I don't read yesterday's (and this morning's polls) as that favorable.  What gives?  Very early Saturday morning (I'm going by east coast time throughout this post), Nate explained that the President's chance of winning was over 80% because of the 22 polls of swing states published Friday, he led in 19 and trailed in only 1.  This seemed sensible.  On Saturday, there were fewer published polls (at least listed at Real Clear Politics) and a couple of these were not positive for Obama.  The most worrisome are a Tampa Bay Times Florida poll that shows Romney +6 and, perhaps even more troubling

The second of three debates between Romney and President Obama is in the books.  The instant post-debate polls all had Obama winning.  Nevertheless, Rasmussen and Gallup have now published their first tracking polls which include data compiled after the thrill(a) at Hofstra(uh) and they ain't pretty.  Gallup shows Romney up among likely voters 52-45 (7 points!) and Rasmussen has Romney up 49-47.  The Thursday data moved both polls 1 point towards Romney. 

On the strength of Mary Ann Johanson's 4-star review of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises in the Monterey Weekly, http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/2012/jul/19/dark-knight-rises/, I did something for the first time since the releases of Gran Torino and Mystic River, I bought a ticket to see a non-arthouse film. Given Johanson's expansive rave, I was expecting not only a cinematographic tour-de-force of but also scathing social commentary decrying the overlordship of New York, er Gotham, City by financial robber barons.

Instead, I suffered through a bombastic, repetitive, over-long, and occasionally incoherent fascist fantasy. I have not seen the first two Dark Knights, so at least some of my confusion may be due to unfamiliarity with details in the previous films. To be fair, I'll concentrate here on my problems with Dark Knight Rises that could not result from ignorance of its predecessors and conclude with a critique of its retrograde politics.

If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I'd bet the house on the Giants beating the spread which currently has them 3 point underdogs versus the Patriots.  In fact, I'm very confident that they will win the Super Bowl.  For the life of me, I can't figure out how the Patriots are favored.  Okay, I can.  Tom Brady. 

It's a great life. You risk your skin catching killers and the juries turn them loose so they can come back and shoot at you again. If you're honest you're poor your whole life and in the end you wind up dying all alone on some dirty street. For what? For nothing. For a tin star.

Lon Chaney, Jr., asking Marshal Will Kane played by Gary Cooper why he goes out into the street to get shot at. High Noon.

I've been meaning to write about film for a while but haven't gotten around to it. For me, like most of us I guess, writing well requires both knowledge and passion about a topic and a sense that I have something unique to add. Lots of times, I have one or two but not all three. In late Spring 2011, I wrote a brief article entitled The San Francisco Giants have the Best Pitching Staff in Baseball.

We, the General Assembly of Occupation ___________, constituting all who have joined together in __________, whether in person or virtually, to be part of our movement to reclaim, through non-violent means, American democracy from the corporatists, militarists, and theocrats, declare the following to be our operating principles and goals:

Last year, the San Francisco Giants won the World Series in 5 games.  They beat the Texas Rangers, who may have had the American League's most potent offense because the Giants have the best pitching staff in baseball.  Before embarrassing the Rangers, the Giants convincingly outpitched the Philadelphia Phillies, who had and have the second best staff in baseball, and who were also supported by the most powerful lineup in the National League. 

Dear Thom,

The decision by MSNBC and its owner GE (Comcast is currently finalizing the purchase of MSNBC) to suspend Keith Olbermann without pay signals the start of a purge of liberal-leaning commentators.  With an activist right-wing Supreme Court, corporate media owners can, without fear of successful legal suits, prune from their trees anybody who speaks for limits on corporate power and against the redistribution of wealth upwards.  With a blood red House of Representatives, the masters of media know that no legislative response to their fiat will be forthcoming.  Some have questioned the decisio

I read with great interest and admiration David Seaton's post here: "Observations of and on the Rich".  Seaton contrasts the relatively modest and even awed reactions of some Americans to their financial success with the self-satisfaction and arrogance of others.  Seaton identifies correctly the latter group as the backbone of the reactionary movement that is destroying our world.  Seaton describes the neo-fascists as:

Last night on Inside Washington, Evan Thomas, the "moderate" on the panel said that while there's little doubt that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on everybody is going to hurt the economy, it's necessary because the government needs the money.  We certainly do need the money as the budget deficit is now into the double-digits.  But are Thomas and every right-wing pundit, blogger, and columnist who state with the absolute confidence of a used car salesman correct that tax cuts for the wealthy will hurt small businesses and the economy?

I  must admit that my claim in an early blog thread that the real price of energy has not changed in 50 years was incorrect.  Over the past 60 years, the price of a gallon of gasoline adjusted for inflation has actually fallen significantly.  Thus, any argument that our country's economic strength in the 50s and 60s was due to cheap energy should be reconsidered.

The following fascinating analysis can be found at http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare

I just returned to Carmel after a lovely weekend in the city by the bay.  From a gastronomic standpoint, this may have been the best three days I have spent in San Francisco as meals at Hunan Home in Chinatown and Luna Park in the Mission District were outstanding and very reasonably priced.  Both were identified via patient (but not time-consuming) sifting of online reviews.  Even the brat at AT&T Park as well as (of course) the Anchor Steam on tap there were excellent, although neither was reasonably priced.

While living in suburban D.C., I decided to enter the progressive talk radio business in large part because of two hosts - Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. I heard both in early 2004 on WWRC a weak station transmitting from Silver Spring, MD. Stephanie is humorous and has a sidekick who does great impressions - sometimes the two are almost as funny as Howard Stern on an average day - plus she is timely, topical, liberal, and doesn't leave me with that queasy feeling and slightly dirty sheen that Stern usually did. Schultz has a great voice - better than Limbaugh's.

To bail or not to bail, that is the question,
whether tis nobler for Detroit to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageously high unemployment
Or to guarantee huge loans against a sea of debt,
And by paying them off end them?

With the last of the pots scrubbed and the table wiped down, KRXA Hal looks wistfully at the mopped floor of the dining area. After briefly considering whether to scrub the toilets or snake out the pipes and deciding after serious contemplation that now is not the best time to regrout the bathroom tile, KRXA Hal debates internally whether the Biggest Loser really is more compelling television than Dancin' with the Stars. Since neither is on, KRXA Hal reluctantly boots up his always (sigh) trusty desktop.