreement on that, but that’s something that goes without saying.
There are people who still believe the Earth is flat, someone having a different opinion doesn’t automatically make it correct.

Here are some shockers.
Wisconsin is tied 49-49 today. As has been the case in elections going back, an incumbent under 50% is in a hurtlocker. Undecideds break against the incumbent historically, no matter how large or small that group is. George W Bush in 2004 is the lone exception in recent times. Wisconsin’s also a state that’s had a fully functional Republican ground game due to the Walker-recall herpderp that’s been going on for years now. The brand has never been stronger there.

Romney’s personal favor-ability is up big time, Obama’s has fallen. Several polls bear this out. In some, Romney’s actually winning that. The trend is still clear- between the negative ads and Obama’s snide behavior in the debates, they’ve now seen Barry the politician. He’s no longer the sunny optimistic guy he was in 2008. In 2008 he had a new promises, he was going to heal the racial divide in the nation, he was going to cool down the Red vs Blue battle. He did none of the above, he inflamed all of that. Now he’s a negative ass . I think people are done with this guy.

In some polls the “gender gap” has been erased. I personally think that’s wishful thinking, we’ve seen a “gender gap” in the elections going back decades. (Note: The gender gap has a further breakdown, married women are more likely to be Republicans). What to take from it: is that there’s a shrinkage in the gap, right now the gap is very small. That is really bad news for a Democratic challenger.

Derp and Polls.
I’ve put up a post Re: the Anti-Rasmussen meme, to explain just how dumb that rhetoric is to someone that didn’t simply turn on the TV this month and accept what he’s being told. “Distrust Rasmussen? that’s cause you’re an idiot” http://captainobviousblog.com/?p=976

So this is what the liberals think the race looks like right now. 
2 days ago I went on Huff and Puff to see what their breakdown of the electoral map is.  One word: Denial.

North Carolina has been: Romney 52%, Obama 46% since the 18th. The “Obama slide” has continued now for a while. Even Juan Williams subtly admitted last night on FNC that North Carolina “might not be competitive anymore”. It’s easily leaning Romney, easily. Dems have been pulling the ground game there as well as R’s to focus it in other state. < That’s reporting that should convince you, if you want to toss out all polling.

Huff and Puff on the 24:
CO: O +1%
VA: O +1%
FLA: R + 1%

Now let me show you this. Using the gold standard:
CO : R + 4%
VA: R + 3%
FLA: R + 5%

Huff and Puff has O + 4 in PA. Rasmussen has it similar, as of 10/18. Truth be told, while I’d love for it to shift R, I don’t know if we’ll see it this cycle.

So here’s what I’ve done. I’ve stapled down the results. If there’s a tie and the incumbent is under 50%, I use the historical trend of undecideds breaking against the incumbent to give them a narrow win in the state. Note: I made this map before the numbers showing a damn TIE in Wisconsin today.

253 Obama
285 Romney


Lets factor out OH, PA, and IA as “too close”.
233 O
261 R   as of right now in my estimation.
Of course things can change.

This idea that Obama’s in command electorally is just bogus, and a media meme. If you’d like to see the depths of derp in modern liberalism, take a look at democratic underground’s web forum. That’s a sad bunch. They’re in panic mode every day over this.

The coming hurricane, an October Game-changer?:
I wonder if this could work for Zero, if he gets a “Katrina moment” where he “does things right”. He can make a big speech and take credit for a cleanup effort, he can really make it a campaign speech and politicize it like he did with Gabrielle Gifford’s deal or Bin Laden. The guy’s a pro at being a tactless braggart and politicizing things. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does that with this hurricane. I also wonder, if Chris Christie, governor wrecking ball can steal the thunder – or if Mitt plays well, or if this is just a “locking in” of the political cycle’s results while the media worries about a storm.

1st check in   3:30pm EST   10/17/12

-Candy Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. Not quite the 31 Raddatz did to  Paul Ryan, but real close. She also gave Obama 9% more speaking time. Raddatz also gave Biden more speaking time. I believe Obama had an advantage in the first debate too.

-Michelle Obama was video taped as one of the people clapping when they were not supposed to be. There were two bursts of clapping during the debate in the Libya-Mod moment. In one, in my opinion I remember a few people clapping. In the second, there was one person clapping loudly. It was Michelle Obama.

-Oddly enough some Gary Johnson/Ron Paul voters, particularly “single issue Gun voters” – are now flopping on their pledge not to vote for Romney. Why is that? Obama’s championing of an Assault Weapons Ban. I don’t think this is going to be huge in the polls overall – but in a close race where a few hundred votes can swing an election, and where a few thousand votes may have gone to Gary Johnson? Who knows. I know the “gun lobby”‘s jimmies were rustled big time by Obama’s answer. It was funny to watch him say “Welll, so the crimes being committed in Chicago are being done with small handguns…. /lets ban assault weapons.” Odd considering Chicago’s murder rate is awful, and the city’s gunlaws are VERY strict, to the point where it was slapped by the Supreme Court. It’s also got a ban on law abiding citizens carrying concealed guns. Their draconian gunlaws have not worked, (but they have disarmed the populace). Solution: do it all over the country.

-Crowley is backtracking after taking sides on the Libya deal.

-Captain Obvious Blog’s resident Journalism analyst “Neutral Man: Semi-Pro Academic” had some of the following words: “Sure, Crowley overall did a better job than Jim “where’s my stapler” Lehrer – but to insert an opinion and take a side in a huge debate like this? Leaning to sides in a debate is more or less “ungentlemanly”, to be totally subjective and take a side is something else. This is a replacement ref level debacle. If I were either campaign/party, upon seeing that, this is the last time she ever gets a debate moderator position. Ever. Inexcusable. Millions of people saw that – and the “correction”, false or not, in and of itself is bias in the extreme. Groups of voters don’t care so much about Libya or Obama’s position on it, for better or worse. What they saw was the Mod saying “No” to Romney. It could be hugely influential, and it never should have happened.”

-Obama claimed that  he called the Libyan attack terrorism from the beginning. The same Obama who went on the View and said it was a protest due to a video, who went in front of the UN and mentioned the video 6 times, failing to condemn it as a terrorist attack. Because Obama said the word “Terror” once, this somehow means he was implying it was terrorism from the beginning? F**king please. If you believe that, I have a several-hundred-million-dollar solar company to sell you.

-Obama’s comments on coal, oil, and shale permits were “interesting” too, in that they were deliberately misleading. Technically he had to do so. Romney hung a boat anchor around his neck with this question. I was surprised to see that it got 30 minutes of debate time. It was time well used, energy is a giant portion of our economy.

-Morning Joe, MSNBC’s republican apologist, said Romney didn’t blow it, but that he was “too forceful” on Obama. I disagree, if he didn’t act forcefully the base would have been upset, and awarded Obama victory.

-Now I think dials, panels etc are bulls**t, and influence peddling of the lowest kind. MSNBC’s went to Romney, as did Fox’s (we have just entered the twilight zone). The Fox panel’s member stated that he was sick of Obama “bullshi**ing us”. Video links will be up later.

-Something that stuck out to me: It appears that on these panels (especially so on MSNBC’s mini-panel), people mentioned that they liked Romney’s record as a business man. I heard it mentioned over and over again – that he’s balanced budgets, he has a plan for the economy, they like his track record. Honestly I thought those things about Romney were well known, basic, and old news by now. But it was clear that some of this audience hadn’t really mulled that over. Pontificating here? It looks like Romney reminding voters he’s a business man, and giving his vision and the methods of getting there – was really enough for people. “Business man, did a good job at it. He had plans there, followed them, ran budgets.  His track record shows this. Obama hasn’t XYZ. The track record shows this. Romney says we can do better, seems to have a plan. Done deal. Business man. Has a plan.” A lot of what they were saying really didn’t look any more complex than that to me. I’m thinking “Well, the economy, energy, Obama care, and foreign policy weakness seem to be the problems of today – Romney’s the alternative on all those things. Why were people hesitant in the first place?” Their hesitation on him probably has to do with his personal relativity and the amount of tar thrown at him over the past few years in negative ads, and in negative press coverage. I’d also like to remind the reader, he also failed to really excite the Republican base in either 2008 or 2012 primaries, it could also be due in part to this phenomenon. “Bad candidate but he’d probably be a good President” was the line often tagged to him.

- In the aftermath of the debate, I’m not sure it was enough to reverse the trend to Romney. As of today at least Gallup has Romney up 51% to 45%. I’ve routinely said unkind things about Gallup, I won’t back off here. Expect to see more fluctuating between now and election day. Rasmussen has Romney up 49% to 48%. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if Rasmussen has it tied 48 or 47 going into this final debate.

-Romney’s amping up ad spending in a few battle ground states. I wouldn’t be shocked to find out Obama sheds a few points in battleground states, to the tune of 1-2%, which is enormous at this stage of the game.

Thoughts on the next debate:
-This one is big, and I think Obama is in trouble. It doesn’t look he’ll have opportunities to talk about his biography.
-Expect Obama to talk about the Cayman Islands and China crap Re: Romney’s account. Expect a counterpunch from Romney. Expect a rehearsed canned bad joke from Obama.
-Expect more controversy after this debate.
-I anticipate Mitt Winning this one.

Obama (who is sliding in the polls in some states, VP made a huge gaffe recently, a tape of him ranting 6 years ago was released) comes into the debate distracted. Keep in mind his debate experience is menial. His debates vs Hilary were ones where Hilary was on defense the entire time. The spotlight was not on Obama. He then debated McCain, an extremely lack luster debater. Despite that he (in my opinion) lost the 3rd debate. Romney by comparison has had many debates, many in a brutal GOP primary race where he had to face Newtzilla. Now many on the left called that primary a joke, SNL saw fit to make fun of it several times, but the fact remains: They were tougher debates than Obama’s DNC primary in 08 where the focus was on Hillary.

I see this debate going a few ways. Here’s what’s rattling around in my head.

Possible scenarios:
A) Obama performs as expected, as does Romney.
Romney goes in boring, Obama offers ‘vision” and nothing specific. His rhetoric hasn’t changed since 06, I don’t see it changing now. I anticipate perfectly crafted vague rhetoric (really like his state of the union addresses) targeted at the gullible who don’t pay attention to his administration’s record. Obama throws in a few (very few- as it’s harder to get away with this in debate) straw-man accusations for good measure. Romney studders a little and delivers so so rebuttals. Romney wins on points in the debate, media claims Obama won because he hurdled over the expectations bar that they’ve been lowering for him.

B) Obama melts down.
Obama starts with the rhetoric, and Mitt blows him up over and over. Zero’s campaign has accused this guy of killing a woman via cancer. They accuse him of being anti woman (go back and watch his debate vs Ted Kennedy, see the question Romney posed to Ted Kennedy Re: Glass ceilings. My, Romney was so anti-woman. O.o ), all manner of other derp. Obama, distracted isn’t on his A game. Mittens crushes him the way he did to Newt in Florida. There will be soundbites.

The media spins this as Obama meeting the expectations bar. Mitt “did well” but “we have to see the other debates (so lets not give him credit in the mean time)”, or “The debates really don’t matter” – the meme they were NOT touting during the GOP primary. Romney might be accused of being racist by the typical racial agitators, or anti-woman by radical-feminists. The polls shift, the spin worsens. MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS etc go on “damage control”.

C) Mittens falls apart.
Obama answers the questions reasonably well. He has answers for things, the magic of 08 comes back after a 4 year hiatus. Mitt fumbles on himself, comes across as boring, doesn’t jab Obama, and can’t make anything stick. Mitt makes a gaffe. Mitt comes across as “not in touch”, validating the DNC’s meme (and the media’s) du jour.

In this case, watch the polls dip a few points. There will be another media coronation/victory lap in O’s honor if this happens. Enthusiasm on the right begins to wane, “Doomerism” shows up.

D) Good debate
Both candidates debate well, jabs and soundbites are even. Media declares Zero victory due to clearing the lowered bar. NBC and WaPo polls show shifts, most others show a tiny shift if any. Undecideds still undecided.

Recently a friend sent me this link, a video Ron Pearlman and Thomas Jane did:

In thinking about this, I realized I had enough for a blog post! I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed sharing it.

1) Thomas Jane made the best Punisher of the 3 films.
I personally feel he sold the role the best. I would very much like to see him reprise the role.
For those who were unaware, Dolph Lundren did star in a Punisher film once:

2) The Punisher, to me, is the hero/”anti-hero” that makes the most sense.
For me he requires the least “leaps of faith” or suspension of belief. I say this as someone that loves the “ridiculous heros”, an Ironman, Hulk. or the uber powerful last son of Krypton – Superman himself. He doesn’t have piles of money. He doesn’t have a super-genius intellect.  He doesn’t have some kind of cutesy ”sick nasty throwing knife trick” he relies on exclusively (even though a person with the pre-requisite physical gifts like super hand eye coordination and eyesight that are necessary to perform the feat of throwing a knife effectively over 5 city blocks – would be infinitely more dangerous with a rifle) or any nonsense like that. He can’t fly, eat bullets, use metal claws to climb, none of that either. He’s a former Green Beret with a mountain of experience when it comes to doing bad things to bad people. He’s got several sets of skills that allow them to do this, he’s a world class warrior, one of the baddest dudes on the planet.

3) His former occupation.
I’ve had the great privilege of having conversed on many occasions with men of Frank’s occupation. Many former Special Operations warriors live normal lives upon their retirement from serving our nation. Their neighbors usually know these men as the “quiet guy at the end of the street. You see him jogging from time to time – he’s in pretty good shape, especially for an older guy. Keeps to himself, doesn’t bother anyone.” Knowing what I do about these guys, I enjoy seeing them represented with their own hero, the one that gets the job done. Of course he is different from his real life counterparts in several ways, but such is the reality in the fantasy (read: not real!) world of comics!

4) “Justice.”
So many heroes, Kal-El and Batman included, are unwilling or unable to “kill” their villains. They would rather throw them in ComicGitmo or Super-Supermax, to allow them to escape for the 11th time, kill dozens more people, add a few more concurrent life sentences for their next 3 week stay, etc. As I understand it, the comic-book Punisher is sort of the same way. But in them Punisher films, he ties up loose ends. Frankie doesn’t have any silly rules that don’t allow him to stomp out villains like cigarette butts. Big mafia meeting at the local Italian restaurant that’s a front for money laundering? Frank has no problem crashing through the front door, and ventilating them with a Mk46 machine gun. In broad daylight, with 50 witnesses.

5) You don’t need to yell at the screen, Frank delivers.
I mulled over labeling this 4a! The Punisher films satisfy the movie goer’s appetite to see bad guys get obliterated. At the end of some vigilante movies you find yourself wanting more, “the bad guy got away”, or the feeling that they got off lightly. I know a lot of people were pissed off with how “Law Abiding Citizen” ended. The Punisher doesn’t let this happen, not while he can breathe.

6) No real mental road-blocks
The Sentry is a Marvel hero that doesn’t want to leave his house. In some comics, Bruce Banner does not like being the Hulk. Spiderman puts on mascara and does a Saturday night fever strut down the block. They cry, they stop being heroes for a while, etc. The Punisher? Everything he loves is gone.  He’s got no real internal obstacles.

7) Analogous to the Terminator
Think for a moment – other than the robot part and the things associated with it, what separates the Punisher from the Terminator?
-Iron willed determination to complete the mission
-No sympathy for opponents
-Good one liners
-Wide array of tactics used
-Explosions, mayhem, and gore
-No mental hindrances/non-conflicts

As a Terminator fan, having a former Green Beanie ass-kicker that’s practically analogous to the Terminator is icing on the cake!

The other day someone (who may contribute to this blog in this future) that will be referred to here by the handle: Neutral Man, Semi-Pro Academic, showed me a videos of a Creationist who has wasted spent a lot of time on his work. The evolution debate is one where neither side can declare definitive and absolute victory, as “we weren’t there bro.” Despite the fact that it has holes and there are legitimate criticisms, evolution is easily the more viable theory. This debate reminded me of an interesting “truism”… Many of those who identify themselves as evolutionists because “religion is silly”, believe in what amounts to creationism when it comes to economics.

What do I mean by economic creationism? In this theory, one is to believe that Government drives the economy start to finish, thus when rich corporate greed head fat cats “have too much money” (because we can be the arbiter of that), it must be because Republicans/”they”/Conservatives/WhoeverTheWhinerInQuestionDoesn’tLike is manning the faucett and simply distributes more droplets of concentrated GDP to them. They would practically have you believe that during the 1990′s, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich went up a mountain side, and when they came down from that mountain side, they built the “ocominy” in 6 days, having bi-partisan break on the 7th.

What is the “ocominy”? See the actually economy is where millions of goods and services are exchanged via the choices of consumers and entrepreneurs and yada yada. The “ocominy” is like the economy, only it can be regulated to perfection, Government runs the spickets by which to distribute the income, and there is no such thing as the demands of consumers – thus it cannot change. The “ocominy” grows when the mean corporate fatcats give it food/capital, and when it doesn’t get fed, the Government “has to” feed it. You simply turn a dial, and out comes happiness; but the mean people don’t want to turn the dial, because we have to raise taxes to turn the dial. Bill Clinton turned the dial by raising taxes (which must have been the cause of economic growth), fed the ocominy, and all was happy in the land. This line of thinking is so silly you would think that L. Ron Hubbard wrote it. Ironically many of the Hollywood actors who believe in that man’s writing also believe in these silly government-creationism ideas.

I will not waste your time in explaining the other theory in full detail. I will instead say: “Millions of people engage in the business process by choosing or not choosing goods and services, investing in businesses, and working jobs – in a complex ‘machine’ that has millions of moving parts.” They’re of the opinion that when politicians claim they can simply steer the economy in a direction they like, or create an entire industry because they like it (when investors were so confident about it they would NOT risk their own money on it, that’s not a good thing), and they can decree what the future is, those politicians might as well say this:

A good many other people are more economic-agnostic. Sometimes when folks are not familiar with the facts, and there are two sides who are very vehement about their own visions, they may reconcile this by defaulting to the middle. Research and having to make a call on what is right or wrong is hard, so by staying the in the middle one can claim a moral victory for the price of less work and less research! This is a “magic middle”, exactly the one referred to in politics. Imagine for a moment that Party A comes out and argues that we need to build a bridge (or high speed rail) over a canyon because it’s stimulus and it’s good for the economy, and it will cost $1 Trillion dollars. Party C comes out and says it’s ridiculous, we shouldn’t build the bridge, we don’t have the money, all that jazz. Well, members of the magic middle helicopter in and use their superior powers of logic and moral high-horsery to propose Plan B: Build half a bridge, pay $500 million dollars! That way no one is happy, except for those in the middle who have little stake in the argument. But this is preferable because  it’s “fair” in a very abstract sense that neither Party A or Party C got their way, and it helped the believers of Plan B sleep at night.

Who comprises the magic middle? It’s not the “middle class” as 95% of people see themselves as middle-class when polled. Besides, politicians looking to gin up fear for votes have long been telling us that the “middle” statistical category title is becoming non-existent anyway. The ranks of the magic middle comprised of people who are too busy or can’t be bothered to take a hard look at both sides and make a choice. It is also populated by people who are trying to appear virtuous by not really offending either side enough to earn their ire. Those in the “main stream media” who aren’t oconimic-creationists are usually Magic-Middle-Economic-Agnostics.
(By mainstream media I of course mean the fabled “MainStreamMediaMonster” the right keeps talking about. We’ve never seen it, and the definition seems to change from time to time as does its roster, as does its deeds… It’s never been seen per say, but this is the best artist’s rendition I’ve seen):

The MSM in particular is very fond of economic agnosticism. They have long tried to halve the well-intentioned but inefficient ideas of the oconimic-creationists, and the free-market-economic-evolutionists, glue them together, and proclaim victory before they ever see the results. I understand how it happens, and I understand why, but I’m inclined to laugh when I see it.

In conclusion: I look at Free Markets as very analogous to evolution. They incorporate the experiences of millions of organisms and their choices made over time. They’re not always “fair” in the abstract sense, as species can die out, especially ones we like. They are not perfect, as in life there is never a “perfect” anything, only trade offs- but both systems are the best things available.

The civilized world today is much safer right now than it used to be.
In several posts on this blog I’ve talked about diseases conquered, technologies invented and then spread widely across a large amount of the public, etc. I’ve brought up thoughts like this: “In the cave days, the guy who held and kept the best cave for himself had the best shelter, no one else could have it if he could defend it. He may have even been able to attract more mates due to the fact that he was “cave-rich”, and some would argue, unfairly so. Now housing is standardized, and options for it are enormous, it’s to the point where we’re extremely competitive on how to decorate them.”

Despite this people are, without a doubt, still being born with less than advantageous situations, and accidents do happen. Yes! Despite our technological advances, life still is not fair.

As you read this, there are people who are blind or deaf. People of all ages will be diagnosed with cancer. Parents will find out their child is developmentally disabled this week. A couple will find out they cannot naturally have children. Someone will find out their relative now has aphasia, likely due to a head injury, and they will have great difficulties communicating with others, probably for the rest of their lives. Some are born mentally handicapped. Some will be diagnosed with a rare disease, perhaps one that eats their flesh. You would think those with good health and blessed to be in good situations, especially in today’s world where we have so many goods services and systems to explore- would be  appreciative of what they have? (I mean, really appreciative, not paying lip service to the idea in conversation). You would be wrong in that assumption.

There are many videos on the web of idiots doing dumb things. But this one, for some reason sticks with me. Skip to about 25 seconds if you don’t care to wait:

I don’t understand why people take their good health for granted, their fortunate situations for granted, and begin to risk it, for what? It’s one thing to be horribly injured, and to risk it in pursuit of an achievement. Things like this happen on the battlefield. Many of those things you can read here, where you can see the Medal Of Honor Citations: http://www.history.army.mil/moh.html To a lesser extent (To be fair here just about, oh, almost anything-else is going be lesser by comparison)  we have sacrifices in professional sports. Shown here is Matt Stafford suffering what could be a grievous injury and playing through it. (Skip to 3:40ish if you’d like).

In stories like these, sacrifices were made for a reason- such is understandable and often admirable. But when you’re say, jumping in front of a bus, for no reason? I can’t help but shake my head.

Are you an authority or leadership figure in your place of business or personal life? Ever find yourself in the midst of a busy day saying to yourself: “How can I make this task harder?”
You’re in luck! I have a simple guide for you!

Leadership for idiots: How to ruin a task
-Give vague expectations! Step 1 for getting bad results is not giving your team members a picture of those end results. Protip: Do not hesitate to substitute grandiose generalities in place of specific and realistic goals.
-Do not give directions. If you want it done a certain way, this is the perfect opportunity for a guessing game. Even better: If you wish to lay the guilt onto someone retroactively to “make a point”, particularly about your own skills or talents? This is a good avenue to do it.
-Leave out details.  People LOVE surprises! :D  Especially ones that could have been avoided beforehand with a simple heads up.
-Planning is for chumps. Consider leaving out planning from the get go. It’s true that things seldom work as planned, they rarely survive first contact with reality… so consider leaving out the process completely, it will enhance the chaos.
-Express a lack of confidence in the person before they do the task, or while they’re attempting it. Later, if they succeed, imply that this was your plan all along, that this was some kind of test.
-Don’t hesitate to play games
-Use manipulation instead of direct and clear communication
-When abdicating duties, do not pick someone suited toward the task. If you have a world class _____ on your staff, have someone else do it! This is sure to have people complain.
-Always confuse enthusiasm for ability
-Serious flaws in the mechanics of an operation are to be ignored if someone brings them up before it begins. Why fix it? Well that’s for winners and people who DON’T want projects to go well over budget and over time.
-Do not show appreciation on completion for the task. If your task was completed successfully, doing this is sure to make the next one harder!
-When mistakes are being made, never directly acknowledge it and talk about causes. That’s called teaching, and that’s for those who want to convey knowledge and better the lives of others.
Your goal is to say “I told you so.” Sit them down and rip them up! A good student is one that can learn from even bad teachers,but a majority of people are not good students. A good teacher is one who can handle the problem cases TOO, so avoid this at all costs!

I hope this helps you in your journey to making the lives of your underlings a living hell- and adding complexity where it does not need to be!

I personally file this theory I have under “Bro-Science”. Check it out:

I understand it this way: As the temperature goes up, the planet cools off via volcanic activity. After reading this I mulled it over in my head, and soon I saw very anecdotal evidence suggesting that it may be true.

A few years back it was very hot in May. I remember everyone groaning and wondering how hot it would be the dog days of August! Surely it was going to be unbearable. Unless my memory hiccuped and failed me here: This was the year Iceland’s volcano blew, sending clouds of ash into the air, preventing air travel. A Volcano somewhere that was long believed to be dormant erupted, and in Hawaii, a 50ft plume of lava was shooting into the air like a sprinkler for a respectable amount of time. In a few short weeks the temperature fell. It felt like spring in the summer time from that point on.

Is the theory sound? I guess that’s for more actual scientists to figure out in the future. But for now, when the temperature seems unseasonable hot? See if anything pops up concerning volcanic activity- and wait!

Politics
I believe the ’12 election campaign is best understood when given the context of the past 4 or 5 years.

2008 A war weary nation reeling from a financial market collapse votes in Barack Obama.
Remember some of the things that helped this happen:
-John McCain took public financing, Barack Obama raised an astronomical amount of money. The money advantage was enormous.
- The democratic candidate got glowing press coverage on a level most had never seen before, it was shameless. They were practically his damn publicists.

- Obama wins in 2008. Pictures of future Occupy Members were in front of the Whitehouse with communist flags on TV. I find it amazing that millions of people were killed by people toting that flag, and yet it is not viewed the same way as the German’s Swastika. Screenshots were posted. No one in the media cared.

Diane Sawyer was hammered that night too by the way. I just tried to find the video on youtube, shockingly the video is not there. However Ebaumsworld has the one of her drunk on inauguration night’s celebration, so that one will have to suffice.

-Pundits said: The GOP was lost in the woods for a generation. It was a mandate, the center right nation had lurched left forever, it was going to be 40 years of liberal rule with Republicans stuck to small pockets of the southern US. The news cycles were faster, this was all different (the typical memes of those who ignore history, by the way), Obama had brought change, the country was different. Our financial crisis was going to be “fixed” by reforms based in European programs, that failed to prevent the same crisis in Europe.
-There is one positive I took from his election. In hearing Juan Williams choke up during the inauguration‘s coverage, I found out just how much Obama’s win meant to some people. Powerful stuff, to say the least.
America wanted a black President, badly- I just believe it’s unfortunate that he happened to be Barack Obama.

2009 Obama does appearances with NJ Governor Corzine, Virginia’s Creigh Deeds, and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Every single one of those candidates lost, and in heavily blue states. These elections were really a referendum on Obama; Scott Brown of Massachusetts won Ted Kennedy’s seat (Which I believe had not gone Republican in around a century) with the express promise of voting against Obamacare. Scott Brown would be breaking the Dem’s filibuster proof “Do whatever we want” senate majority. In the cases of Brown and McDonnell, both of these men were behind in the polls at the beginning. Scott Brown surged in the last few weeks to his election, McDonnell won 59-41%, the largest margin ever for a Virginia Governor. Pundits on the left wrote it off as a fluke, as insignificant. Some reduced legitimate criticism to racism, impugning the motives of many people who had in fact voted for Obama not very long ago.

2010 Obama sticks to his guns after the 09 elections, he doesn’t pull a Clinton and dance back to the center. He gives a speech or two throwing a bone to the “middle”, and continues his course. Well, we all know what happened in 2010. The Republicans took the house back with 63 seats picked up. Pundits said that 25-30 seats were most likely, with 39 being a possible high. Funny in retrospect. There were pickups in the senate too. I remember tuning in to MSNBC to see what they were saying. They were in full panic mode. They said Rand Paul was going to run the GOP- Where the hell did that come from? They said they were going to overturn Roe Vs Wade? (From one house of congress?) I thought the host lady looked like she was going to cry at some points. I couldn’t believe the hysteria, I’d watched the campaign and the candidates, the things they were talking about were not at all on the radar for these representatives. I guess it’s understandable, the “Teabagger” movement, so mocked by some in the media had become the tidal wave that CRUSHED the democrats at the polls.

2011 Democrats held on in areas that were traditionally blue. In many of those central US races they were able to outspend Republicans by enormous margins. They ran demagogic ads more or less implying that reducing public sector union pension benefits was going to send firefighters out on the street. Oddly enough, when Obama related items went in front of voters, they voted those measures down.

2012 Ramping up. SNL did its job pillorying the GOP primary candidates. Pundits were tearing them up too, calling it a “Personality Contest”, ignoring the fact that the Democratic primary 08 was a contest on what flavor the DNC wanted their candidate:
-Experienced Change in Hillary
-Angry Change in John Edwards
-Hopeful Change in Obama.

Over the course of the primary season, the candidates improved. Even Mitt Romney (nick-named “Mittens” by some on the web) started to learn how to act “mean” when necessary. Newt made a spectacle of destroying moderators; the debates were a contact sport at times, and the base was getting excited.
Whitehouse surrogates like Media Matters (Which occasionally writes news casts for MSNBC and George Sargent of WaPo – take a look at the DailyCaller for more on this) did their job, again attacking the GOP candidates. The “old-media” shadowboxed along with them as always. The GOP was told that the party was too divided, a brokered convention was very likely, that Obama was a lock for November.

Eventually Mittens effectively wins the primary. To the shock of many, he was beating Obama in likely-voters poll as of a month ago. The fact that the poll was Gallup left demagogues unable to roll out the usual baseless criticisms they have about other polling firms like Rasmussen.

The left forgot a crucial detail about the race: Voters may not like Mitt Romney, but his only real task is to be a better alternative than Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter’s sequel. Mitt is now raising money- and at this point he’s just about matching Obama in funds raised, which is shocking. Obama is however behind on where he needs to be- despite going to a record number of fundraisers, and in areas heavily sympathetic to him, he’s already been to the best wells for water.
It’s so bad that the DNC has more or less told their own house and senate candidates they’re on their own for raising funds, every dime is going to Obama in this cycle. The idea that Obama is a “lock” is just lubricious.

Bonus
-Here’s an update on Wisconsin’s recall election: More people voted for Scott Walker in the Republican Primary there (even though voting for him was absolutely unncessary as he was on the ballot already, voting for him was purely symbolic) than voted for every Democratic candidate combined. In fact only roughly 650,000 people participated in the Democratic Primary, when the oft touted number of signatures for the recall was around 1 Million? In many states a gap of 350,000 people would warrant an investigation, however “nothing to see here” will be the meme of the day. Here’s a hint: Organized labor (read: Unions, the ones who give millions in member’s dues to their Democratic party) helped gin up this astro-turf recall. Big labor was involved, as was the Whitehouse, their PACs, millions of dollars at work – predictions said Walker was in a lot of trouble. Word on the street now is that the spending has pretty much stopped, the DNC considers the race lost.
Apparently the DNC has also given up North Carolina and Missouri recently.

If anyone (including talking heads) tells you the Dems have this in the bag, it’s usually for one or all of the following reasons:
1) Zero background in getting political candidates elected at any level of public office
2) Lives in a heavily blue area, with an extremely high sample of liberals comprising their friends
3) Those who occasionally tune in to see Obama’s carefully-crafted-for-moderates-that-don’t-follow-him State of the Union infomercials
4) Those who are emotionally invested in his reelection
5) Single issue voters focusing on a social “issue”.
6) Working/living in a areas known for liberal group think, read: Most in the media (For those unwilling to recognize how badly the media slants left, 88% of the Media peep’s donations in the 08 election went to democrats. These results are typical), leaders of labor unions, Ivory tower intellectuals-particularly those in the soft fields, the entertainment industry, artists and creative writers, younger college age kids (particularly in the northeast), etc.
Go figure the above people won’t exactly understand how most people in a traditionally  *center-right* nation are going to vote, when their prism is extremely skewed toward left-wing bias.

It’s amazing, many of the above will swear up and down they’re moderates and cite some kind of idealistic rationalization to “proove” how they must not be bias, but you are. When put on an actual spectrum of American voters they’re healthily left of center by a good margin, just as I clearly am on the right side of it. The difference is, I’m aware of it and I have no issues admitting it. Despite the labeling? I ask you, the reader, to listen to them. The left often applies labels like “that’s a conservative view” to someone after they say “I think Obama’s performance on Jobs will be the issue in the election” in order to more or less end/dismiss the debate right there. It’s how and why the AP labels a right leaning politician, they want to dismiss them as “partisan”, as if left leaning people do not also have ideologies that they rigidly hold to as well.

End conclusion:
This election will likely be close, and it’s a long ways off. Barack Obama is in a lot of trouble, by many metrics.  His awful job performance will be hard to ignore for people who have to pay their bills. The DNC is in trouble with House and Senate elections.

Update:
Apparently Mitt Romney is actually holding pace with Obama in raising funds for the election. Obama, the best fund raiser in the history of Presidential races- raised and spent 3 times as much money as John McCain did in 2008. He is raising less money, the Republican candidate is not taking public funding (as McCain did in 08, and Obama said he would- then didn’t in 08), and he is raising quite a bit of coin. Team Obama will have its hands full with a “more fair” “distribution” of donations.

This is an “oldie but goodie”.
A while back some darwin award contestant  jumped into a polar bear exhibit at a zoo. For those who did not have the Discovery Channel growing up, and those unwilling to read the post I wrote not too long ago, here’s some sparknotes on the size and destructive power of a polar bear.

Exhibit 1: This photo conclusively proves that Polar bears are absolutely enormous. See the key word in that name is “bear”.

Exhibit 2: I don’t know what kind of animal carcas that is in the bear’s mouth, but there’s a saying concerning polar bears… “What doesn’t kill them, dies horribly.”

Exhibit 3: That’s a whale.

Exhibit 4: People are fond of saying, “Omgah, polar bears are so cute and cuddly!” Yes, yes they are. They’re also world class death machines. Now look at how cute and cuddly they look with blood smeared on their face (from something they just ripped in half) and grimacing.

Now, some woman thought it would be a good idea to hop over a fence and swim with several of these things. During feeding time. No joke. I can’t even… I just can’t; I can’t.
Guess what happened? (Spoiler alert: She won nature’s lottery and survived).

It gets better. As they tried to rescue her from the enclosure? The bears wanted to keep playing.
They actually nipped her to try to keep her in the enclosure as they tried to pull this lady over the wall!

How is she still alive? Jack Hanna’s best guess:

“Maybe they already fed and wanted to bat her around some, because let me tell you something, that polar bear, in one split second she would’ve been history,” Hanna said.

This is the thing that makes the event really significant to me… There was huge outcry from people preemptively stating their opinion: that the bear should not be put down, that this woman is in fact a moron. The voices echoing this sentiment were numerous. In an age where people are increasingly becoming less and less responsible for their own dumb choices, where others are to subsidize their failures, and mobs point out scapegoats for perceived injustices they may not even have actually experienced? At least this time, reality won.