In an incredibly weird tirade, Charlie Kirk, conservative political activist, spoke strongly against the Birth Control Pill. The pill is horrible for single women. It makes them unhappy and unmarriageable. The single woman who uses birth control pill will die lonely and childless. Worst of all, she will be ugly too. He skips trying to persuade young women, I guess they are too frivolous to understand the horrors of the Pill, and goes directly to their parents who should stop their daughters from making this terrible mistake.

Aside from a decidedly low opinion of women’s intelligence and their right to manage their own bodies, I am not sure what Kirk is prattling on about. His focus is single women but married women use birth control as well. Does the Pill make married women the ugly unhappy mess that it does to single women? He seems to be talking just about the Pill, are other means of contraception acceptable or do they have the same terrifying results? What is his endgame here? Does he want to make Birth Control illegal? He never says so but it seems to be the subtext here.

This antagonism towards birth control marries well with another increasingly heard concern for conservatives — the declining birth rate among women. Glenn Reynolds worries that the earth is depopulating because women all over the world are no longer giving birth at replacement levels. This is particularly irksome as these same conservatives oppose pro-environment actions that are based on scientific data that suggests environmental doom in the future. They claim that these scientists are often wrong, that human beings will discover some scientific feat that will address these worries and to far into the future to demand sacrifices based on data that may never come into play.

Well, all right then, why should I worry about scientific speculations about a declining population particularly since the world’s population will still continue to grow and an actual decline in population won’t occur until the end of this century. Just like the scientists predicting environmental disaster, could these baby bust scientists be wrong about their interpretation of the data? Could people decide to have more children as the population declines and this problem will solve itself? But, no, this is an urgent matter for Reynolds and needs to be addressed now before it is too late and no human being is left alive.

What is worrisome about these opinions is that this manufactured crisis is giving some religious zealots a reason to make birth control illegal. Which is all rather perplexing. Women make up over half of the voting population. Most of these women want to have some control over how often they get pregnant. Not to mention their husbands and boyfriends who want to continue having sex without the worry of new children to support. Forcing people to have more children now to prevent a crisis in the 22nd Century seems like political suicide. Why anyone would think this is an attractive political is beyond me.

But it will be fun to watch.

David Faris, in Slate, and Josh Marshall, in Talking Points Memo, are telling Democrats who might want another choice other than Biden/Harris to stop making trouble and deal with it. There is no alternate to the two. Why would the Democrats risk losing the White House by changing the line up?The wise men back east have spoken. Now is not the time to buck the conventional thinking. Biden is the only one who can win, so shut up and do what you are told. I neither like the tone nor the content of these instructions.

Biden is a deeply unpopular president. 538, the polling amalgamation site, has his approval rate at 40%. He has been at about 40% for months which suggests that a lot of people have made up their minds about him. Some of these disapprovers will vote for Biden in a Biden Trump match up but why not try to do better than another close election. Now, if Biden was wildly popular or, say, even at 50%, it might be sage advice to let him be. But he isn’t.

I voted for Biden once and will vote for him again if he is the Democrats candidate, however he isn’t my first choice or, for that matter, on my Top 10 ten list. I voted for him because I was scared of Trump not because I liked Biden. This should be concerning. I am liberal Democrat and I voted for Biden grudgingly. I don’t have another option really if Trump is the Republican nominee or, for that matter, any other Republican who might win the nomination.

Other people, however, do. A majority of Americans don’t want either Biden or Trump. Think about that a large portion of the US electorate doesn’t want either candidate. I would suspect that those voters are all highly moveable — an intemperate comment from Trump or a disastrous senior moment from Biden could easily change their vote. I would be concerned to have this many regular people unhappy with their choice. But apparently I just need to get over it and get in line.

Why though? One of the way to test how good a candidate is through the primary system. Isn’t it better to find how strong Biden is during the primaries? This requires challengers to Biden. If he turns out to be a weak candidate, the party had the opportunity to find someone stronger. And, if Biden perform well in the primaries, he will allay people’s fears about him being weak. But to tell Democrats to get in line a good year before the election is irritating. It sounds like they are afraid of what will happen in contested election. They want to keep Biden hidden from public view until the election next November. This isn’t a particularly encouraging strategy.

What do these men really know? The wise men in Washington convinced me Sanders couldn’t win in 2016. They were probably right about that but they also believed that Clinton was the best chance of beating Trump. So I sucked up all my ambivalent feelings about her and voted for Clinton in the primary. Well, we all know how that turned out.

Two extremely flawed candidates are about to be renominated by their perspective parties. Neither candidate has the potential for a landslide election win which is what the country needs after almost 20 years of 50/50. Trump, for too many reasons to enumerate, is a candidate who inspires either hatred or unquestioning fealty. He has attacked anyone who even remotely questions what he says, even his fellow Republicans. For the time being, they are stuck with Trump as long as the party faithful are committed to him.

Since there is no way in Hell that I am going to vote for Donald Trump that leaves me with the other guy — Joe Biden. I voted for Joe Biden and will vote for him again. But, lets put it this way, if he asked me to go into battle I would certainly get a second opinion. I don’t think he is doing a bad job either or is a PR disaster. He is OK. Given that he is 80 years old and getting older, I don’t think there is much of a chance that he will change. He will remain OK.

Sorry but this is about as much excitement that I can muster for the man.

Biden is old as is, for that matter, Trump. He isn’t a doddering old man that the Republicans make him out to be, but, on the other hand, he is far from the energetic leader the country and the Democrats need. He is not nearly as corrupt as Trump but there is a whiff of it around him.

Speaking as a Democrat, I would prefer a different candidate. A lot of my fellow Democrats, however, think that Biden is are best chance to retain the presidency. Given that the outcome of Biden loss is a Trump presidency, I understand their concern.

Yet, if all we got is Biden, then we are in big trouble any way. Think about that, there are Democrat governors, senators and representatives and the best of these people is Joe Biden. What a depressing future. I would rather not throw in the towel now on somebody new taking on the role. I would rather take a chance on somebody new in hopes of changing the dynamics of the election.