For those of you who think Romney's positions on abortion may have shifted slightly, here's how that looks graphically based on the following scale:
9: Supports an Amendment to the Constitution(Personhood Amendment)
8: "Firmly Pro-Life"
7: Supports Pro-Life Legislation
6: Overturn Roe v. Wade
5: Abortion allowable in case of Rape, incest, or health of mother
4: Eliminate Federal Funding of Planned Parenthood
2: Will not push for changes to legislation
1: Pro-Choice

In the famed Florida fundraising speech, Mitt Romney was pretty optimistic about the economy:

“If we win on November 6th there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back, and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy.”

So – win the presidency, and the economy takes care of itself. This line of thought behind closed doors differs sharply from his “the economy is failing and we need new leadership” rhetoric from podiums across the US.

Romney also hammered home his "5-point plan" again in the third and final debate last night. The keystone of this plan is Romney's continued insistence that his presidency will create 12 million jobs.

12 million! Interesting choice.

Here's why: a report from Moody’s in August that 12 million jobs will be created by 2016 no matter who is president. With these two statements, you have Romney stating, essentially, “Put me in the chair and I will watch things get better.”

The bullish jobs claim is also less impressive than it sounds, according to the Washington Post: “This pledge amounts to an average of 250,000 jobs a month; in recent months, the economy has averaged about 150,000 jobs a month.”

To be fair, Obama’s policies also favor him in his second term, and might similarly favor Romney should he win. Sanctions against Iran would continue of their own accord, with (presumably) equally effective results. Obamacare goes into full effect in 2014 without intervention. Though a Romney presidency would sputter at this, he could blame Obama if it proves difficult or begin to highlight why it works “just like Romneycare did” if it succeeds.  A perfect bump-set for Romney to spike down, regardless of the outcome, in 2016.

Romney literally needs to coast into the White House with 50.1% of the vote to be, arguably, a terrific president. He’ll be the President who

• Created 12 million jobs by sitting on his hands.
• Brought Iran to its knees - by doing nothing more than continuing policies.
• Watched helplessly, gnashing his teeth at the Federality of it all as the previous administration’s healthcare plan went into effect and waited for results to either shrug helplessly and criticize democrats or compare it favorably to Romneycare as an example of why Romney works for America. A win-win!

Romney’s 5-point plan has been loudly decried by democrats as a series of empty platitudes. But let’s be honest. Why get specific when to be successful you literally have to DO NOTHING?



Tony Markey is a blogger and one-time member of Harvard University's prestigious applicant pool. "Maybe Next Time" award-winner.

Warning: Your IQ may actually decrease during viewing.

Let's face it: when Alien Laser Wombats finally arrive in their flock ship from Zabulon 7, they will probably not like us. 

I know you know what I'm talking about. Your first thought, like mine, is probably "Nicki Minaj!", am I right? Enough said!

Yes, clearly Nicki Minaj is a hole in humanity's swing that could mean our immediate demise if noticed by invading aliens.

But I kid Ms. Minaj. 

In addition to the preceding comical reason, here are six VERY SERIOUS REASONS the aliens will hate us and choose immediate incineration of our species over any kind of communication via their advanced nose-antennae. Any one of these six reasons is damning evidence against our species and will catapult relations into a no-holds-barred War of the Worlds contest(starring Tom Cruise, who is now 88 but still look, remarkably, 35ish) for the existence of humanity.

1. Money. 

As an intelligent species, If you want stuff, here are behaviors that make sense:

• Asking for stuff, 
  
• Sharing stuff equally with others according to need
  
• Exchanging stuff I need for stuff you need.

What does NOT make sense is creating a system based on slips of paper that have no value except the value we place in them, then trading those slips of paper as if they are valuable. 

This grown-up Pokemon card system of ours called "currency" is laughable, and our application for membership to the United Interstellar Agency would likely be laughed out of the Pan-dimensional Stadium that is their headquarters. In fact, we'd be lucky if the Alien Laser Wombats  even sponsor us for membership in the UIA. 

I can see the catcalls now as a lowly human steps forth to argue their cause for membership in front of the Radderglaks, Ehedripons, and Gzklungas. No doubt the Ehedripons would be the first to lay on the sarcasm by opening their elbow-plates derisively and braying "What do you hold up as proof of your advancement, humans, and with what gifts do you propose we accept you? Hand us large sums of your useless paper money and see if that works.  HAW HAW." 

Money: an  embarrassment for humanity.

2. McDonald's. 

Any race that admires food that makes their bodies slowly  bulge into putrescence is a race to be shunned. Our predilection with fast food in general and McDonald's specifically makes us the addicted drunk of the universe. 

Meeting the universe's soon-to-be homeless drunk is one thing, but when that drunk exhibits such clearly self-destructive behavior, don't expect Aliens to take us to an AA meeting. They'll just put us out of our misery. Wombats are very unsympathetic towards fast food. Or so I've heard.

3. Poverty. 

According to our own United Nations, if we could redirect the world's expenditures on ocean cruises, ice cream, perfumes, and pet food, we would have enough money to:

• Eliminate world hunger and malnutrition,
  
• Immunize every child worldwide, 
  
• Supply clean drinking water for everyone, and 
  
• Achieve universal literacy.

The fact that we haven't eliminated ANY of these problems on so small a planet will not go over well. Aliens will likely see this as a complete failure of common sense on the part of humanity, and insist that, like animals that can predict earthquakes but aren't smart enough to get in a doorway once they know it's coming(I KNOW RIGHT?), humans should just be put down, already.

4. War - Oh, and there's the offing of one's own species. That's brilliant. So not only do humans poison their bodies, trade bits of paper for things of actual value, and ignore ever-present solutions to the largest threats to their mortality, they actually hasten their blind date with death by offing each other prematurely.

It couldn't get worse. Okay, it is worse. The history of war is the history of civilized, organized countries offing each other in progressively more organized ways. That is, until America screwed it all up with our revolution and the hit-and-run tactics. How are honorable men like the English supposed to sip tea during warfare, standing in straight lines eating their crumpets whilst tea-hating Americans hide in the bushes and shoot guns at them?

Again, the Americans have continued to advance the selfishness of war, first by developing the Atom Bomb, and finally by developing the Predator Drone. Finally, Humans can off each other without even having to do much more than seeing an image on a screen and pushing a button. 

It's like a video game! 

Let's hope the Alien Laser Wombats haven't spent as much time hating each other as we have. If they have, this is likely to be the shortest game of Space Invaders we ever play.

5. Wal-Mart. 

So this place exists: A giant store where their employees strike against them, the store actually drives out community-based businesses and inspires companies to outsource their manufacturing to other countries entirely. 

Wal-Mart may even make you fat. You don't have to tell that to her:

This place exists, and it's called Wal-Mart. The fact that this exists and people LOVE IT is another example of why aliens will look at us like we are water-skiiing dogs. We may as well strap boards to our feet and start barking.

It would be worse if the aliens could look inside a Wal-Mart before they meet us. They'd be looking into our evolutionary history. They might not like what they see. 

Maybe they'd be distracted by the low-low prices long enough for us to organize our military.

6. Alcohol 

Alcohol is another form of self-poison, but viewed from the outside, this one is even more hilarious. What if, in addition to poisoning your body, you could actually make yourself more stupid? If this sounds great, you are undeniably human. Alien Laser Wombats really COULD insist, with a war on the planet, that they were "just trying to help us along."

Good news! Alcohol is also the reason we win our war with Alien Laser Wombats. Unlike the unrealistic depiction in War of the Worlds where a simple virus takes down an extremely advanced life form(bitch, please), alcohol is the substance that gives humanity the edge it needs for Tom Cruise to exact our revenge. Despite the obvious weakness alcohol indicates in our species, we have developed a tolerance for it, and in a flash of brilliance, Tom Cruise will be able to challenge the leader of the Alien Laser Wombats to a drinking game, winner-take-all. 

Of course, Tom's skills from "Cocktail" will also be on display, so we'll win any supposed contest with style points as well. Alien Laser Wombats are not so good with the bottle flips.

Sometimes when speaking I see and notice lacking in listening but it's not understandable type of thing.

This common problem for blog-speakers and language-presenters, relating to well audiences based upon wordings and nuance.

Interest. Importance. Magnitude of many things left completely unanswered by those for the hearing not reaching or affecting.

So still so much wondering as to whether it's audience reaching or poor writings (or talks)that are culprits to catch for this? 

So many followings on twitter, yet "no" still answer to most pressing question of effective good influence for people in social media circles. So interesting considering muchness of gravity belongs to these writings I write.

So misunderstood, or at the least lack of hearing is happening. Always working on style of personal writing in hopes to engage readers in such special non-threatening ways as to touch their bones deeply and hearts and minds.

I am full of thankfully that you're reading this. Thanks then.

Our stark political choices in November:

Vote for a guy who

• Tries to represent everyone in America, 
  
• Makes mistakes, 
  
• Thinks too much, and
  
• Seems to have a good heart, 
  

Or vote for a guy who

• Represents the top one tenth of one percent of the richest people in the world(and votes that way), 
  
• Changes his policies on important topics practically mid-sentence
  
• Insists he has specific plans but refuses to give specifics to his plans
  
• Doesn’t even try for factual accuracy in his statements
  
• Kinda seems to be a jerk
  

The choice isn’t exactly Batman vs. Superman here. It is, nonetheless, clear.

How does marketing make us stupid? Psychologist Tim Kasser, in The High Price of Materialism, finds that when we clamor for more stuff and more things in our lives, our lives are not better: “The more materialistic desires are at the center of our lives, the more our quality of life is diminished.”

Of course this is bollocks – a “qualitative” assessment based on what sociologists believe are our “real” desires is probably a bunch of scientific hocus pocus. Americans’ love affair with capitalism pits our noblest desires to be happy and do good against our basest desires to be at what we perceive to be the top of the economic food chain. Put another way: Mark Twain said he was against millionaires, but “it would be dangerous to offer me the position.”

This is where marketing comes in – appealing to our basest emotions, making us stupid, stripping us of logic and reason is what marketers strive for. Is it really our brains telling us that we need a Shamwow, or is it the attraction of having a beautiful car and the feelings of satisfaction, enjoyment, and superiority that go with it? Is it our brains telling us we like Bud Light, or are the buxom Bud Light lasses really what we’re thirsting for?


Excellent 5-minute video on the subject based on Kasser's book, below.

The USADA has banned Lance Armstrong from competitive cycling for LIFE. To many, this may seem like one more athlete caught cheating and disgraced forever. To the media, this is just another story of one man's fall from the heights of accomplishment to embarrassment and defeat. Today the USADA released more information on the case, saying that Armstrong was at the center of the most sophisticated and professional doping program in recent sports history. 

But make no mistake. This is not just one man's battle. In sanctioning Lance Armstrong, in striking his successes from the records of cycling, the USADA is conducting an attack on American values and insulting a sport filled with athletes who are, frankly, too good be just "runners," more fit than Usain Bolt, and more powerful than professional Football players. 

Armstrong, with his uncanny ability to flex his muscles over and over again in a certain way on a rider-powered vehicle with two wheels in tandem, is obviously a national hero. Why, then, is he being vilified as someone who simply injects drugs into his veins to enable him to win?

He is so much more than that.

The USA is known for "exceptionalism", an ability to succeed despite every obstacle placed in her path. We were founded by patriots who wanted to change the status quo. An organization(Britain) told them what to do and how they would do(pay for) it. Our forefathers achieved the unthinkable, conducting an armed revolution, liberating themselves from this tyranny. They paid a price in blood to ensure that their descendants would enjoy the freedom of quick, easy success in the financial markets without having to pay a higher effective tax rate than 13% in any fiscal year or release more than one year of their tax returns, even if running for Presidential office. We fought and died for this privilege. We are the benefactors of this important lesson from our history, one that Lance Armstrong embodies, literally: no one can tell a person-person or corporate-person how to treat their body. Especially when that body is money.

Similarly, Lance Armstrong has struck a blow on behalf of all Americans. He is a patriot, a pioneer. The USADA tells him what he can put in his body. Lance Armstrong said "NO!" to this oppression. Britain told our forefathers that they had to pay taxes. They said "no", too, insisting that the body of Americans would not be weakened by other countries' rules. The USADA told Lance Armstrong how to treat his OWN BODY, and his act of defiance should serve as an inspiration to us all. I'm practically saluting here.

Lance Armstrong is the Nelson Mandela of our time, isn't he? Paving the way for future generations despite the horrible atrocities committed against him by deleting his name from the record books and publicly smearing his name by accusing him with hundreds of pages of so-called evidence and the testimony of dozens of so-called witnesses and the production of so-called incriminating "emails" and the nuisance of alleged "facts". Nelson Mandela spent years in prison to preserve his message of peace. Similarly, Lance Armstrong has been banned from riding a two-wheeled vehicle in international competitions that involve two-wheeled vehicles because he took performance enhancing substances. Well, allegedly. And then decided not to contest the charges, triggering the lifetime ban from competitive international cycling. Anyway, the likeness between the visions of Lance Armstrong and Nelson Mandela and the similarities of their evil oppressors is incredible. 

If you rearrange the letters in "Nelson Mandela", it even spells "Lanse Amdolne". For conspiracy theorists everywhere, this is damning proof of their relation and is clear evidence of an illuminati-driven plot to shame the sport of professional fast bicycle-riding. I mean, it doesn't get much clearer than that.

Another group that should applaud Lance Armstrong is women, especially pro-choice supporters. Women's right's supporters have long supported a woman's ability to control what goes in her body - Lance Armstrong is no different. Like all the pro-choice advocates before him, Lance Armstrong stands up for his own ability to control his body. And to the doubters, the Akins of the world who would say that an athlete's body has mechanisms to cope with such foreign substances, I say an athlete's body rejecting steroids occurs with as much frequency as snow during the Tour De France. In Miami.

It's time for athletes to rise up against these oppressors and throw their organic, natural, unadulterated, Epo-free tea into the harbor of hatred. 

We pay athletes to perform, regardless of their abilities in any other area. How can we justify requiring them to keep their bodies free of drugs that will turn them into freakish behemoths, cause crippling side-effects, or affect their mental capacities? The reality is that it matters not, for once the holy endorsement is gained, an athlete's intellectual capacity or knowledge of a subject is ignored as they become reputable purveyors of everything from to razors to tires to electric grills. As proud Americans, we buy as these things because we understand the importance of being athletically gifted in relation to one's knowledge of what makes a quality automotive tire. We also understand that how you got there, whether by pumping your legs up and down extremely quickly, fake-slamming another person's body to the mat quite convincingly, ruining lives through your success at being a corporate marauder and sending your money to Grand Cayman, or just having a sex tape where you can almost make out your face but the glowing eyes in the near dark is kinda creepy - however you got there, it's not important in the least. To the point, whether your initial athletic gift comes au naturale or as a result of jacking up your OWN body with pharmaceuticals makes no difference. It is your right as an American, just like the right to smoke pot, a right that is almost certainly referred to in the Declaration of Independence through use of the word "happiness". That's right, Thomas Jefferson had slaves, ergo  ganja. For those of us that studied history between blunts, there can be little doubt.

The USADA's attack on Lance Armstrong is therefore an attack on American Values. 

Lance Armstrong chose to give up his fight against the USADA, triggering the lifetime ban. Critics claim that this is an admission of guilt. Of course this is a lie propagated by the liberal media. Like Jesus and Ghandi before him, Lance Armstrong believes that in order to fight, one must sometimes surrender the weapons at your disposal to expose the truth of the oppressor.

We really should be proud of an American who stands up for his rights and then bravely refuses to fight the penal system. We should be proud of Lance Armstrong's body, sculpted carefully through years of deception - a deception required only because of stupid, thoughtless laws designed to protect the pitiful idea of a "level playing field."

Let all athletes inject whatever they want. Lance Armstrong, you are a pioneer, a true American Patriot and Right-to-Dope advocate. Your actions are an inspiration to us all.

Now someone please shut his lawyers up. Their continued denial and cries of "witch hunt" are hurting poor Lance's cause.

After the first debate, my friends hate me.Okay, maybe not hate me, but they are really sick of my complaining, and I don't blame them.

I'm a liberal, and as such I was looking forward to Barack Obama making a showing of what I consider to be a board-room blowhard in Mitt Romney. I was looking forward to a few well placed jabs by our smooth-talking president. 

What we got instead was a 15-round unanimous decision by the judges. Watching this, you felt like Romney could have knocked him to the canvas in the second round, but dragged it out because he enjoyed dishing out punishment instead. It was a 41-3 drubbing of your favorite football team. And we were lucky to get on the board.

This morning, democrats are trying to spin it to save their bruised egos: Romney won because he lied. There's even a rope-a-dope analogy going around that says that Obama is playing the long game and he lost  this debate intentionally.

No he didn't. Romney won because he was a better debater than Obama. 

This was like watching a physics professor debate a barracuda. Romney was crisp, cut to the heart of the matter, and even directed the discussion to whatever points suited him and away from Obama, referring several times to the fact that Obama was talking about many different points. He took on the role of moderator, paring the discussion back to its essence, he defined the parameters of the debate, and the victory was clear in the first 5 minutes. 

If Obama is a former President of Harvard Law Review, I'm reapplying.

Overall, the debate underscored a huge problem since Obama has taken office, and that is that Obama has developed a complexity complex.

Obama's Complexity Complex

Mario Cuomo once said "You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose". Obama campaigned poetically when he ran four years ago, painting word pictures of hope and change that were captivating.

But sitting in the big chair has changed him. It hasn't changed the essence of the man: he's still warm-hearted and likable, effective, and I believe the best man for the job.

Four years as President and Obama is falling prey to the difficulty of the job.

We heard it in practically every response last night: rambling diatribes that saw the CNN "undecided voter response" lines go from positive responses when Romney spoke to "Dad, I just want to go back to playing video games" when Obama sputtered on about how he's(he used "we've" a lot) done a good job navigating the complexities of the position.

The American people don't want to hear about how hard it is to find solutions. They just want solutions.

Too Clever By Half

I've been in the boardroom with Romney's before, men who are so strong in their persona that no one dares speak for fear of being railroaded. Obama spoke longer, and took his time to outline nuance. Romney had a laser-beam focus, dishing up word salads that were satisfying by comparison. 

Romney showed that he is a powerful presence, and even the moderator(I think his name was Jim something, but I'm not sure because he was completely useless in directing questions and discussion) was wholly unable to stop Romney from running over him at will. He interrupted Obama, made his points powerfully and succinctly, and even directed the topics of conversation smoothly to what suited him. It wasn't close.

Men like Romney rule the boardroom because they offer the simplest solutions to complex issues. No matter that "eliminating deductions, credits, and exemptions" is the same as raising taxes - no one called him on it, so it stands. No matter that the 716 billion dollars in cuts to Medicare is a gigantic lie - it was raised time and again by Romney and went unchallenged by Obama. The boardroom isn't ruled by fact-checkers. It's ruled by powerful men who state their case succinctly and to the immediate benefit of their shareholders. 

Obama has spent four years coming up with complex, reasonable solutions to incredibly difficult problems. That is what we want our president to do. However, at the end of the day we also want our president to boil those solutions into 20-word explanations that satisfy our need to believe those solutions are simple and effective.

It's easy to concede that Romney won the first debate - it was glaringly obvious. It highlights the problem Obama has sitting in the big chair, and also begs the question: 

Do we want a man in the white house that speaks prettily to us - the reason we chose Obama in the first place - or do we want a thinker who goes about solving complex problems with complex solutions?

Obama needs to go back to his roots, re-examine both his campaign strategy and his policy-making, and learn from Romney's superior strategy: people want to hear solutions, not the complexity of the problems.