Thursday, October 4, 2012

Good Thursday, Everyone.  Cool and sunny today, so far.  We did get rain over night.  Not much, I think; but enough that I will wait to do any outside chores till it dries out a bit.  I have spent the last half hour tending to my inside plants--the bay, rosemary, lemon verbena, patchouli cuttings, oregano, and Christmas cactus.  They all seem to be doing well though I am thankful the cactus can take a bit of neglect--it was way too dry.  I think I need to transplant it soon.  We expect temps in the 50s with overnight in the 30s for the next few days.  I have to take the stevia soon--maybe tomorrow.

I set my expectations for the Presidential debate considerably lower than the news talking heads and pundits but I have to say I set them too high.  I was totally unimpressed.  It was nice to see some animation from Romney but I simply did not believe his new-found empathy.  It was so out of character for him.  And I didn't see the specificity the pundits are purring about.  He was only specific about what he said Obama's programs entailed.  And Romney's Medicare statements boiled down to the notion that Obamacare was his idea to begin with and he can do it better so we have to destroy the program to save it.  Interesting that he comes out with that after months of using Obamacare to "prove" that Obama learned socialism at Marx's knee.  On Obama's performance--'lackluster,' 'listless,' 'uninspired,' and 'unconvincing' about covers it.  I will see how the 'net dissects it.

The best dissection of the "debate," comes from Margaret and Helen.  I can't follow which iteration of Romney is showing up at any given time either.  As I said before, if I were voting for chameleon in chief, Romney would by my chosen lizard.

These guys should really read their Bibles a bit better.  'Biblical' families?  I have looked at a couple of sites where various quotes support the notion of monogamy but to say the Bible comes clearly on the side of monogamy requires either editing out other possible quotes or interpreting the passage far more strictly than normal.  As so often has been noted, one can prove (or disprove) anything by what passages you select (or don't select).

I found Miller's Money Forever by way of Casey's Research.  His comments on newspapers, candidates saying anything to get elected, government (on all levels), and political parties strikes a chord here.  If he really wants to form a Cynic's Party with a platform of "I'll believe it when I see it,'  I am ready to sign up.

No comments: