Spend a little time with...me...me...me!

Operative ScottyO (currently researching evil sharks with laser beams) writes in regarding my previous post:

Your Gleaming Techiness,

One thing to add to your statement about the largest federal budget and debt: and, there is no budget! There is simply a series of continuing resolutions, because the Democrat-controlled Senate–and in particular, that weasel Harry Reid–refuses to even vote on any budget passed by the House. How can one measure an annualized increase in the budget when there is no budget?

It was an excellent article.

As ever,
ScottO

Indeed, I forgot to add the following item to the list:

5.  There has been no budget passed in the last three years.  Liberals will like to cite that appropriations bills have been passed but that isn't a budget and is grossly misleading to treat it as such.

Thanks, Scotty for keeping me on point.

Re: Health Insurance Simplification

RA writes in:

Czar,

Great idea on health insurance simplification. I buy my own health insurance (self-employed, wife covered at her work, kids grown and on their own), so that approach has much appeal to me. Better yet, put some sliders on the website so I can see how my premiums would change if I wanted 0% reimbursement for everything under $500, etc. Whatever I end up choosing goes into the calculations for my invoice, no muss no fuss.

The problem will be that I am one of the few who choose their own health insurance, so I can hire or fire who I want because I'm paying the premiums. Those who are insured under employer-paid coverage are not the customers of the insurers -- their employers are the customers. Worse yet for union members, I'd guess. So your system would never happen -- any incentive to do it that way is necessarily watered down and replaced with whatever insurers use to secure their employer/union customers' business.

We simply must return the health insurance buying decision to the customer; the way it is now is a leftover from post-war wage controls and makes no sense today. There is no reason why we shouldn't be besieged by TV health insurance ads like we are with car insurance ads -- we should have talking geckos, President David Palmer, Creepy Flo, Insurance Agents responding to singing customers by appearing out of thin air, and Oscar de la Hoya peddling health insurance plans to all of us.

And it is a certainty that a government mandate to do it your way would fail. Take a good idea, hand it to Chuck Schumer and the boys, and it will be turned into some monstrosity that makes Harry Reid wealthier and works only to get Sandra Fluke her free birth control.

Cheers,
RA

The Czar agrees. Frankly, much of the mess we’re in stems from employer-purchased plans. Indeed, most businesses would probably prefer to ditch health insurance, give the employees a boost in pay, and free up the HR departments to tackle more interesting topics.

And, we regret to agree, your last point is a doozy. Thanks for writing in! Please do it again: we all love the many letters we receive.

Happy Halloween

No, we didn't forget.

Hey Big Spender

A friend on Facebook posted a link and comment on how people shouldn't forget that Obama is the "smallest government spender" when it comes to the federal government.  After debunking it with a few facts, the post was removed.  Interesting.

For those who still want to try to believe this, let me outline a few of the facts:

1. Most of a President's first year is overseeing the executive branch that is using a budget from the previous administration.  Many on the left will characterize it as Obama inheriting President Bush's budget.  While it is true that Bush signed the budget, the budget is a creation of the Congress.  If one looks at the budget proposal that Bush sent to Congress in February 2008, it called for a 3% increase in federal spending.  The result of the federal budget process - after it made it through the democrat-controlled House and Senate pushed forward a budget that called for a 17.9% increase in federal spending.  After a budget is passed, appropriation bills are allocated and the democrat congress only passed 3 of the 12 appropriation bills (which President Bush signed) and President Obama signed the remaining 9 after they passed in 2009.
2. President Obama pushed for a supplementary spending bill for FY2009 to the tune of $410B.
3. The debt grew from somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-5T (depending on who you ask and when you count it as the end of one administration and the start of the other) to presently over $16T.  There is no way that the "smallest federal spender" can have a $12T effect on the debt without having significant spending problems.
4. President Obama's last two federal budget proposals hit the floor of the Congress with a thud, both receiving ZERO votes.  Not even one from his own party.

The article cited by my friend qualifies the "smallest government spender" as the President in office when the federal budget's annualized growth is the smallest.  However, he is presiding over a federal government that has the largest federal budget ever and the largest federal debt ever.  When faced with the facts, it might be understandable why someone wouldn't want to champion such false notions.

Health Insurance Simplification

Hey, here is a goofy idea.

How about when Romney dumps and replaces the ACA, we replace it with something that’s actually a hell of a lot easier? Not just cheaper—there are plenty of good ideas on how to lower costs, and we can all agree that putting a few in play would bring healthcare costs down across the board while offering more coverage.

No, the Czar means just easier.

For example, the Царевич was complaining of chills and fatigue, and started to cough. The Царица, who can diagnose a child’s medical complaint in two syllables from 30 meters away, took him to a walk-in clinic for a ENT check and sure enough, he had an incipient ear infection that we knocked out of the way in 24 hours. He never even felt bad.

Hooray for medicine. But the clinic wouldn’t take the $20 co-pay because they were on a different network. Then, the insurance company paid only $25 out of the $89 tab, leaving us with an invoice for $64. Hey, that isn’t a whole lot to keep a kid happy.

But look at a different scenario. How about we walk into any clinic, present the insurance information, and offer no co-pay whatsoever. The clinic bills the insurance company, who agrees to pay 30% of any cost under $100, flat. No co-pay, no confusing calls, nothing. Just a bill from the carrier 30 days later that says Fees: $89 | Insurance (30%): ($26.70) | Balance Due: $62.30. Easy!

And you adjust the scale up: for fees $100.01 - $500, they pay 50%. From $500.01 to $1,000, they pay 75%. And from $1,000.01 and $2,000, 90%. Above that, they pay all of the tab so you never get smashed by a major unexpected health crisis bill.

Of course, you pay for this through your premiums, so the insurance company makes a profit each time. But everything: visits, wellness checks, medical supplies, medications, extreme care, ambulance fees, surgical stuff...you get one consolidated bill and no confusing paperwork.

The Czar cannot count how often he gets checks back from the insurance company because he overpaid on services simply because the provider and insurance company could not get their act together. This is no fun for either of them, although it is fun for us to get a check in the mail.

Further, the insurance provider could change the percentages as needed when you obtain your policy. For example, a 26-year-old in good health might get 50% of his bill paid instead of 30%, for example, because he pays in far more than he takes out, whereas a 48-year-old smoker might get only 20% paid. And so on.

And why not offer tiers, like you have deductibles in car insurance? Maybe the Czar qualifies for 30%, but by paying a little more each month, he gets 35% coverage for bills under $100. And the carriers can even lock you in, like they do with life insurance: join our program at age 26, and you could be paying lower bills right up to age 65.

We have some smart readers. The Czar welcomes your thoughts on simplifying—not lowering costs, mind you—just simplifying the health insurance process so that a normal person can understand it.

You Don't Tug On Superman's Cape

Guess what the Czar was just complaining about at lunch? Why, BG writes in with exactly that:

I got an email from the city of Alexandria, Virginia, that says, in part, "If a power outage occurs, do not use candles under any circumstances because they are a fire hazard."

Safety.

They neglected to tell me that when the power comes back on, I shouldn't use the electricity because I might shock myself to death.

I probably shouldn't use the toilet, either, because I might fall in and drown.

Just before our cable died, I emailed them back; "Sweet baby Jesus, if I needed a nanny, I'd go back to live with my mother." Strangely, no reply yet. They're probably trying to figure out who this "baby Jesus" person is so they can route my email to him/her for a reply.

The Czar himself was stunned to see Mayor Bloomberg warning New Yorkers not to drink the sea water, and to keep candles away from the curtains.

Because, you see, you are all freaking morons and it takes someone of Michael Bloomberg’s vast intellect to guide you away from sticking your tongues into garbage disposals or rubbing jellyfish on your privates. But then—most of you apparently elected effete trash like this as your superiors, so cry not a drop to the Czar.

In BG’s case, he almost certainly did not elect the non-elected administrator person who sent out the mind-blowing safety email. No, that’s a home-grown sort of goofiness. By the way, BG, do not drink the toilet water, and keep your electricity away from the curtains. You can never be too safe. Or evidently, they think, too stupid.

Hurricane Survival Guide

With Hurricane Sandoval (“Sandy”) making life a living hell for uptight urban dwellers who take a cab to the coffee shop when it snows, many Americans are going to experience a hurricane for the first time. The Czar has been through just about everything, and offers these safety tips:

	Keep your windows closed, and draw your drapes closed. Turn out all the lights until Hurricane Sandy leaves. Convince her you do not live here.
	Do not drink standing water, as Sandy is usually not very clean. Often, her water is sandy.
	Stock up on plenty of staples, as paper clips are often difficult to find in emergencies.
	You might need to rough it in your basement for a couple of days.
	If the power goes out, be prepared to cook meals indoors, the old fashioned way.
	Be alert, and move quick to repair any damage to your house before your safety is threatend.
	Keep children entertained during the hurricane, as they may become bored and irritable. Find fun, competitive things to do.
	Expect a lot of water in the roads. Be certain what you drive into.

Trick or Treat - Castle Edition

Gentle Readers,

Your Gormogons are gearing up for tonight's Halloween Party at the Castle. Dr. J. only felt it appropriate to share with you, our readers and fans, how we will be dressing for the festivities.

Dr. J. your Royal Surgeon will be dressed as His Holyness, Benedict the XVI:

GorT, ever the trendy one will be going as an Avenger:

Tony's Mark I armor fits nicely over GorT's armor plating...

Puter will be going as Uncle Fester (black and white makeup and all):

Dead ringer, eh?

The Volgi will be going as Mr. Ping from Kung Fu Panda:

Didn't see that coming, didja?

The Mandarin will be going as The Czar:

Did see that coming, didn't you?

And last, but not least, The Czar will be going as The Mandarin:

Only Max Von Sidow is closer to the mark.

Happy Halloween!

A Native Washingtonian's Guide to Disaster Preparedness*

'Puter, like GorT and your Volgi, is a native Washingtonian. In fact, 'Puter's family has lived in that area since before Washington, D.C. even existed.  As such, 'Puter claims special insight into Washingtonians' abject terror at any and all weather event more than one standard deviation from the norm.

Government workers await public transit
that will never come. Shortly, they will commence
to fling feces at passers by. Later, cannibalism sets in.

Washingtonians run the free world. In their tiny, black hearts, Washingtonians know that they can run their lives better than you, because their unquestionable intellects and Solomonic wisdom have permitted them to master all challenges placed before them.

Our noble and beneficent Washingtonian betters have therefore dictated to 'Puter the following precautions and preparations to be taken before any major weather event, such as a light, summer breeze.

'Puter dutifully recorded their proclamations by tattooing the recommendations on a flotilla of trained manatees in endangered whooping crane blood, which manatees 'Puter then released into the Washington, DC metropolitan area's sewer systems to share the good news.  When a half-crazed manatee covered in bloody tattoos and raw sewage pokes his head up through your toilet's u-bend, fear not.  The manatee is there to help you, providing timely and helpful assistance.  When you are finished reading the manatee's horribly infected tattoos, please return him to the sewer system so that he may assist others.  You may need to flush twice, what with these darned government mandated low-flow toilets.

Since 'Puter's manatees cannot possibly reach all 50 million or so Americans threatened by Hurricane Sandy, 'Puter will share with you these helpful hints:

1. When a sub-optimal weather event is forecast as remotely possible in the next three weeks, immediately drive to the nearest grocery store and purchase any and all milk, bread, bottled water and toilet paper you encounter.  After all, when the power goes out, you'll have rancid milk with which to wash down your 42 loaves of moldy bread, and 71 jumbo packs of Brawny ('Puter's wipe of choice) and fresh water to clean up after the inevitable and explosive results of ingesting spoiled food. Build a soft, cushy fort with any remaining toilet paper not used in rectify the aforementioned Code Brown.

2. If you cannot get to a grocery store, get to your car.  Drive to the nearest interstate highway.  Enter the interstate's traffic flow. When gridlock is established, abandon your car in the middle travel lane lock the car, and walk home.  As all Native Washingtonians know, there is no place safer to leave your car than safely parked and locked in the middle of an interstate highway.  The state highway departments thoughtfully keep trees cut far from the travel lanes. The odds of your car being struck by a falling tree are much lower on an interstate highway than in your own garage.

3. Preemptively cancel schools for the entire metropolitan area for the foreseeable future. Even though the DC to Baltimore is one of the more heavily populated areas in the United States and the farthest kids would have to walk to safety is across the street, it's better to be safe than sorry. And since leaving the house at all is fraught with peril from the skies, put a ballot referendum up for vote to require all children under the age of 26 to be laminated and encased in bubble wrap to a minimum depth of 12 inches.

4. Institute a liberal leave policy for federal employees, then close the federal government altogether.  Time your announcement so that federal employees have already left for work, worsening the gridlock as the employees attempt to turn around mid-commute and return home. Make sure all employees are paid for not working, regardless of how minimal the storm may be and regardless of remaining vacation. For bonus credit, shut down all public transportation after employees have used it to get to work.

5. All media must insist that this weather event is a cataclysm not only beyond mankind's experience, but also beyond mankind's comprehension. Preempt programming frequently with ominous warnings and helpful reminders such as "don't run gas generators or cooking grills inside your house," "don't drive your vehicle into rapidly flowing floodwaters," "exposed skin freezes in under 5 minutes" and "ZOMG!1!! TEH FROZUN DETH CUMZ FROM TEH SKIEZ!!1!one!! FLEE!!1!!

6. For bonus credit, the media must incessantly repeat the following, when not otherwise occupied with whipping the populace into a perpetual state of weather-induced anxiety: (1) the weather event is plainly caused by global warming, which is George W. Bush's fault; (2) if President Obama doesn't win reelection, it's because this storm prevented people from getting out to vote and not just because you're a racist white person even though you are racist; and (3) weather records dating back about 150 years are dispositive on the question of whether a similar weather event has ever occurred on the surface of the planet Earth before today.

If you follow these simple suggestions, you are certain to survive your encounter with what our forbears treated as run of the mill and not-unexpected weather events.

*'Puter would like to add the following two disclaimers, along with a suggestion to the gasping ninnies among us to lighten up and enjoy the satire:

1. SANDY IS A REAL THREAT. All people in its projected path should have made preparations and hunkered down by now. 'Puter is not mocking Washingtonians for their response to this storm, simply noting that Washingtonians are notoriously (and hilariously) unprepared for even the slightest weather event.

2. NATIVE WASHINGTONIANS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. In 'Puter's experience, native Washingtonians know they and their city are colossal failures at enduring harsh conditions. As such, natives hunker down for the duration. If there's three inches of snow, they'll stay at home and not venture out until it's all melted. It's the itinerant politicians and their assorted freak show of bitter clingers, lobbyists and special interest group employees that cause the majority of the problems.

Mailbag

The Island Dweller writes in with the following theory about Benghazi:

Your gleaming magnificence:

 

I am curious about something else that has been reported in the media, and no one seems to have explored it in depth.  Ambassador Stevens and two others were precariously esconced in the safe room within the consulate in Benghazi on the night of September 11.  At least once during that episode, Libyan extremists penetrating the consulate were literally outside the locked gate to the safe room, yet failed to dynamite or otherwise demolish the gate and attempt to force entry to the room, or use explosives or gunfire in the area they must have at least suspected housed the Americans.  According to one news source, the Libyans left the safe room and proceeded to pour diesel fuel around the building (but not inside it), set it alight and leave. 

 

Later we heard about the Ambassador being found inside the consulate by Libyans.  Somehow, the Libyans who found him had magically been transformed from attackers to pro-American bystanders who somehow forced away or otherwise eluded the extremists and gained access to the consular compound.  These were the people who allegedly attempted CPR on him, then transported him to a clinic where he subsequently expired.

 

This sounds to me like a botched attempt to kidnap the Ambassador.  None of the Americans died from small arms fire (sounds like someone was trying to avoid harming them).  Burning diesel fuel is enormously smoky and would help force someone out of the building who was hiding there.  The Americans in the safe room were at the complete mercy of the invading Libyans, yet no attempt was made to harm them when the Libyans were inside.  Those who found Amb Stevens were concerned he wasn't breathing; my guess is they were concerned their hostage might die, therefore he must be revived.  Please recall there was a lot of talk in Libya and Egypt by AQIM and the Muslim Brotherhood about wanting the "Blind Shiek" released from US military custody.  What better way to do this than to swap him for an American ambassador (who was seized on September 11, no less)?  Deaths at the "safe house" were caused by mortar and RPG fire, the Libyans didn't believe the Ambassador was there, so it was a "free fire" zone. 

 

Island Dweller continues to muse.

While that is an interesting theory, I tend to subscribe to the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) theory.  I think the attack was a pre-planned assault timed to take place on September 11th which was enabled through poor planning and execution by the United States, a weak and ineffective foreign policy in that region, and further compounded by the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the federal government.  

Let Us Hope You're Wrong, But...

First-time writer, presumably long-time reader RStJ writes in with a disturbing notion:

Good evening! I read the post with the mail from MC this evening, and also caught up and read the other posts about Benghazi. I have heard another possible reason for a coverup that I have to share. It made my skin crawl but at the same time it ties up all the odds and ends of these events together in such a way they make sense. I hope it isnt true. It is very evil.

What if the administration was trying to manufacture an October event that would show off Obama's foreign policy skills and Chuck Norris-like manliness? What if they set the Ambassador up? What if the "protesting crowd" was supposed to storm the place, and take hostages? Then Pres. Obama would stride on in and "negotiate" their release. Add in some theatrical chest thumping and Reagenesque comparisons from the chattering monkeys of the nooozbiz and it would be a vote changer, possibly. (In their minds) Or, also possibly, plans to drag out the hostage crisis so the administration could use it to hammer out why it would be bad juju to change the CIC in the middle of such a delicate and serious time.

It would explain his nonchalance about the crisis. He KNEW the script, he wrote and authorized it, the Amb. Stevens and staff would be fine, he knew it was a sham crisis. That would also explain the foolish insistence on the stupid stories about the video for so long by so many. It was in the script and they had to go with what the producer had given them. It would explain leaving them exposed for so long, denying military aid and rescue, and ordering the annex people to stand down.

But then the real story came out, with death and corpse rape, and cowardice and defeat instead of a little hostage taking in the evening.

I don't want to believe this, but it has been mentioned on the net. I may have first read it at hillbuzz maybe? I cant remember. I also cant get it out of my head.

I wanted to share this since the reasons behind the mess have come up for discussion.

Sincerely,

As always, logic does not always prove or disprove anything with this particular President, and your idea is not entirely far-fetched. Sadly, it is quite near-fetched.

However, it would be inconsistent with a pattern—and goodness knows President Obama follows quite predictable patterns. The Czar will be the first to concede that this Benghazi tragedy is anything but puzzled out yet, even by us master puzzle-outers.

The Obama administration has indeed tried several October surprises, and they were milquetoast self-petard hoisters at best: Surprise! Romney testified at a friend’s divorce and, um, did nothing wrong. Surprise! Romney is foisting a $5 trillion tax cut on you that, well, turns out to cost nothing and isn’t even a tax cut. Surprise! Romney flip-flopped on GM, except, well, he didn’t.

On the other hand, there is much historical precedent since 1980 about October surprises in general: the incumbent wants to avoid them at all costs because the risk is greater than the gain. Rumors that Bush had Usâma bin-Lâdin in the crosshairs in October, 2004, and would breeze to re-election with a well-timed kill? That turned out to be another October surprise rumor. In fact, since Carter, no incumbent wants to risk any foreign policy wag-the-dog scenarios because the risk of failure is too costly and the success...well, Americans are actually too smart to fall for it. We know very well what October surprises are and how they work. And for incumbents, they backfire.

In short, the Czar doubts the President had any of this rigged. As Volgi pointed out, something was certainly taking place that the highest levels of the government knew about, and perhaps the State Department was too naive to see it was a trap. We certainly had assets in the area, conveniently, but take note of some CIA testimony that they were only first aware of something going on when they heard gunfire and rockets. That seems odd to us.

The Czar will concur readily on one point, albeit reluctantly: when the truth comes out about Benghazi, which it will, the actual story will be so offensive and horrifying that President Obama will likely wind up being villified for it. And let us sincerely hope you’re wrong, as you too hope, but our fear is that your suspicion might be preferable to what really happened.

Thanks for writing in! See, folks? It’s easy!

Mailbag: Mmm...No.

MC writes in after a too-long absence:

Dread, terrible, awful Czar, whose axe should be swung with even more frequency and force,

I'd really like to go off on an hour rant in the wake of this story, but work events are preventing this. I would like to make two relatively short points:

1) Should we have the good fortune of having Mitt Romney re-elected, can someone explain to me why GEN Martin Dempsey should still be on active duty by the morning of 21 Jan? Not to put too fine of a point on it, but this son-of-a-bitch needs to go. I about had an aneurysm when he made comments suggesting a United States citizen should STFU about Mohammed. Coming from the SecDef or another political type, fine. But the CJCS? No effing way. After yesterday's press conference with Panetta and today's story, he's lost all credibility with not only the public, but within the armed forces too.

I'm not saying that the firing has to use another country's methods, but GEN Dempsey should be fired nonetheless. I'm willing to entertain counterarguments though.

2) It's now clear the President and his senior staff wanted to avoid a Desert One. Again, to be somewhat crass about it, their thinking boiled down to 'better an ambassador and maybe a few others die in something that can have a "blame America" factor to it than to have a couple dozen die in a failed extraction that resulted from a positive decision traceable to the President'. I think that's why the shift within a couple days from "terrorism" to "video". I bet the decision timeline regarding rescue decisions was known on the political side of the WH within a day and a half, and they now needed to re-vector the media to something else. A 'terrorism' angle would have led to too many uncomfortable questions. Thus the near desperation of Susan Rice selling the video angle the following Sunday.

I'd really like to expand on this but I'm sure you are probably preparing something now anyway - awaiting a new blog post once you're done with your axe-sharpening.

Uh, no. Volgi and GorT did, though.

Benghazi: Scandal < Cover-Up < Defeat < Abandonment < ?

What the hell happened in Benghazi? Even the omniscient* Gormogons are baffled. However, unlike the media, which has looked at the attack and its aftermath largely through the prism of the Obama administration’s cover-up, the Gormogons look to the past. (Or as GorT calls it, “kind of up and to the left.”)

The Obama-Clinton cover-up, with its clumsy and stupid insistence of the Innocence of Muslims YouTube trailer as cause—pulling one of the pretexts of the simultaneous Cairo riots like a tarp over a paramilitary assault—has been taken apart on the assumption that what it was intended to cover up was the assault itself or al-Qâ’ida’s successful murder and corpse-rape of a U.S. ambassador on what is legally American soil.

But what if that wasn’t the real embarrassment-cum-scandal that the administration was so frantically trying to hide?

GorT today conveys the Fox News report showing that CIA operatives were three times told to stand down when ready to attempt to relieve the assault. AC-130 gunships were available and unused. Targets were painted with lasers, and yet, nothing.

Why? Is it because Obama is a passive, depressive personality, as virtually every account of his life (especially his own) shows? It seems doubtful, given the fact he’s been more than willing to drone-strike al-Qâ’ida guys left and right and presumably had advance approval of the Bin-Lâdin operation. Institutional inertia? One would think that even State, the official make-nice agency, would approve some bloodshed to save one of their own.

Is it possible they let the assault go forward with the hope that whatever was going on in Benghazi would be buried with the dead? There hasn’t been a completely convincing explanation of what our ambassador (and a CIA installation) was doing there with (effectively) no security in the first place. It seems logical that Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate with Benghazi-based elements of the Libyan resistance that overthrew Qaddafi. These elements are exactly the guys who turned around and killed Stevens, presumably having lured him into a September 11 meeting (and possibly having dictated the terms of security?).

What would Stevens have been negotiating with these guys? Obviously, terms of their participation in the new Libyan order. But in that case, where was the Libyan government’s representative, and why not in Tripoli? It seems more likely that he was there to negotiate with them as a section of al-Qâ’ida, Inc., not as a Libyan player. But why would we be negotiating with al-Qâ’ida?

The Obama administration has had a chip on its shoulder since Day One about removing “misunderstandings” between us and the Muslim (and particularly Arab) world, choosing to believe (in a textbook example of the Fallacy of Foreign-Policy Egocentrism) that by making the rampant anti-Americanism and dysfunction in the Middle East our fault, it can be magically undone by us through incantations (like the Apology Tour), occult names (like “Hussein”), and gestures (like a middle finger to Bibi Netanyahu). Moreover, there are non-trivial strategic reasons to get an idea of what the heck al-Qâ’ida is thinking (provided we think we can get them to give us a straight answer—which one suspects is not bloody likely).

First, radical Sunni and Salafi groups are a huge component of the anti-Assad rebellion in Syria. We’re apparently supporting them; al-Qâ’ida is definitely supporting them. We are consequently—very—strange bedfellows. Benghazi might have seemed a perfect, remote location to talk. Also, what’s that place next door to Libya? Oh, right, Egypt. Whose new government is the Muslim Brotherhood may have broad sympathies towards the radical-Sunni fringe but is tactically locked in a battle with their own purist Salafists at home. It’s not inconceivable we were trying to help out Morsi by negotiating with al-Qâ’ida over their assistance to the anti-MB radicals in Egypt.

So, when negotiating with al-Qâ’ida blew up in the most nightmarish way possible, retroactively making their policy look not merely foolish but actively damaging to American interests (and losing American lives), the administration might have had compelling, if craven and wicked, reasons to sit on its hands and cut the whole operation loose, classify the hell out of everything on the back end, and publicly blame some jackass, sleazebag Copt in California for hetting up those crazy Muslims. (Of course, by blaming the CIA when their cover-up began to unravel, they assured their defeat in the media because, whatever you think of the Lost Boys of Langley, they are utterly superb at Washington warfare. More will appear in the press towards election day, just wait.)

Whatever was going on in Benghazi, our actions—and lack thereof—during the battle and the Administration’s post-facto cover-up almost certainly have something to do with what exactly we were doing in there in the first place. The cover-up may be the crime, but the policy is likely to be the Talleyrandian blunder.

*Note: Omniscience not guaranteed. No refunds. Receipt required for dry cleaning. Not valid in NE, OH, AK, HI and ME.

Unraveling By The Day

Apparently there are still some investigative journalists out there. The Benghazi attack will not go away - and nor should it. The basic question that people should be asking is - given the mounting evidence that the Obama Administration completely botched the handling of the attack and information pertaining to it afterwards, why should we trust the President or his administration on any other effort?

You can read the next unraveling here at Fox News. But some choice excerpts:

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

and

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help

So whether you are behind Obama because of his pledges for affordable care (which is falling apart), or his attempt to grow jobs (as many federal contractors are beginning evaluating layoffs with sequestration hovering), or his support of gay marriage (what exactly has he done since his lip service about that?) - one thing is clear: he'll do anything to save his own career and we don't need a career politician.

Twitter: the Nation's Fact Checker

The other day, Dana Milbank was annoyed to no end, apparently when he spotted journalists at the debate monitoring Twitter for reactions more than they were actually watching the debate.

Wedding ring check.

This made Ghettoputer here laugh, because Milbank was complaining that Twitter is making it easier for ordinary people to do lazy research, and that lazy research was Milbank’s job. Perhaps, but Milbank raises a valid point: when journalists are watching Twitter trends more than the actual event inspiring them, they tend to go into retweet mode...and this leads to GroupThink. Milbank raises a valid concern—are reporters merely reporting on what Twitter said, or on what really happened?

But perhaps not. The Czar finds it more than a little ironic that Milbank would complain about the dangers of GroupThink when he is, ultimately, a liberal reporter working for a largely liberal rag read almost entirely by liberal readers. The very next day, Milbank was hilariously linking Donald Trump to Mitt Romney, which no one outside of libby news rags and hate-spams from liberal Facebook fans believe. No doubt his next piece will be on how Mitt Romney’s momentum is over, and you should all go back to voting Democrat again. GroupThink among a larger group is preferable to GroupThink among a smaller group, no?

By contrast, a real journalist takes a different spin on what he saw. Juan Williams—whom the left despises because he is a liberal who speaks for himself too often, plus he works for Fox News which automatically disqualifies him somehow—sees something more interesting with Twitter.

In a piece up yesterday, Williams writes how Twitter allowed millions of viewers to participate in the debate, and not merely watch and wonder. Everyone, he writes, from Grandma to the kids to everyone else, was not merely watching, but writing and reading tweets about it. In some respect, he concludes, these might have been the best-watched debates in media history.

Yeah, the ratings were high, the Czar will note, but no one knows how many people watched them on YouTube, listened in on streaming feeds, or like GorT watched them on HyperTube in full 4D and ClaustroPhoboSound.

But here is Williams’ better point: Twitter, more than any other pundit, commentator, expert, analyst, or insider influenced the decision that Romney triumphed in the first debate. And maybe the second. And even after everyone proclaimed that Obama was at his absolute best in the third debate...well, Twitter felt Romney won that one, too.

Why? Williams explains that the instant nature of Twitter changed public perception. When Obama claimed something about Romney, Twitter lit up with corrections and instant, sourced fact-checks. When Romney asserted something about himself or the President, pow, here came the fact-checked agreement. Not to say that Romney scored 100% accuracy and Obama was completely wrong in everything he said—but Twitter rapidly concluded, argued, and proved that Romney was by and large in command of his facts and the President was just making up too much crap.

No surprise that real journalists were watching their iPads instead of the debates, or—like Dana Milbank—hurriedly transcribing their Axelrod-issued talking points memo into their next editorial. Hell, the public was doing the media’s jobs for them, and doing them way better.

And so Williams argues that Twitter sealed the election for Romney, and while the Czar hates to confuse correlation with causation, the poll numbers after the debates have consistently shown the President treading water while Romney rises out of the much. And while the Czar does not frequently agree with Juan Williams on many topics, he thinks Williams got this one right because it meshes with what we ourselves saw happening on Twitter.

And The Election Goes To...

Your Mandarin is pleased to report that Mitt Romney has won the Presidential election. You may be asking, “Inscrutable Mandarin, how were you able to make this proclamation? Did you travel in time to see the outcome? Did you consult with some mystical oracle? How do you know?”

Well loyal and obedient minions, your Mandarin knows because his son told him the results of his mock election at school. You see, when he and his classmates voted four years ago the overwhelming majority of the children voted for President Obama, having been inundated with the message of hope and change. This time around, these same students – with 64% of the vote – have selected Mitt Romney. Funny what a little maturity will do to the electorate.

Your Mandarin is encouraged by these results. Most children – although we swear they don’t listen to a thing we tell them - are influenced by what they hear at home. It seems that what they are hearing is that we don’t need any more hope and change, but rather ideas and positive results.

Droning On

Island Dweller sent two odd pieces of fragmented writing on onion skin. It indeed occurred to us to lay one on top of the other, whereupon not one but two messages came out: the first message contained all curved symbols, the second one all linear scratches. Together, they formed the lines and curves of the normal Latin alphabet. Also, he sent them as emails:

Your illustrious majesty:

I have had something bouncing around inside my head and want to bring it forth. Remotely-piloted ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) assets - otherwise known as surveillance drones - are in SCREAMING demand within the armed forces. There are never enough to go around, and their missions must be scheduled and coordinated well in advance. Getting one on the spur of the moment is virtually unheard of, even in a combat situation - unless it happens to be in the neighborhood, and even then it requires coordination. One of the largest growth sectors in the U.S. aviation industry is the design and production of ISR RPVs. If they are in such demand, why was one of them reportedly in the vicinity of the U.S. consulate at Benghazi and able to see at least some of the action? Drones just don't wander around - they're tasked, on a specific flight path, and carefully controlled. If one was in the area, that meant someone suspected something was worth watching in Libya, if not Benghazi. Tripoli, perhaps? That means DOS coordination with DOD to obtain the services of the drone - implying foreknowledge of a risky situation. You connect the dots.
Why wasn't something done once the feed from the drone showed the situation in Benghazi had gone South? This is because a bureaucrat was on duty in the DOS watch center. Bureaucrats follow strictly-defined protocols and have a marked inflexibility of thought; they can't handle a curve thrown at them, something requiring creative thought, individual initiative and responsibility is beyond them. I'm wondering how well that bureaucrat is sleeping right now.
Island Dweller.

And:

Your majesty - I leave you with one little story about how things go the closer you get to the flagpole in any government or military organization.

In WWII, the first U.S. carrier strike in 1944 against the area of Tokyo, Japan, ran into very little aerial opposition. The returning U.S. pilots were remarking to the intelligence debriefers on the ships about the marked lack of airborne Japanese fighters that opposed them. One of the intelligence officers remarked all this meant was the Japanese military was exactly like its U.S. counterpart - the closer you got to headquarters, the harder it was to get anything done. He said if they had been attacking some island outpost that day, some tough Reserve Lt Commander would have seen the Americans coming, would have thrown all his planes into the air, and there would have been a terrific fight. Instead, right in the capital's back yard, they got no opposition. That meant the order to intercept the Americans was sitting on some admiral's desk, and the admiral's out playing golf. This is the nature of a government bureaucracy spelled out in an accurate, amusing and revealing fashion. In a less humorous vein, this attitude (channels, protocol, t's cross and i's dotted) is precisely why we have four dead Americans in Libya to think about.
Island Dweller

The Czar acknowledges that Island Dweller’s observations about drones is quiet interesting. Indeed, the Czar can attest that drones are quite expensive, we do not have as many as we prefer to have, and that getting one for a mission is indeed a big deal. Popular media like to portray them as everywhere, just lazily flying around like cops on random patrol, but indeed they are assigned assets.

The Czar can answer part of Island Dweller’s question: why Benghazi. Benghazi is much more a hot spot than Tripoli, and historically this is where all the crazy stuff happens in Libya. Tripoli is a comparatively calm place compared to the turbulent nature of Benghazi. Just a few days before, the British embassy staff left in a really big hurry, and as one security member said, the American flag was the only non-Libyan flag flying in Benghazi. There was a very credible risk that something was about to go down, and getting a drone there would have been a priority.

Now having written that, the Czar knows Island Dweller exactly made his point: if we knew matters were risky enough to warrant sending a drone out there, why wasn’t the Ambassador better protected? Why was he left at a mildly defensible apartment? Why were there no heavier assets on standby in the Mediterranean?

The Czar thinks the press is already asking some of these questions, the most damning being the length of time the White House knew—through a combination of assets (drones and feet on the ground)—that the Ambassador and his security team were not going to hold back the attack. We understand that, incredibly, the security detail held out for about 7 hours; sadly, they could have been extracted in three and back in Italy in another two.

Regarding the second point about Japan, the Czar will not quibble with the potential interpretation; however, the Czar always felt that another equally apt explanation exists: the Japanese were so convinced by their own propaganda that American strikes could never reach the mainland that air defense was almost non-existent; further, that any defense aircraft were already deployed in the surrounding islands. Basically, the Japanese were so convinced that America would not reach Japan for years that they took everything they had and put them out along the perimeter islands. Same result—and there is no reason your explanation could not also coincide with ours.

Eye of the Sparrow

Okay, sit back and pretend Jim Lehrer dropped acid, and that this is actually how the First Presidential Debate seemed to him.


Parts of this are truly magnificent.

Obama's Suit Against Bank of America Is Baseless

Mind you, 'Puter's impression of U.S. Attorney Preet S. Bharara's action against Bank of America is based entirely on Mr. Bharara's press release, which you may review here.

Here's a very brief synopsis of the government's claims. For a more full understanding, read the linked press release.  Better yet, read the actual complaint when it becomes available.

The Obama Administration claims Bank of America knowingly sold fraudulent loans and noncompliant loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bank of America's high volume loan origination pipeline process and procedures were stripped of safeguards to sort out fraudulent and noncompliant loans in favor of quickly issuing debt.  Bank of America did not tell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it had stripped out procedural safeguards, nor that loans Bank of America sold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were noncompliant, fraudulent or both. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffered damages when forced to make good on guarantees to investors in mortgage backed securities the entities issued that were comprised of Bank of America originated loans. American taxpayers were damaged when Congress bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which entities were left insolvent when investors called for the entities to honor their guarantees.

'Puter has some thoughts on this action, as he is more than passingly familiar with the business of purchasing commercial debt from lending institutions in the secondary market.  Many of his business acquaintances started in consumer debt backed bond markets on Wall Street, and 'Puter's picked up some war stories from them on precisely this issue.

Here are 'Puter's thoughts on the President Obama's Shiny Object Pre-Election Distract-o-Matic Lawsuit:

1.  Mr. Bharara's suit is purely political, calculated in timing and substance to give Mr. Obama a much needed bump going into Election Day. Duh.

2.  Mr. Bharara's action likely has a colorable claim pursuant to law, as 'Puter's certain a gentleman politically savvy enough to make it to the post of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York isn't going get his tit caught in the wringer for anyone, not even The One.

3.  Mr. Bharara's action is bullshit to the nth degree. Everyone in the market at the time except the investors knew the loans bundled, securitized and sold to investors (and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) contained tons and tons of loans that were bad when made.

4.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were complicit in the fraud and violations of law of which Mr. Bharara complains.

4a.  Individuals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew, and if they didn't know it was due to wilful disregard of reality, that the loans purchased were bad at the time.  Hell, the industry referred to many of the low-doc and no-doc loans as "liar loans."

4b. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued guidelines that not only permitted but encouraged banks to make bad loans and sell the loans to them.  Buying, securitizing and selling mortgage backed securities is how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made most of their money.  It's still how they make their money.  Without tons of new debt to securitize, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are nothing more than boring old government agencies.

4c. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's management depended on tons of newly originated loans for their livelihoods.  Many former executives had generous stock options and bond return based performance pay packages.  These executives were incentivized to look the other way, and they got rich doing just that.

5. If Bank of America and its merged acquisition Countrywide were making bad mortgage loans from at a minimum 2007 onward, as alleged, where in the holy Hell were the government regulators? 'Puter understands that government employees enjoy official immunity in performance of their duties in all but the most egregious cases, but Jeebus H. Tapdancing Christ on a Bicycle, our regulators couldn't figure out over several years that Bank of America originated, allegedly, over $1 billion in bad and/or fraudulent loans?  If regulators can't spot a $1 billion fraud, why the heck even have them?

6. The only blameless party in the entire mess is the party that bore the cost of making good on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's guarantees.  If you go over to the closest mirror, stand in front of it and point, that person you're pointing at is the sucker left holding the bag.

Here's some free advice for whatever poor law firm gets stuck representing Bank of America. 

1.  Go big, and go big now.  Have press conferences where you state how much you are looking forward to finally having the opportunity to tell your story in court. State that you will seek contribution for any damages from employees and managers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


2.  Bring a third party claim against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming they were complicit in the alleged fraud and violations of law. As such, they are necessary and indispensable parties.

3.  Subpoena everyone even remotely associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the time frame in question.  Make their depositions public, and insist when the government moves for a confidentiality order that the public has a right to know what its government employees are up to. 'Puter'd start with Jamie Gorelick and work down the chain from there, but where you start is not as important as the naming and shaming.

4.  Subpoena former Sen. Kent Conrad, a recipient of a "Friends of Angelo" loan. Hire in-house counsel from the Washington Post as co-counsel to conduct the depositions.  Publish the results.

5. Pound Congress for passing laws that almost required Bank of America to engage in risky behavior in order to meet arbitrary targets for minority home ownership, as well as for low LTV at origination requirements.  FHA guaranteed loans still only require a three percent down payment.  If the loan is legal to make, why is Bank of America in trouble for making them?

6. State again and again and again and again that it's impossible to defraud an entity that is in on the fraud, if in fact any fraud occurred, which you will not admit. If there was fraud, Fannie Mae knew.  Freddie Mac knew.  Congress knew.  Wall Street knew. Only small investors and taxpayers didn't know.  Every entity in court, whether plaintiff or defendant, knew damned well that the system was broken, and yet everyone agreed to look the other way.

Mr. Bharara, at best for you, this is a run of the mill breach of contract action.  Keeping in mind that your client had full knowledge at all times, 'Puter'd toss you out on your ear with a stern lecture, were he the sitting judge.

'Puter's no fan of Bank of America, and Bank of America was at a minimum complicit in the shenanigans directly leading to The Great Not-Obama's-Fault Financial Crisis of 2008, but if we're going to have a show trial, let's at least get all the villains in the dock, not just the politically expedient ones.

The Czar Lost in Happy Memories Again

Alert and poised-for-instant-Kung Fu-action operative MS writes in:

Your most illustrious majesty:

I watched only the first 10 minutes or so of last night's debate before I was able to discern its rough course:

Dear Leader: "This nation/me (priority frequently swapped)"
Gov Romney: "It's the economy, stupid!"

Some people criticize Governor Romney for coming back to economic matters in a foreign policy debate, but here's the bottom line. Throughout history, superpower status was earned by or conferred on a nation only partly through its military might. Economic power and (sometimes) moral leadership counted as well. Witness Great Britain from the 1700s through the end of WWII.

The Soviet Union was an exception; only the military might counted and then only because of its possession of nuclear weapons. In every other respect the Soviet Union was a third-world conglomeration that was economically no match whatsoever to the U.S (I'm sure with your immenseness in charge this situation would have been different, of course!).

A strong, democratically (small "d") controlled military, a force to be feared and reckoned with, is the guarantor of a strong foreign policy and international stability which in turn greatly facilitate lucrative trade. To simplify for Democrats - a strong, intelligently-directed military and foreign policy = lower gas prices and more people at work.

You don't, as a nation, have to be a bully to make this work. You can't have a strong military or vibrant foreign policy without a strong economy to finance them with, or give moral authority to. Our military now is a pathetic shell of what it was even in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Because of that weakness, under Dear Leader, we're reduced to deal-making and appeasement as foreign policy. With no strong military or moral authority to back them up with, treaties with foreign governments that can change at the drop of a coup, or who are controlled by a theocracy only guarantee continued turmoil and uncertainty - both very bad for business - which in turn is very bad for continued survival. You may not like it, but that's the world we're stuck with. In the final analysis, it really is "the economy, stupid."

Here we are at the Battle of Kulikovo. One of these guys is supposed to be your Czar, but come on—this artist was so crappy you can’t even tell which side is which. Maybe we’re one of the totally identical-looking guys on the left. Christ, it looks like a third-grader drew this on a napkin with restaurant crayons. Interesting Gormogon trivia about this battle: the Czar fought against the Horde leader Mamai, who fled the battle. Mamai ran down to the Crimea, where he was killed by some “Italian” employees of another Gormogon, Tochmas. Later, Tochmas and the Czar became pretty good pals, and he did us a solid by attacking Muscovy, Russia, in 1382 as payback for us getting screwed out of ruling. We still see each other at least once a year. Crazy world, eh?

Well, it is difficult indeed to find fault with any of these observation, since MS knows our tropes so well!

Fundamentally, yes: a successful foreign policy requires a strong economy and a strong military. MS is also aware that a strong economy requires a strong foreign policy and a strong military, and yes a strong military requires a strong economy and a strong foreign policy. Like a stool worth sitting on, you need all three legs or eventually you fall over.

MS is also correct that Romney was smart to keep tying foreign policy discussions to the economy. Look, President Obama has some really immature concepts of foreign policy, and he has made enormous mistakes, no doubt about it. But what is to be done about Syria? What more, short of a powerful hit, can be done about Iran? Romney and Obama have very similar positions on Afghanistan, Iraq, and China—only details really differ. Romney was not about to spend a good portion of the debate agreeing with the President. But if he tied it back to the economy he could leg-sweep the President time and again.

For example, both Obama and Romney agree that China is a problem but a powerful business partner. That part of the foreign policy is substantially similar. But while Obama stops there, and basically lets China do whatever she wants, Romney goes to the economy to show how China’s teetering economy cannot allow a trade war—and a resurgent American economy could be a body blow to China unless they agree to some basic free market reforms. Obama had nothing that could top that answer; Romney wins on the economic angle.

And so on down the line.

Some minor points:

• Kudos for noticing Obama embarrasingly quoting l'état, c'est moi as his biggest achievement. He might as well have them eat cake, no?
• So closely tied are the military, foreign policy, and the economy that many students of history realize that Reagan used exactly those three in perfect combination to topple the Soviets in the 1980s. The whole Star Wars program was designed to instill so much fear into the Soviets that they spent themselves into collapse trying to react to it. And it worked.
• Speaking of the Soviets, the Czar disagrees he would have done better with them. The Czar found the Soviets a bunch of bullying dorks who smelled really bad, and knew in 1917 they would need to be toppled. Frankly, Russia didn’t have a great leader since Uncle Alexandr Yaroslavich Nevskii, who should have awarded Muscovy to us like he promised, rather than handing it over to our dimwit cousin Daniil who never stood up to the Mongols like he should have. Don’t get us started. Come on down to the Leaping Peacock some night and we will happily tell you all about idiot Daniil, his dopey wife Vassa, our stupid second cousins Yuri, Afanasi, and why Ivan I should get down on his wobbly old knees and thank the Czar for not blowing the whistle on what he did with those teenaged blonde girls at the farm...and we’ll sketch the whole thing out right on the table cloths. We also do pretty good vocal impressions of them all. And we will get into how we got screwed and wound up Czar of Muscovy, Illinois and not the whole shebang in 1289.
• Soviets. Pssh. Don’t get us started there, either. The Czar fought the Livonian Knights, the Mongols’s Golden Horde under Nogai Khan (whom the Czar dispatched with a rock and an aeliophile), the Tatar Black Horse Band, the armies of Khan Abdulla (whom we killed by jamming a theorbo into his throat), and the Wolf Lords of Kolomna in 1288. Compared to those guys, the Soviets were like teenaged carjackers who attempted to form their own chess club.

Well, naturally, the Czar no longer has any idea where he is in this essay.

Another Tragic Example of Real Racism

Alert readers may remember the Czar’s prediction that a Winnsboro, LA, woman’s claim that she was subject to a racial attack was untrue.

Twitter friend @rachelveronica points us to this news story:

Two days after multiple law enforcement agencies began an investigation into the attack and burning of a Winnsboro woman at Civitan Park, authorities now believe the wounds were self-inflicted.

According to Winnsboro Police Chief Lester Thomas, evidenced gathered at the scene of the incident shows 20-year-old Sharmeka Moffitt's initial claims that she was attacked and set on fire turned out to be false claims made up by Moffitt.

This poor woman set herself on fire, possibly—the Czar suspects—in a botched, half-hearted suicide attempt. After the flames went out, and she was horribly burned over 60% of her body, she decided to turn this into a plea for sympathetic attention. She made up a story of an attack.

Something odd about that. There are numerous stories in the media in which an attack is alleged to have occurred, but investigators quickly determine the attack was faked. Often these are botched suicides, and the perpetrator too embarrassed to admit it. But quite often, the “victim” creates an elaborate fantasy that seem to involve race. Whether it’s Tawana Bradley in 1987 claiming to have been attacked by white men, or Susan Smith in 1994 claiming a black man carjacked and murdered her children—there are indeed many more examples—the emphasis is on race. And it’s one of the secret things police look for when debunking a story: how often the alleged victim stresses the skin color of the attacker.

The dingbat liberals wasted no time blaming this on Mitt Romney:

On many of the Twitter and Facebook posts, users speculated the attack was a hate crime and Moffitt was attacked for wearing a President Obama t-shirt when she was "raped and burned alive."

Ms. Moffitt was not raped, and set herself on fire. However, there is no doubt that she elected to wear a Barack Obama shirt to make her story seem more credible.

So Ms. Moffitt, on top of everything else, is a racist herself. A real one. This compounds the tragedy, that she would attempt to use her suicide to foster racial hatred. Truly pathetic—but not without precedent there, either.

Big Czar salute to Rachel Veronica for her follow up. As a reward, she can have...dunno, maybe Maui? Pick one of the Hawaiian Islands.

Two Weeks Out: the Electoral Landscape

The Czar has been studying the electoral maps of late, wondering how things are faring. The news is interesting.

Looking at Rasmussen’s state-by-state polling (which is not yet up-to-date), and looking at Real Clear Politics’ averages (which too often include whackadoo outliers that throw off the averages), we are seeing some similarities.

Also, there are a bunch of toss up states, but some trends are developing. If we award to Obama all the states that are trending his way, and award all the states that are trending to Romney, you are still left with Iowa. Iowa is basically at a tie right now. Let us award Iowa to Obama, because we are charitable.

Assuming that the news updates are correct—that Obama is losing Ohio fast (you may yourself have heard that the Obama campaign is starting to look at ways to win without Ohio), the votes might tally up like this:

State	Votes	Romney	Obama
Alabama	9	9
Alaska	3	3
Arizona	11	11
Arkansas	6	6
California	55		55
Colorado	9	9
Connecticut	7		7
Delaware	3		3
Florida	29	29
Georgia	16	16
Hawaii	4		4
Idaho	4	4
Illinois	20		20
Indiana	11	11
Iowa*	6		6
Kansas	6	6
Kentucky	8	8
Louisiana	8	8
Maine	4		4
Maryland	10		10
Massachusetts	11		11
Michigan	16		16
Minnesota	10		10
Mississippi	6	6
Missouri	10	10
Montana	3	3
Nebraska	5	5
Nevada	6		6
New Hampshire	4		4
New Jersey	14		14
New Mexico	5		5
New York	29		29
North Carolina	15	15
North Dakota	3	3
Ohio	18	18
Oklahoma	7	7
Oregon	7		7
Pennsylvania	20		20
Rhode Island	4		4
South Carolina	9	9
South Dakota	3	3
Tennessee	11	11
Texas	38	38
Utah	6	6
Vermont	3		3
Virginia	13	13
Washington	12		12
West Virginia	5	5
Wisconsin	10		10
Wyoming	3	3
Washington, D.C.	3		3
Total electors	538	275	263

*Iowa is presently tied, so we award her to Obama for purposes of analysis.

Romney needs 270 to win. This assumes the following:

Obama wins tossup states Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He may not: New Hampshire and Iowa could easily swing over to Romney. Indeed, the only certain Obama pick up right now is Michigan: even Pennsylvania might have already tipped into the Romney camp. Stand by.

Romney wins tossup states Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. Ohio is still quite close, but a lot of local polls not reaching the national stage are showing increased support for Romney: he might not only have won Ohio, but may even be distancing.

Some models we have done have Romney already over the 315 vote mark. And our neighbor Borepatch has Romney at 346 with some reasonable guesswork.

We will keep an eye on this.

Tibetan history, or bad science-fiction novel?

[Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan] did everything in his power to improve the military strength and administration of his myriarchy, but lived in constant discord with the neighboring myriarchs of gYa-bzang and Tshal-pa. His enemy, the dPonchen of Sa-skya, took advantage of the situation to remove him, and after a resort to arms he was captured and convicted, but escaped.

An Open Letter to Obama On "Stage 3 Romnesia"

Dear Mr. President,

After last night's debate, you addressed a rally of your supporters and the press in Florida.  But then I repeat myself.  You chose this occasion, in front of a live audience of 11,000 or so to riff that Mr. Romney suffered from "at least Stage 3 Romnesia."

Mr. Obama, you are an ass.  Not just an ass, but a colossal ass.

Are you so far detached from regular Americans that you don't realize hundreds of thousands of Americans struggle every day against that evil bastard cancer? Do you not realize that October is National Breast Cancer Awareness month? Or maybe you just thought that NFL players suddenly decided that hideous shades of dayglo pink were dead sexy?

Mr. Obama, my wife's father was recently diagnosed with Stage IV (or Stage III, depending on the assessing specialist) squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx.  We call him Poppy.  Not the cancer, but my father in law.  Poppy's cancer has invaded his thyroid cartilage and has spread to lymph nodes throughout his neck, and perhaps farther.  The doctors do not know for certain.

I wrote extensively yesterday on Poppy's struggle with cancer and my family's struggle coming to terms with his mortality. I wrote of our grief.  I wrote of our decision to rely on God and one another as we move forward together towards whatever outcome awaits Poppy, whether remission or death.  I wouldn't expect that you'd read my piece, as you're a very important and busy man.  Frankly, I wouldn't expect that you'd understand it had you read it, as we're one of those families in Upstate New York that bitterly clings to our God in times of trouble.

What I do expect from a grown man, and more so from the sitting President of the United States, is an understanding that your words are not merely words, they are the acts of a great nation.  And the acts of a great nation have consequences.  Traditionally, American presidents have carefully marshaled their words for maximum effect in service of well-though out objectives.  Think John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's declaration of war.

Not you, Mr. Obama. You chose to go the other way.  You toss out unfunny one-liners, probably written by a staff of twenty-something speechwriters with no real world experience, without a thought for your words' impact on others. You are the most dangerous of men: a man with near limitless power, but without the wisdom to use your power properly.

But let's return to Poppy.  In case you were wondering, Poppy started his cancer treatment yesterday.  The doctors filled him full of poison, attempting to kill Poppy's laryngeal cancer without killing him. It's a fine dance, one doctors are still perfecting. As an added bonus, the doctors also are irradiating Poppy's tumor, burning the cancerous cells into oblivion.  Poppy has the pleasure of having his head immobilized (essentially bolted to a table) for 20 or so minutes daily so the technicians can precisely target his tumor.  It's an awful regimen, but preferable to Poppy's alternate course.

Poppy's alternate course was a full laryngectomy, which would have rendered him speechless for life. You know the surgery. It's when they lay open your neck like a high school biology class frog, pull out everything that looks like it may be cancerous including but not limited to your voicebox, then knit you back together as best they can, but this time with a hole in your throat where you talking parts used to be. As an added bonus, Poppy would have had to relearn swallowing and if that went well, then how to swallow without inhaling his food. But that assumes Poppy lived through the surgery in the first place, which was not a given.

Did I mention Poppy had a feeding tube installed? You see, Mr. Obama, the radiation will eventually burn Poppy's throat so badly he will not be able to swallow. Or speak.  Just in time for Thanksgiving and Christmas. Maybe it's for the best anyway, since the cisplatinum being pumped through his circulatory system would likely have made him vomit up his meals anyway. I'm certain Poppy's five grandchildren, two daughters and wife will look back fondly on this holiday season, trying to be of good cheer for the kids as Poppy fights for his life.

But cancer's a joke to you, a throw away line, right Mr. Obama?

Mr. Obama, I try my best to each my children respect for our leaders, even when -- no, especially when -- I disagree with our leaders.  Please tell me how I explain to my children that the sitting President of the United States finds cancer, the disease that is slowly eating their grandfather alive before their pre-teen eyes, funny? My kids are roughly your kids' ages: 14 and 11. Would you make a joke about cancer if their beloved grandmother, your mother in law, was stricken with the disease?

As Americans, we have the right to expect our leaders to behave better, to measure their words, to consider consequences. You have utterly failed on each count.

Your words were careless, ill-considered and damaging.  Damaging to Poppy, damaging to my wife and damaging to my kids.

I stand by my assessment of you, Mr. Obama.  You are a colossal ass.

Sincerely,

'Puter Gormogon

Winnsboro Attack: First, Be Skeptical

Is someone attempting their own October surprise?

The news media is reporting that Sharmeka Moffitt, 20, was walking down a paved trail in a quiet and calm part of Winnsboro, Louisiana, when three men wearing “white hoodies” wrote KKK on her car in toothpaste and then somehow set her on fire. She has extensive burns down her back and on her legs.

She managed to recover from the fire—details on how aren’t clear—and caled police. A car happened to be in the area and was on the scene literally in seconds.

The Czar is a little skeptical. The KKK? White hoodies? How did they smear toothpaste on her car and manage to find her on a paved trail? A police car is on the scene in under a minute and saw no one but her. She cannot identify any of the attackers. Two weeks to go before the election.

Look, the Czar wasn’t there. But there are two possibilities to this story, neither of which are desirable.

First, and simplest, is that Ms. Moffitt set herself on fire for whatever reason, and is blaming imaginary attackers. This is not without precedent, as many of you can recall. There seems to be something about these types of botched suicides that encourage people to create a racial component to it.

Second, this could be almost real. Three guys—whom we can easily predict won’t be voting for Romney—decided to stir the pot and create an anti-Republican atmosphere by staging a racist attack. The whole theatrics of the KKK vandalism and the white hoodies seems to be the big clue there. Some readers may be startled to read our automatic assumption that these attackers wouldn’t be Republicans, but if we’ve been paying attention all these years, we know which party invented the KKK, armed them, looked the other way, and even joined their ranks for decades. Hint: not a lot of Republican voters on that side.

Even the mayor of Winnsboro said his first reaction to the news was disbelief. Yes: never underestimate the power of the initial reaction.

Either way, this is a terrible event, and certainly either way we wish the best for Ms. Moffit and hope that regardless of what happened, she gets the help she needs. But while the MSM goes on to explore and inflate the racial component to this story, Big G readers should know there almost certainly is no Republican candidate that can be tied into this story.

Debate 3: The Czar's Take

All right, sports fans! Time to turn off the Bears-Lions game and see what happened on the final debate of 2012.

Barack Obama - good: A lot of us were wondering which Barack Obama would be put out there tonight: dopey, dreamy Obama from Debate I, or jerky-pissy Obama from Debate 2? Um, well, he was better. He was a little more relaxed, certainly less argumentative, and much more focused on one-two-three-style argumentation that works so well with voters. Some of his answers were quite good—just the foreign policy ones, mind you—and too often predicted what Romney would have said.

Barack Obama - not so good: Obama was clearly caught out on some questions, particularly when Romney obliterated the President’s Israel relationship. You could see the President’s physical discomfort. In many cases, he let Romney talk way too long. But when it came down to it, Obama made it clear he had little more to offer than to blame Bush, repeat debunked routines about Romney’s imaginary $5 trillion dollar tax cut, and teacher, teachers, teachers. The President fulfilled every SNL writer’s dream with more talk of teachers, teachers, teachers. Romney even suggested he stop it: you can’t fix every problem with hiring teachers.

Mitt Romney - good: Romney had nothing, really, to lose tonight. Just come on, smile paternally when the President talked, and keep at the economy and the Romney vision for America. The closing statement was exemplary: the President bitched about Bush Romney, and how 2008 2012 was the year we would change the failed policies. Romney didn’t even acknowledge the President’s closing statement, but simply stated that he was optimistic, that with a little work, America and Americans could be strong again. That there was nothing we couldn’t do if government just got out of the way. When Romney was good, he was superb.

Mitt Romney - not so good: A few instant-reaction polls gave this one to Barack Obama, and yeah, the Czar can understand that. Obama was pretty forceful and firm, but the Czar thinks that any declaration of victory by and for the President is just a mealy-mouthed way of saying he was better than the Barack Obamas of Debates I and II.

That said, Romney had one glaring flaw that popped up here and there: he repeated Barack Obama. You can agree with the President, and often Mitt Romney did just that. Giving the President credit is a good thing when deserved, yes. But on a couple of questions, Romney frowned and scribbled notes to himself while the President talked. When Romney was asked to rebut, the Governor effectively repeated what the President said, even using the same words here and there. Better to agree with a nice, simple agreement and then regain control of the narrative. This was most painful during the Syria answer, especially when Romney absent-mindedly quoted the President by saying we need to arm our friends in Syria, and ensure those weapons are not used against us. Jeez, Mitt, pay attention!

So who won? At this point, it didn’t matter. While the Czar would declare this an effective tie in terms of clarity and quality of answers, the outcome is not in doubt: people have started to write off Barack Obama. He will see no bounce this week in his numbers, but look for a continued 6-8 point Romney lead going into next week.

There are only two kinds of undecided voters by this point: those who will secretly vote for Romney but fear being razzed by their Obama-voting friends, and those who will vote for Obama and are already embarrassed about it.