Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit wrote:

---

thats one of those moments where ya just wish you had the milton berle cream pie handy instead of the box of doughnuts:)


Nightowlhoot3 wrote:Hmm. I was thinking more along the lines of cartoon action ... first, the rapid-fire slapping of the face done about 30 times in 2 seconds, (me being some sort of adorable rodent, of course ... I can't see me doing this in my own body, even in my imagination, dangit) followed by an oversized sledge hammer raised in my hands above my head pounding her into a squatty figure with crossed eyes, and Disney-esque birds circling her head chirping lightly. A pie would work too, of course.... LOL

---

Worked like magic on Anita Bryant, didn't it? Real career ender. ;)

BoxDog wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

---

crap, everything I wrote is gone. must be a sign ;)

---

back arrowing seems to work on this. i figgered it was my ancient desktop but apparently others have the same problem

---

It had better not be my machines. I have to assume it's an act of god. Sometimes it's best to type in invisible ink.

---

lol, nah, its good exercise to shake up the thinking, if for no other reason than it allows someone (and others reading) to have to substantiate what they think and in doing so things get chewed on and thought thru. how can that ever be a bad thing?!

Psych Lit wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

But, like I said, while Biden was duking it out with Daisy from Orlando

the latest on this is that barbara west is reportedly married to someone who is a media consultant for the GOP and that her questions were given from mccain  campaign headquarters thru her husband to her. im waiting to see if that can be confirmed. she did a sort of
denial that was as important in what she didnt say as it was in what she did say. she said her husband had no connection to george bush. bush? who said anything about bush? she said nothing about mccain. ill wait to see what fact check or one of the other sites that follows up on these things has to say. if it turns out to be true it would be one of the most blatant cases of a supposedly legit news organization becoming the right arm of a particular party. i wonder how that coverage factors into the allotted spending for candidates?

Obama was telling Coloradans what he "really meant". Spreading the opportunity, the one I thought we already have.<--bd

---

See? I don't see a conflict in Obama's statement. I don't think everyone in this country does have an equal opportunity to amass wealth, even when earnestness, and willingness to do hard work is equal. Beyond economic factors, there's also, well, gender, and race a lot of times, still. <owl

yes and access alone can make a big difference. there are campaigns now to get high school kids in touch with how they can go to college. a lot of kids are overwhelmed by the process, especially if they are the first generation to go or they and their parents havent saved enough for them to pay cash for it. i think its knowhow2go.org. others have no idea how to apply for work, how to interview etc. a lot of this stuff we can tend to take for granted but for a lot of kids in rural or inner city areas this is intimidating.

Maybe I have a socalist streak in me -- I believe education is one of those inalienable rights, and that all should have equal access to it. Obama has proposed a way to make that happen with commitment to social programs other than the army or Navy, which I applaud.

i like this idea somewhat. i do think that every american should have some requirement to do community or nationwide service or serve in the military if thats what they choose to do. i think it should be a part of any high school or college program. however ive yet to hear a plan for this that is economically feasible so thats a concern especially since this war has brought our debt levels up so high. one of the things that bothers me about the run up to the election is the promise of utopian programs that never come to pass. it adds to our frustration level and the idea that washington is stuck and unable to change. that said, id like to see public colleges have free tuition for anyone who can pass the entrance exams who is willing to do this kind of service and maintain a c plus average but id draw the line on forking over private school fees unless it was equal to the amount of what the public school would cost.  i think there has to be some incentive for the best students to want to attend public colleges, that raises the bar for everyone and creates a better learning environment.

I like this thinking. I agree it can't (right now, anyway) be a flat "give-away" and I don't know that that would be in the student's best interest, anyway. I know when I was matriculating (just because the naughty side of me leaps at the opportunity to use that word whenever possible ) I saw a lot of my peers take higher education for granted, or at least that's how it appeared. My having to schlep donuts, icees, or tacos 40 hours a week in addition to attending class and being in or involved in about eight stage shows a year (and involvement with student organizations) gave me the feeling of having something special, this opportunity to attend college, and something for which I gladly made sacrifices -- it was a choice with which I was happy. Not always comfortable, but happy. I remember with great irritation one Saturday morning, working in the local donut shop, my acting "competition" (she and I were the same 'type') coming in for take out donuts. I was the only person working the counter and the to go area, as was usual, and running my tushie off, and as she was reaching in her wallet to pay for the box of donuts, she nonchalantly opined: "You know, my folks wanted me to work while I was in college too, but I just didn't want to. It just doesn't seem to be as much fun."



I smiled, and handed her the box of donuts. I count it as one of my more sterling "life moments."

A sort of footnote to that was that when she and I both arrived at the University, she generally got the roles I wanted, but by the time we were in our last year there, that had completely turned around. I guess my point is that when things come easily, you're less apt to truly appreciate what you have, but if you have to work for it, then the rewards are more sweet sometimes. I used to tell people I had a degree in tenacity.  It was, I think, a good life lesson. "College" was important to me, in part, because beyond the jobs I'd had as a pre-teen and teen, it was really my first big exprience in long-term goal setting and achievement, which was really "all mine."   




 ... well, they were more honorariums than scholarships, but even so, I first went to a community college, and my tuition was covered by an activity scholarship every semeseter after my first. The cost now though, is obscene, and with the economy the way it is, graduates can't count on a job after they graduate to pay off that steep loan.

especially with the predatory lending practices of the past decade. theyll be lucky if they ever pay them off.

Last year I looked into returning to college for a another degree, or at least some classes in a different field, and was completely blown away at the cost. WAY out of my range, and those "computer schools" are even worse!

does your alma mater have a policy on auditing classes? if you dont need the credit, just the how to, it might be a place to look. all of my old schools allow one audited class per semester and its a freebie.

Hey, that's a great tip, thanks. I may try to check it out. My initial research involved community colleges closer to where I now live, and that was even before the gas crunch, but I'll do some investigating with the alma maters, too.

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

BoxDog wrote:

---

But, like I said, while Biden was duking it out with Daisy from Orlando

the latest on this is that barbara west is reportedly married to someone who is a media consultant for the GOP and that her questions were given from mccain  campaign headquarters thru her husband to her. im waiting to see if that can be confirmed. she did a sort of
denial that was as important in what she didnt say as it was in what she did say. she said her husband had no connection to george bush. bush? who said anything about bush? she said nothing about mccain. ill wait to see what fact check or one of the other sites that follows up on these things has to say. if it turns out to be true it would be one of the most blatant cases of a supposedly legit news organization becoming the right arm of a particular party. i wonder how that coverage factors into the allotted spending for candidates?

Obama was telling Coloradans what he "really meant". Spreading the opportunity, the one I thought we already have.<--bd

---

See? I don't see a conflict in Obama's statement. I don't think everyone in this country does have an equal opportunity to amass wealth, even when earnestness, and willingness to do hard work is equal. Beyond economic factors, there's also, well, gender, and race a lot of times, still. <owl

yes and access alone can make a big difference. there are campaigns now to get high school kids in touch with how they can go to college. a lot of kids are overwhelmed by the process, especially if they are the first generation to go or they and their parents havent saved enough for them to pay cash for it. i think its knowhow2go.org. others have no idea how to apply for work, how to interview etc. a lot of this stuff we can tend to take for granted but for a lot of kids in rural or inner city areas this is intimidating.

Maybe I have a socalist streak in me -- I believe education is one of those inalienable rights, and that all should have equal access to it. Obama has proposed a way to make that happen with commitment to social programs other than the army or Navy, which I applaud.

i like this idea somewhat. i do think that every american should have some requirement to do community or nationwide service or serve in the military if thats what they choose to do. i think it should be a part of any high school or college program. however ive yet to hear a plan for this that is economically feasible so thats a concern especially since this war has brought our debt levels up so high. one of the things that bothers me about the run up to the election is the promise of utopian programs that never come to pass. it adds to our frustration level and the idea that washington is stuck and unable to change. that said, id like to see public colleges have free tuition for anyone who can pass the entrance exams who is willing to do this kind of service and maintain a c plus average but id draw the line on forking over private school fees unless it was equal to the amount of what the public school would cost.  i think there has to be some incentive for the best students to want to attend public colleges, that raises the bar for everyone and creates a better learning environment.

 ... well, they were more honorariums than scholarships, but even so, I first went to a community college, and my tuition was covered by an activity scholarship every semeseter after my first. The cost now though, is obscene, and with the economy the way it is, graduates can't count on a job after they graduate to pay off that steep loan.

especially with the predatory lending practices of the past decade. theyll be lucky if they ever pay them off.

Last year I looked into returning to college for a another degree, or at least some classes in a different field, and was completely blown away at the cost. WAY out of my range, and those "computer schools" are even worse!

does your alma mater have a policy on auditing classes? if you dont need the credit, just the how to, it might be a place to look. all of my old schools allow one audited class per semester and its a freebie.

 

BoxDog wrote:

---

I mean, really, all the guy had to do was answer the question with his not having time to educate the press on the difference between democracy as a political system and socialism as an economic ideology.

i dont know if the youtube things shows the entire interview. i still have not had time to bring the laptop in. but in the clips ive seen he did answer the question, citing where taxes have risen on the middle class and lessened on the wealthy and that that needed to be looked at.  the trickle down theory seems to have worked well for the richest of the rich but not so much for the middle and lower classes where the percentage of income paid in taxes is far higher.
the theory as i recall is that if we dont tax the rich they have more incentive to make money which translates somewhere along the way into more jobs. cat could probably do a far better job of explaining where taxes have risen in the past decade and who has had the lions share of increase. im no fan of shelling out tax money but i dont object to paying my fair share and i dont understand why people who benefit the most from the rules,  and who couldnt do what they do without the labor force, object to a fairer system of taxation.

 Or sneeze, or cough. I would still love to hear his answer. Especially now, as I would hope he is prepared for the question ;) Just how is it that spreading the "wealth" (250k) is NOT socialist. And it's already begun now with socialized banking. Be it sold to us as a "temporary" solution or not.

i would guess that the answer would be that any tax system is in some sense a socialist policy because it redistributes the wealth in any case. the question becomes how we want to distribute it and placing the whole of the burden on the middle income folks seems a bit unfair. perhaps the fairest system would be a flat tax system where there are no mortage or kiddie or any other kind of deductions, where everybody pays 15% or 20% or we could go to a sales tax situation where there is a national sales tax which makes taxation in some sense voluntary but id be willing to bet that those on the high end pay nowhere near 15% now and would not be willing to do so if the tax system were changed. i know i dont end up paying the 15% id last heard floated as the flat tax solution, its more like 12% and i usually avoid taking all of the deductions that im entitled to because it requires too much paperwork and time to keep the records. so if i were a bit more organized id prolly be able to bring that down to 10%. i have friends who make 30k, who dont have dependent deductions, property tax deductions, college expense deductions, 401 and 403 deductions, medical deductions and a few other choice things, who end up paying nearly as much federal income tax as i do.  one of my closest friends made over 90k last year and paid no fed or state income tax. nada. thats her goal every year and shes managed to do it as long as ive known her. its apparently legit too she has her taxes done by a pro who once worked for the irs. i dont think thats a fair situation. im not a fan of big govt and i dont think that throwing money at problems is the best solution for them but i do think there are things that are for the common good that we all should be paying for proportionally according to our income.

Unfortunately I didn't get to see the shoes, though I haven't looked at the pics yet. I know they weren't visible to my eye. Knowing that I did turn around and grab a shot of one of the reporters black tie me ups.

<perk> black tie me ups? do tell?

Seems Republicans tend to be very tall people, blocked my view of everything from the podium down. It's probably best that way. Actually, I should have gone fishing.

 

---

hey you were there as history was being made. its all good and if you lived in switzerland youd have to take humane fishing lessons before casting that rod!

 

BoxDog wrote:

---

But, like I said, while Biden was duking it out with Daisy from Orlando Obama was telling Coloradans what he "really meant". Spreading the opportunity, the one I thought we already have. 

---

See? I don't see a conflict in Obama's statement. I don't think everyone in this country does have an equal opportunity to amass wealth, even when earnestness, and willingness to do hard work is equal. Beyond economic factors, there's also, well, gender, and race a lot of times, still.

Maybe I have a socalist streak in me -- I believe education is one of those inalienable rights, and that all should have equal access to it. Obama has proposed a way to make that happen with commitment to social programs other than the army or Navy, which I applaud. This country has the wealth, the means. If we can fund basically both sides of a war in Iraq, we can find a way to open university doors to bright minds eager to learn, IMO. Of course not everyone will want that choice, but I think those who do should be allowed to achieve it. I can't believe how much more it costs now to go to college than it did back when I went. I was able to pay my way by working full time, (did most of my sleeping under the cutting table in the costume shop) and with the assistance of a couple of dinky little ... well, they were more honorariums than scholarships, but even so, I first went to a community college, and my tuition was covered by an activity scholarship every semeseter after my first. The cost now though, is obscene, and with the economy the way it is, graduates can't count on a job after they graduate to pay off that steep loan.

Last year I looked into returning to college for a another degree, or at least some classes in a different field, and was completely blown away at the cost. WAY out of my range, and those "computer schools" are even worse!  

I think that's the kind of thing Obama meant, but it's just a guess, of course.

There are, of course, exceptions -- people who've made a ton of money with no training in their field, but I don't think they represent the bulk of the population.

I think too, one gets something more than (for lack of a better word) "book learning" from a university. There's an exposure to new and different thoughts, ideas, and people which, IMO, enriches a person immeasurably. At least that was my experience. Sure, college isn't meant for everyone, and not everyone who has that experience benefits from it in a meaningful way,  but for those who are desirous... <sigh>

sorry ... "education" is... was,  my "family business" so my prejudice is inescapable. :)

BoxDog wrote:

---

Psych Lit wrote:

---

BoxDog wrote:

---

Answer the question, Biden, how is "spreading the wealth" NOT socialism?

Biden Angered by Tough Questions

"From each, according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Karl Marx

   i saw this on fox the other day and shared bidens incredulity. its one of those prosecutorial questions like did you run after you shot your wife mr jones? which presupposes guilt in the framing of the question. thats not a real reporter thats a reporter with an agenda.  if you look quickly today on fox's web site this is the headline but what makes it editorially amusing is its placement right above the 125b redistribution of wealth for the corporate bailout. somewhere in the managerial suite at fox someone has decided that this will be the thing that does obama in when its pretty clear that what he was speaking about to joe was whether it was ok to give the richest folks tax cuts and slam those breaks onto the backs of the middle class which is what mccain wants to do and what obama is saying no to. and then of course there is the out of context clip taken from a civil rights speech about economic justice which is easily seen just looking at a typical corporate structure and seeing the difference between the ceo and the lowest paid. that ratio has never been higher than in recent years. if we wanna go back to serfdoms then what fox is saying makes sense, otherwise its laughable and really an insult to the intelligence of all of those working class republicans who are hurting now.  if there is still anyone in america who thinks the redistribution or transfer of wealth that has happened over the last decade benefitted anyone other than the top 3% of the wealthy in america then maybe this will sell. however, aside from the wealthy portion of the republican base the other 97% of republicans are people of average means who see themselves hurting and may think that its time that this particular fraction get tweaked a bit. 
ps didja get the feet?

---

Having seen the same interview, my perspective found  Bidens dismissive arrogance coupled with the all too rampant misogyny, incredulous.  "Is this a real question?", and "Who writes your questions for you?"...He was asked a relatively simple question, via satellite. It's not like he was trapped in a roundtable event with no place to run. The question, from my angle is legitimate if they intend to explain what the hell "JOE" is all about. If they want to maintain what appears to be the start of an untouchable administration? Theats a good start. Oh and don't forget to get the college bloggers started mocking the reporters hair-do and referring to her as a helmet head. He attacked the reporter, not the question. I would almost "buy into" his attack, if it weren't for the fact that BO himself was in another state redefining "what he meant to say". What he meant to say was redistribute "OPPORTUNITY", not wealth. That's not getting a whole lotta national attention. But the transparency and the "banning" of certain media is NOT the Obama that was promised, is it? And, no. If that's the type of response that they plan to sway undecideds with it's not a winning plan.

I mean, really, all the guy had to do was answer the question with his not having time to educate the press on the difference between democracy as a political system and socialism as an economic ideology. Or sneeze, or cough. I would still love to hear his answer. Especially now, as I would hope he is prepared for the question ;) Just how is it that spreading the "wealth" (250k)  is NOT socialist. And it's already begun now with socialized banking. Be it sold to us as a "temporary" solution or not.

---

Do you truly not find the question and attendant insinuation offensive? Especially in a political environment where the vice presidential candidate on the opposing side is going around identifying for us who and where the "real" Americans are?

I've seen a lot of elections, and a lot of dirty political stuff during campaigns, but honestly, I don't recall a presidential election where slurs like this implied or otherwise, were employed with such frequency ... a black man with a middle name of Hussein is enough "cause" to continually question something as basic as one's patriotism? That image of Barack Obama in the turban with the Bin Laden beard attached began appearing frequently when? Look at former grazing grounds ... they're still talking about how American women will be in burkas if Obama is elected. But that isn't enough -- now, we have to say this ticket isn't "just" peppered with terrorists, but also socialists. When did we become so damn eager to time-travel back to the glorious days for McCarthyism, for crying out loud?

I watched "Manchurian Candidate" again last night -- a film which seems to rebut, in part, the whole McCarthy era. There was the central character's step father, the senator hoping to become Vice President, blurting out "There are (muffled intentionally, because he was, of course, making it up, and his wife who was pulling his strings wouldn't give him a definite number ...  she finally settled on 57 -- because she watched him dumping ketchup on his meal, and thought he'd remember that number) KNOWN COMMUNISTS on this committee, and .... bla bla bla ...


And here we are, in 2008, and people are passing spleens practically, trying to prove that Barack Obama isn't a "real" American, demanding the freakin' birth certificate he finally produced is somehow phoney ... are people afraid he's like the Larry Harvey character in Manchurian Candidate, and "programmed" by "the bad guys" to become president and hand us over to the terrorists or turn us all into socialists??

Seriously: what else is all this crud about, really? And it's been relentless. Were I in Joe Biden's shoes? I think -- no, I pretty much know I'd be a little ticked off myself at a question like that. E-freakin'-nough already.

Both Biden and Obama are Americans.
Neither is a Muslim (although what the hell if they were??? Only people of the Christian or Jewish faith are "allowed" to be candidates for president now??) or a terrorist, or a socialist, or whatever else the fear-mongering blacklisting types want to pin on them.

They're democrats, for God's sake. American democrats. Those people on those other boards hell bent on "proving" something to the contrary do so only because they just don't want to deal with the "real" issues -- issues, incidentally, which the GOP is losing on BIG time. So? If you can't "win" the conversation, change the conversation. Slight of hand, straight out of the Bush play book, and put in the mouths of McCain and Palin by those same speech writers who dirty dogged McCain when he was the opposition. I wonder if they were the same guys who trashed Ann Richards, calling her a drunk when Shrub became Texas' governor? But at least a "drunk" is American.




Yeah, McCain is "wrong" about everything, and the American people overwhelmingly think Obama has a better plan on EVERYTHING except Iraq, so now we'll go back to "real" Americans live here and not there ... REAL Americans REAL Americans aren't SOCIALISTS, for crying out loud, and they absolutely aren't, like Barack Obama, "... palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." What the hell?? If Bill Ayers was a terrorist, would he not be in prison rather than a well regarded university professor? If you found a terrorist, Sarah, why not do something about it??


My ire is absolutely not directed at you, BD -- it's at what I've watched unfold for months and months now; this return to political demonization of good people just trying to run for political office and further impact this country in what they think is a positive way. That goes for all four candidates, IMO. It's sickening when people belittle John McCain's war record, and it's sickening when people try to make Barack Obama into something he's not, as well. I'm so glad this will (hopefully) all be over a week from tomorrow. I don't think this country can stand much more of this muckracking junk. I know I can't.


-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 14:14, 2008-10-27

BoxDog wrote:

---

Answer the question, Biden, how is "spreading the wealth" NOT socialism? <BD


--------------------------------------------------------------

Coincidentally, if not responsively,  OECD put out a report week before last on global poverty which included examination of disparity between a given nation's most wealthy and most poor, and inequality in wages between those groups. Here's what one of the graphs said: (bold type mine, for emphasis)

----------------------------------

"The United States is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty level across the OECD, (OWL NOTE: There are, I think, 30 countries in the OECD) Mexico and Turkey excepted. Since 2000 income inequality has increased rapidly, continuing a long-term trend that goes back to the 1970's.  

Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind.

This has happened in many countries, but nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States.

The average income of the richest 10% is US$93,000 US$ in purchasing power parities, the highest level in the OECD. However, the poorest 10% of the US citizens have an income of US$5,800 US$ per year about 20% lower than the average for OECD countries.

The distribution of earnings widened by 20% since the mid-1980s which is more than in most other OECD countries. This is the main reason for widening inequality in America.

Redistribution of income by government plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Only in Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low equivalent to just 9% of household incomes, while the OECD average is 22%. The effectiveness of taxes and transfers in reducing inequality has fallen still further in the past 10 years.

Child poverty that is, children in a household with less than half the median income has fallen since 1985, from 25% to 20% but poverty rates among the elderly increased from 20 to 23%. Both of these trends are in the opposite direction to those of the other countries in the OECD"

-------------------------------

Here's the full report (I think, if I did the "heart" thing right) for anyone who wants to read further:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdf

So, if we continue walking around patting ourselves on the back for being the "best" and "richest" country in the world, all the while watching the demise of the middle-class, and citizens being thrust into either the "rich" or "poor" grouping, is this the price we pay for that "honor"?  Who are we Americans? Are we any relation at all to the people who returned to this country after WWII with a "team" spirit? In the 60's our president announced a national war on poverty, and actually meant it. Maybe it happened, but I don't recall people calling LBJ's "Great Society" a socialist state. In WWII, citizens were told to buy bonds and plant victory gardens. When Bush bombed Baghdad, he told us to not pay any attention and to instead go shopping.

I just .........

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 12:13, 2008-10-27

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 12:18, 2008-10-27

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

(From Friday's Wall Street Journal)


Obamacans: Prominent Republicans Line Up Behind Obama

Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.

Since Colin Powell crossed party lines to endorse Barack Obama last Sunday, a steady stream of prominent Republicans have endorsed the Illinois senator over rival John McCain.

Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld is endorsing Obama today at a press conference in Salem, N.H. Weld was a public supporter of Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries. In a statement, Weld called Obama a "once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore Americas standing in the world."

On Thursday, former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Obama at the state capitol. "I think we have in Barack Obama the clear possibility of a truly great president," he said. "I would contend that its the most important election of my lifetime."

Scott McClellan, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, also endorsed Obama Thursday. USA Today reported that McClellan told CNN in a taping to be aired this weekend that Obama has the best chance of changing the way Washington works.

Ken Adelman, a prominent conservative on foreign policy matters announced his support for Obama on Tuesday, telling the New Yorker that his decision was based on temperament and judgment.

Adelman called McCain "impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird" in his handling of the U.S. economic crisis. He also was unsettled by McCain's choice of running mate. "Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high officeI would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency," Adelman wrote.

UPDATE: Add Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor and former Solicitor General in the Reagan administration, to the list of Republicans supporting Obama. Frieds vote for the Democratic ticket is particularly harsh, as he was associated with the McCain campaign. Fried voted absentee for Obama this week, and informed McCain campaign general counsel Trevor Potter of his decision in a letter where he stated he could not support McCain in large part because of his selection of Palin as his running mate.

*To find out which newspapers are backing the presidential rivals, check out WSJs *"Who Endorsed McCain?" and "Who Endorsed Obama?" pages.

---

This reads as the answer to the "if someone told you to jump from a bridge woudja?" question. Though I must admit if I happen to come across a "free" copy of the McClellan "tell all", in the alley I may just thumb through it. May. I plan on "keeping  my brain" this year, as in the past. My decision is going to be based on my own answer to a standard, pre-employment question. "Where do you see yourself in five years?". I just think it's far more embarrassing and potentially damaging, this year, to see the high profile juice drinkers stumble up to the obamabar for another round.

Answer the question, Biden, how is "spreading the wealth" NOT socialism?