Binders Full of Women

Dems are doing their best to find something . . anything . . that they can pin on Romney in order to turn around Obama's slide in the polls. Big Bird didn't seem to help. Blaming the death of our U.S. ambassador in Libya on a YouTube video that no one ever saw didn't work. Boasting about an artificial drop in unemployment didn't help. Pretty much everything the dems have tried has not helped, and that now includes "binders full of women". That does not mean they are not trying though.

Here are a couple thoughts I have regarding "binders full of women":

1. During the debate, Romney said:

“And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ And they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Please note where the "binders full of women" came from:  women's groups. That's right, women put women into binders, not Romney. If these women's groups had instead put women into . . well, what else would they put these resumes into? So if women (and men) are having problems with "binders full of women", they should aim their fake anger at the women groups that put them there.

2. I can pretty much guarantee that before Romney asked for a list of women's resumes that ended up being given to him in binders, there were whole binders full of men given to Romney. That's right, binders full of men. Where is the outrage? This is obviously a sign of disrespect toward men. Think of it: binders full of men. Come on men, can't we come up with at least a little bit of of our own fake outrage over this?

Politics: Things I Don't Understand

1. Here is all you need to know about Mitt Romney and how much tax he pays: If I offered to give you an amount equal to how much Mitt Romney pays in taxes (roughly $2 million) or how much Barack Obama pays in taxes (roughly $162,000), which would you take? I'll give your 15 seconds to decide. What, you don't need 15 seconds? You'll take Romney's 2 million? Why? Yeah, it is substantially more than Obama's $162,000, but won't you feel guilty because Romney paid at a lower percentage rate? That doesn't matter to you, you just want the 2 million? Yeah, I don't understand either why people are making such a big deal about the percentage rate and not looking at the total amount of money being paid in taxes.

2. Why can't people honor the truth rather than spin a lie? When I watch a game and they show a controversial play in slow motion, and it is clear what the correct call should be, I'm okay with getting the call correct, regardless whether it benefits the team I favor or not. Sure, some calls are not clear cut, even on replay, which is why in most cases they rule with the call that was made in real time on the field. But I am more interested in preserving the integrity of the game and honoring the truth than I am with elevating my team. The same should also apply to politics. I can understand supporters wanting to spin bad results into something good, but people are too smart to fall for that. A bad debate isn't because of the altitude of Denver or because Obama is so concerned about protecting the office of the presidency not to fight back or because Romney lied. Obama just debated in the same manner that he has performed as president: detached, uninterested, lazy, arrogant.

3. The left seems to always be really concerned about the little guy . . the guy who doesn't make much money. The left dislikes big business and big money. Not all on the left, mostly those who do not have any money hate those who do have money. As a general rule though, the impression that is put out there is that liberals only like big money when it is something they can take and redistribute to those who do not have money. So why don't these people hate political campaigns with the same vigor. The Obama campaign for example pulled in $181 million just in the month of September. That is a lot of money raised and spent just to elect one person. Seems like a waste to me. Just think of how many teachers could be hired with that kind of money. I can understand conservatives embracing big money . . I don't understand why this kind of fund raising does not repulse a liberal.

4. There were fewer jobs created in September than in August, and there were fewer in August than there was in July. In January 2012 275,000 new jobs were added, followed by 259,000 in February, yet the unemployment rate stayed the same 8.3 between January and February. This was follow by months of very small job creation, ranging from 45,000 to 181,000, not enough to change the unemployment rate more than .2 percentage points. For context, 181,000 jobs were added in July 2012, and the unemployment rate went up .1 percentage point. I don't understand how we can add 114,000 new jobs in September and the rate goes down .3 percentage points. Actually I do understand: fewer people are looking for jobs and the government has dropped these people off these rolls. Basically the country is losing jobs, so you don't need as many people to fill those lost jobs. We're just choosing not to count millions of Americans, which artificially makes the unemployment rate go down. This kind of math is apparently something Obama is happy to embrace, which I don't understand (see point 2).

Eric & Carrie Wedding - Sept. 29, 2012

A few early picks from this past weekend's wedding with Eric and Carrie. It was a great wedding and a perfect day. Click on photos to enlarge.