There are two glaring examples of the left-wing Pravda-like American media influencing the upcoming election to favor their leftist candidates. Nationally it's their refusal to show any interest in a full-blown scandal regarding the President's response to the Libyan Consulate invasion and murder of the American ambassador with others. Locally it's their constant drumbeat aimed at mischaracterizing statements made by Indiana Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock.
If you are unaware of a scandal surrounding the Benghazi incident, I'll run down a quick synopsis to catch you up. While the terrorist attack was taking place there, the White House had real-time audio and video of what was happening. The former Navy Seals who were eventually murdered in the attack requested backup to help protect the ambassador from the al-Quaeda attackers and were denied. Then they notified their superiors that they were going to go in themselves to attempt a rescue, and were ordered to "stand down". Meantime, two unmanned drones flew over the site and sent video back to Washington as the raid unfolded. Unmanned and unarmed drones, by the way.
The incident unfolded over a period of 9 hours. Troops, planes, missiles, drones, etc. were all staged relatively nearby and stood ready to go take out the terrorists and rescue the cornered ambassador. But they were ordered to stay put.
When it was all over, everyone in the Administration from the President on down were publicly claiming the entire incident was a demonstration that sprang up because of outrage over some YouTube video. That narrative was disproven beyond doubt weeks ago, yet Obama and Hillary Clinton continued to push it, even though it's clear that both knew it was false.
Seen any investigative reports on the subject from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC? Not likely, since they've all chosen to ignore it completely. Because of Fox News, the networks have abandoned all pretense of honest reporting and now feel justified in airing only stories they can spin for a positive impression of the President. A story that reflects poorly on the President is buried - they think if only Fox News airs it, by ignoring the story they can isolate Fox News and paint them as somehow partisan and dishonest.
Then there's Richard Mourdock. He responded to a "gotcha" question from the liberal debate moderator about whether there should be exceptions to an abortion ban. He began discussing his personal views on abortion in the case of rape. His explanation mirrored the feelings of many committed Christians, that he can't find a justification for taking an innocent life because that life was created as a result of a violent crime. His inelegant comment siezed on out of context by Democrats and their compliant media partners was, "That was something God intended to happen".
The next day he gave a news conference to explain exactly what he meant by that sentence, but of course the media never reported it. Every day I see articles in the newspaper fostering the shrill message that Mourdock thinks God intends rape to happen. Christians understand he didn't mean that, but he meant that God has a way of bringing about good from bad. The good being an innocent human child who has nothing to do with the awful rape that led to his or her existence.
For every person influenced by the misleading reporting on this issue to vote for Joe Donnelly has cast a vote based on false and misleading information purposely imposed by a media complex that does not deserve to be trusted.
A similar but worse example is from Missouri, where Todd Aiken made a comment that seemed to suggest there would be no need to exempt abortions for rape because women who are raped somehow are able to shut down the process through the trauma they experience. He was stupid to say that without being able to point to a specific scientific study that might confirm his statement. I didn't find out until after the Aiken story broke, but it seems that's a popular belief among Evangelicals. He should have made the point that it's not a good choice to kill the innocent child to punish the crime committed by its father, then left it at that.
Without a free and independent press, our republic is lost.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
History of the World in a Few Paragraphs
My part is done. I cast my vote on Friday. There's nothing left for me to do now but wait and see.
This is a turning point for perhaps the most unique society in the history of the world. The turning point relates to whether America remains the envy of the world for awhile longer, or becomes just another ordinary place.
From Adam and Eve, mankind has been in conflict. Brothers fight. Perhaps God made us that way from the beginning. Cain killed Abel out of envy. Story after story through the annals of known history, whether told in the Holy Bible or by ancient historians, tells of war. War is mostly about power and wealth. Somebody sees somebody else with something good. He wants that good thing. He's envious and thinks its not fair the other guy has whatever that good thing is.
So he starts a fight. History seems to suggest that the aggressor is usually victorious, at least eventually. As long as the envious aggressor is committed to achieving that good thing for himself.
Today in America, the battle is not yet violent, except for the smaller individual cases of fights over political yard signs, keying "Obama" into cars owned by conservatives, throwing eggs or otherwise vandalizing property. All the same it's about a group of people envious of another group and determined to take that wealth they so much desire.
Obama represents the envious invaders. He achieved power through deception, promising "hope" and "change" and an end to war. Nobody quite knew what he meant by "hope" and "change", but it sounded good, so they granted him power. But now everyone knows what "hope" and "change" means.
It means raiding the property of the prosperous and promising to transfer that property to the non-prosperous. The prosperous and those who strive to be prosperous know that he doesn't really intend to transfer that property to the poor, but will keep most of that property for himself and his friends, tossing some leftover crumbs to the poor to keep their loyalty. He wants to be King.
The productive and prosperous are trying to protect themselves and their property against the envious horde. They may succeed in the short run, replacing the would-be King with a less rapacious leader. But the King and his friends remain in control of the country's institutions, most prominently that institution which educates nearly all of the country's children. There the children are taught every day of the unfairness of the place where some people are allowed to have more than others, and how vital it is for the children to rise up against their parents to effect a fair distribution of their parents' possessions to people who don't have as much.
The would-be King and his minions are committed and determined, and will never give up their desire for power. So America has a chance for perhaps one more generation of greatness, but then it's most likely that the castle walls will be breached and the productive will be overrun and destroyed. My grandchildren will likely grow up in a country pretty much the same as every other country as they were throughout the history of the world. Ruled by Kings who hoard all the wealth while keeping all of the citizenry in poverty and hopelessness.
Only God can save us now.
This is a turning point for perhaps the most unique society in the history of the world. The turning point relates to whether America remains the envy of the world for awhile longer, or becomes just another ordinary place.
From Adam and Eve, mankind has been in conflict. Brothers fight. Perhaps God made us that way from the beginning. Cain killed Abel out of envy. Story after story through the annals of known history, whether told in the Holy Bible or by ancient historians, tells of war. War is mostly about power and wealth. Somebody sees somebody else with something good. He wants that good thing. He's envious and thinks its not fair the other guy has whatever that good thing is.
So he starts a fight. History seems to suggest that the aggressor is usually victorious, at least eventually. As long as the envious aggressor is committed to achieving that good thing for himself.
Today in America, the battle is not yet violent, except for the smaller individual cases of fights over political yard signs, keying "Obama" into cars owned by conservatives, throwing eggs or otherwise vandalizing property. All the same it's about a group of people envious of another group and determined to take that wealth they so much desire.
Obama represents the envious invaders. He achieved power through deception, promising "hope" and "change" and an end to war. Nobody quite knew what he meant by "hope" and "change", but it sounded good, so they granted him power. But now everyone knows what "hope" and "change" means.
It means raiding the property of the prosperous and promising to transfer that property to the non-prosperous. The prosperous and those who strive to be prosperous know that he doesn't really intend to transfer that property to the poor, but will keep most of that property for himself and his friends, tossing some leftover crumbs to the poor to keep their loyalty. He wants to be King.
The productive and prosperous are trying to protect themselves and their property against the envious horde. They may succeed in the short run, replacing the would-be King with a less rapacious leader. But the King and his friends remain in control of the country's institutions, most prominently that institution which educates nearly all of the country's children. There the children are taught every day of the unfairness of the place where some people are allowed to have more than others, and how vital it is for the children to rise up against their parents to effect a fair distribution of their parents' possessions to people who don't have as much.
The would-be King and his minions are committed and determined, and will never give up their desire for power. So America has a chance for perhaps one more generation of greatness, but then it's most likely that the castle walls will be breached and the productive will be overrun and destroyed. My grandchildren will likely grow up in a country pretty much the same as every other country as they were throughout the history of the world. Ruled by Kings who hoard all the wealth while keeping all of the citizenry in poverty and hopelessness.
Only God can save us now.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Under Reported Stories
I'm finding lots of stories that most people have never heard.
Of course there's the Benghazi scandal that the traditional media is scrambling to squelch, proving they're the most corrupt and coordinated media in American history.
This week I heard a story about Claire McCaskill. Her husband reportedly was cutting business deals in the Senate dining room back when Obama's stimulus bill was moving toward passage. Her husband somehow received somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million dollars from stimulus for his business, which he was parlaying for more profit in the Senate dining room.
The rest of that story is that the New York Times had that story months ago and buried it at the request of McCaskill's office. And the story was given to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who likewise decided it wasn't worth pursuing.
There was story posted online this week about the guy who had a Romney/Ryan yard sign. One night he heard some noises in his yard and went outside to find somebody pulling up his sign. He yelled at the guy to leave his sign alone, but instead of running away, the guy and his buddy who happened to be lurking nearby assaulted the homeowner and beat him so severely he required hospitalization.
On the other hand, I'm seeing stories of Obama supporters making claims against prominent conservative bloggers, accusing them falsely of assault crimes. The Gateway Pundit experienced one of those, when an Obama supporter accused him of attacking him in a grocery store parking lot. The "victim" exhibited a scratch on his neck, which he claimed was the proof of the assault. Of course, the Gateway Pundit was nowhere near that grocery store on the night in question. But he was still hauled into the police station and questioned for 2 hours before being released.
I've been running across other stories of prominent conservatives being targeted by law enforcement, even a Swat Team in one case, based on false accusations by crazy liberal activists.
Oh, and the person who produced that video that Obama and Clinton falsely blamed on the Benghazi attack? He's still sitting in jail and his records are sealed, so nobody can independently evaluate the supposed identity theft charges for which he was on probation. Sound a bit fishy?
Never has a political party been more deserving of a crushing electoral loss. I think it might happen, but can't guarantee it. It's the only thing that would make me feel hopeful for the future.
Of course there's the Benghazi scandal that the traditional media is scrambling to squelch, proving they're the most corrupt and coordinated media in American history.
This week I heard a story about Claire McCaskill. Her husband reportedly was cutting business deals in the Senate dining room back when Obama's stimulus bill was moving toward passage. Her husband somehow received somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million dollars from stimulus for his business, which he was parlaying for more profit in the Senate dining room.
The rest of that story is that the New York Times had that story months ago and buried it at the request of McCaskill's office. And the story was given to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who likewise decided it wasn't worth pursuing.
There was story posted online this week about the guy who had a Romney/Ryan yard sign. One night he heard some noises in his yard and went outside to find somebody pulling up his sign. He yelled at the guy to leave his sign alone, but instead of running away, the guy and his buddy who happened to be lurking nearby assaulted the homeowner and beat him so severely he required hospitalization.
On the other hand, I'm seeing stories of Obama supporters making claims against prominent conservative bloggers, accusing them falsely of assault crimes. The Gateway Pundit experienced one of those, when an Obama supporter accused him of attacking him in a grocery store parking lot. The "victim" exhibited a scratch on his neck, which he claimed was the proof of the assault. Of course, the Gateway Pundit was nowhere near that grocery store on the night in question. But he was still hauled into the police station and questioned for 2 hours before being released.
I've been running across other stories of prominent conservatives being targeted by law enforcement, even a Swat Team in one case, based on false accusations by crazy liberal activists.
Oh, and the person who produced that video that Obama and Clinton falsely blamed on the Benghazi attack? He's still sitting in jail and his records are sealed, so nobody can independently evaluate the supposed identity theft charges for which he was on probation. Sound a bit fishy?
Never has a political party been more deserving of a crushing electoral loss. I think it might happen, but can't guarantee it. It's the only thing that would make me feel hopeful for the future.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Random Stuff
There are a couple of common phrases that have always puzzled me.
"It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings" - is a common sports phrase used by announcers as an appeal to the audience to stick with the game even though the home team is behind. It seems to come from and origin where somebody said, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady sings".
It brings to mind the Wagerian operas where the fat lady with horns on her helmet arrives on stage to belt out the aria. But what puzzles me is that doesn't necessarily mean the opera's over - the fat lady sings throughout the performance.
What would be more accurate might be to say, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady dies". From the operas I've seen (or performed in), that would be a much more sensible statement.
"I/He/She could care less" - is interesting, because it's meant as a strong statement about how little someone cares about some event or topic. But "could care less" suggests that the level of caring is at least a little bit above zero.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "She couldn't care less"?
I've noticed that beauty pageants involve heavily made-up contestants. Isn't that cheating? It seems to me that judging beauty should be based on actual beauty, not professionally painted changes to a young lady's appearance. The heavy makeup gives an unfair advantage to ugly, acne-scarred women to disguise those flaws, over the natural flawless beauty who needs no artificial enhancement.
Wouldn't pageants be better and fairer if there were rules against all makeup, sugical enhancements, and any other artificial cosmetic improvements? They'd certainly be more entertaining, at least from my perspective.
"It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings" - is a common sports phrase used by announcers as an appeal to the audience to stick with the game even though the home team is behind. It seems to come from and origin where somebody said, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady sings".
It brings to mind the Wagerian operas where the fat lady with horns on her helmet arrives on stage to belt out the aria. But what puzzles me is that doesn't necessarily mean the opera's over - the fat lady sings throughout the performance.
What would be more accurate might be to say, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady dies". From the operas I've seen (or performed in), that would be a much more sensible statement.
"I/He/She could care less" - is interesting, because it's meant as a strong statement about how little someone cares about some event or topic. But "could care less" suggests that the level of caring is at least a little bit above zero.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "She couldn't care less"?
I've noticed that beauty pageants involve heavily made-up contestants. Isn't that cheating? It seems to me that judging beauty should be based on actual beauty, not professionally painted changes to a young lady's appearance. The heavy makeup gives an unfair advantage to ugly, acne-scarred women to disguise those flaws, over the natural flawless beauty who needs no artificial enhancement.
Wouldn't pageants be better and fairer if there were rules against all makeup, sugical enhancements, and any other artificial cosmetic improvements? They'd certainly be more entertaining, at least from my perspective.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Stunning
Has anyone ever done anything more narcissistic than The Donald did this week?
He teased everyone on Monday about some earthshattering announcement coming about Obama due Wednesday. People everywhere breathlessly awaited some sort of expose: Was it some sort of evidence on the Birther thing? Was it the court filings for divorce rumored to have been created by Michele at some point? Was it about Obama's drug use and possible drug dealing with cocaine and marijuana in his college days? Could it have been some bombshell information about Obama's behavior in College or during his Community Organizer days?
Nope, none of that. The attention-seeking Trump announced he would give Obama's favorite charity 5 million dollars if he released his hidden records - Occidental, Columbia, Harvard. Applications, writings, scholarships, etc. Plus his Passport application. Obama can clear up once and for all the rumors that he applied to college claiming to be from Kenya, supposedly to get special consideration and maybe scholarship money. Plus what seems the even more likely proof that he was a poor student.
But Obama will simply laugh it off, make fun of Trump in a couple of speeches, and ignore the offer. Trump can of course suggest that Obama's ignoring the offer represents some sort of proof that Obama has something to hide. Yeah, probably.
Obama might try to finesse the deal by agreeing to release the records, then making sure the release gets delayed somehow until November 7th. Oops. Pay up, Donald!
How much more crazy can things get? The Richard Murdock flap is pretty crazy - Murdock didn't say anything outrageous, but the media's doing their best to spin it to make him out to be another version of Missouri's Todd Aiken. It's a desperation ploy executed by the media on behalf of the Democrats to try to destroy another GOP candidate. Sad thing is, it will probably work.
Then there's Gloria Allred, somewhere out there trying to dig up court records that she hopes will embarrass Mitt Romney. She's done it before and will do it again, and people will fall for it.
As the Chinese might say, we're living in interesting times.
He teased everyone on Monday about some earthshattering announcement coming about Obama due Wednesday. People everywhere breathlessly awaited some sort of expose: Was it some sort of evidence on the Birther thing? Was it the court filings for divorce rumored to have been created by Michele at some point? Was it about Obama's drug use and possible drug dealing with cocaine and marijuana in his college days? Could it have been some bombshell information about Obama's behavior in College or during his Community Organizer days?
Nope, none of that. The attention-seeking Trump announced he would give Obama's favorite charity 5 million dollars if he released his hidden records - Occidental, Columbia, Harvard. Applications, writings, scholarships, etc. Plus his Passport application. Obama can clear up once and for all the rumors that he applied to college claiming to be from Kenya, supposedly to get special consideration and maybe scholarship money. Plus what seems the even more likely proof that he was a poor student.
But Obama will simply laugh it off, make fun of Trump in a couple of speeches, and ignore the offer. Trump can of course suggest that Obama's ignoring the offer represents some sort of proof that Obama has something to hide. Yeah, probably.
Obama might try to finesse the deal by agreeing to release the records, then making sure the release gets delayed somehow until November 7th. Oops. Pay up, Donald!
How much more crazy can things get? The Richard Murdock flap is pretty crazy - Murdock didn't say anything outrageous, but the media's doing their best to spin it to make him out to be another version of Missouri's Todd Aiken. It's a desperation ploy executed by the media on behalf of the Democrats to try to destroy another GOP candidate. Sad thing is, it will probably work.
Then there's Gloria Allred, somewhere out there trying to dig up court records that she hopes will embarrass Mitt Romney. She's done it before and will do it again, and people will fall for it.
As the Chinese might say, we're living in interesting times.
Disqualified
The facts are out and it's over. The Obama White House made up a cover story to try to fool the American people over what happened in the Benghazi consulate. They tried to hide the truth to mitigate the harm they believed the truth would do to the Obama re-election campaign. Now that this has come to light and cannot be disputed, it disqualifies Barack Obama from the office of President of the United States. It's an impeachable offense.
As an opponent of the president based on my almost complete disagreement with him on nearly every policy issue, I am not celebrating today. I'm mourning the destruction of the credibility of the office of President. These things only happen in places like Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. They aren't supposed to happen in the United States of America.
Every American should be told what happened and made to understand why such behavior by our government leaders is so terribly destructive to a free society. I know that many Democrats do not care that the President engaged in such egregious behavior, because their worldview includes the ends justifying the means.
But had something equivalent to this happened 2 weeks before election day between George W Bush and John Kerry, I would have withheld my vote. I would not have voted for Kerry, but neither would I have voted for Bush. I would have limited my votes to the state and local races and abstained from voting for president. I would have wished that the GOP could remove Bush from the ballot and replaced him with another Republican, but of course it would have been too late.
America cannot afford to passively stand by when their leaders are caught cravenly lying about tragic acts of war against our own people, especially on sovereign American territory. I hope Democrats everywhere come to realize that they cannot support a president who would act as this one has, and choose to either replace him with Mitt Romney or withhold their vote.
As an opponent of the president based on my almost complete disagreement with him on nearly every policy issue, I am not celebrating today. I'm mourning the destruction of the credibility of the office of President. These things only happen in places like Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. They aren't supposed to happen in the United States of America.
Every American should be told what happened and made to understand why such behavior by our government leaders is so terribly destructive to a free society. I know that many Democrats do not care that the President engaged in such egregious behavior, because their worldview includes the ends justifying the means.
But had something equivalent to this happened 2 weeks before election day between George W Bush and John Kerry, I would have withheld my vote. I would not have voted for Kerry, but neither would I have voted for Bush. I would have limited my votes to the state and local races and abstained from voting for president. I would have wished that the GOP could remove Bush from the ballot and replaced him with another Republican, but of course it would have been too late.
America cannot afford to passively stand by when their leaders are caught cravenly lying about tragic acts of war against our own people, especially on sovereign American territory. I hope Democrats everywhere come to realize that they cannot support a president who would act as this one has, and choose to either replace him with Mitt Romney or withhold their vote.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Sports Psychology
Since I decided to skip the presidential debate last night, I was flipping between the NFL game and Game 7 of the National League Series. The collapse of the Cardinals, who squandered their 3-1 lead against the Giants and watched their World Series hopes trickle through their fingers, was a stark lesson in the importance of psychology in sports.
Looking at the players on both sides last night, I imagined the Giants had a sort of strut in their step. They smiled and joked with each other in the dugout. They confidently strode to the plate as if they knew they could hit that Cardinals pitcher.
On the other side, the Cardinal players seemed grim. Their faces belied the pressure they were feeling to deliver something positive for the team. I almost felt the tension in their bodies as they dug in at the plate, and thought I could hear them saying to themselves, "Don't screw up!".
It's called pressing. Losing confidence. Doubting yourself. A star player can follow an amazing performance with a horrible performance in the space of consecutive games. The positive and negative psychology that leads to victory and defeat was on display with both teams through the series.
The confident Cardinal team seemed arrogant as they strutted to their 3-1 series lead. But the Giants suddenly had a few breaks go their way to stave off elimination and close the gap to 3-2. That might have been when the Cards began to doubt themselves just as the Giants began to believe. Suddenly the loose Giants, who realized they had nothing to lose, suddenly dominated and ran away with Game 6 and forced the decisive Game 7.
Maybe the series was effectively over before Game 7 ever began. The Cards were doubting themselves, perhaps dwelling on how badly they'd blown a lead in the series they thought guaranteed them a ticket to Detroit. Their mentality going into Game 7 was to try to save the series. But they had no confidence that they would be able to save themselves from themselves.
Conversely, the Giants' mentality was, hey, we came back and forced a 7th game and get to play it in our home ballpark. We've got this!
So last night the contest was between a confident team feeling the momentum against a reeling team just trying to plug the dam. The Cardinals' only hope was in getting a break early in Game 7. A San Francisco error, a seeing-eye single just at the right time, or their own version of the Giant's broken bat RBI that broke the game open. Professionals can turn their mentality around quickly if they can catch a break. The Giants made sure there would be no breaks last night that would let the Cards off the mat.
The best teams often have a leader that helps bring out the best in every team member. It was often said of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Peyton Manning, and other top-level athletes were not just good themselves, but made their teammates better. Average basketball players looked like stars when they played next to Bird or Johnson. Marginal wide receivers and tight ends looked like pro bowlers (and became pro bowlers) when they caught passes from Manning. Players at the level of Bird, Johnson, and Manning never lost that spark of confidence, but always believed they could overcome the worst circumstances and find a way to win.
If a coach could someday find the secret to keeping an optimal mental state for every one of his players, he would never lose. Professional athletes already have the physical skills to be great; they just need the mental component to be truly great.
The Cardinals couldn't find a catalyst to turn around their lost confidence. Not a coach, not a player, not a favorable bounce of the ball. So they never rediscovered that confidence, and were defeated.
Looking at the players on both sides last night, I imagined the Giants had a sort of strut in their step. They smiled and joked with each other in the dugout. They confidently strode to the plate as if they knew they could hit that Cardinals pitcher.
On the other side, the Cardinal players seemed grim. Their faces belied the pressure they were feeling to deliver something positive for the team. I almost felt the tension in their bodies as they dug in at the plate, and thought I could hear them saying to themselves, "Don't screw up!".
It's called pressing. Losing confidence. Doubting yourself. A star player can follow an amazing performance with a horrible performance in the space of consecutive games. The positive and negative psychology that leads to victory and defeat was on display with both teams through the series.
The confident Cardinal team seemed arrogant as they strutted to their 3-1 series lead. But the Giants suddenly had a few breaks go their way to stave off elimination and close the gap to 3-2. That might have been when the Cards began to doubt themselves just as the Giants began to believe. Suddenly the loose Giants, who realized they had nothing to lose, suddenly dominated and ran away with Game 6 and forced the decisive Game 7.
Maybe the series was effectively over before Game 7 ever began. The Cards were doubting themselves, perhaps dwelling on how badly they'd blown a lead in the series they thought guaranteed them a ticket to Detroit. Their mentality going into Game 7 was to try to save the series. But they had no confidence that they would be able to save themselves from themselves.
Conversely, the Giants' mentality was, hey, we came back and forced a 7th game and get to play it in our home ballpark. We've got this!
So last night the contest was between a confident team feeling the momentum against a reeling team just trying to plug the dam. The Cardinals' only hope was in getting a break early in Game 7. A San Francisco error, a seeing-eye single just at the right time, or their own version of the Giant's broken bat RBI that broke the game open. Professionals can turn their mentality around quickly if they can catch a break. The Giants made sure there would be no breaks last night that would let the Cards off the mat.
The best teams often have a leader that helps bring out the best in every team member. It was often said of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Peyton Manning, and other top-level athletes were not just good themselves, but made their teammates better. Average basketball players looked like stars when they played next to Bird or Johnson. Marginal wide receivers and tight ends looked like pro bowlers (and became pro bowlers) when they caught passes from Manning. Players at the level of Bird, Johnson, and Manning never lost that spark of confidence, but always believed they could overcome the worst circumstances and find a way to win.
If a coach could someday find the secret to keeping an optimal mental state for every one of his players, he would never lose. Professional athletes already have the physical skills to be great; they just need the mental component to be truly great.
The Cardinals couldn't find a catalyst to turn around their lost confidence. Not a coach, not a player, not a favorable bounce of the ball. So they never rediscovered that confidence, and were defeated.
Monday, October 22, 2012
No Worries
My new resolution is to relax and stop worrying. I've been following the campaigns pretty closely because I've been worried about the ill effects of Socialist government that we will all suffer if Obama and his Democrat Senate retain power.
Now that the election is in sight, it's time to relax and put such worries aside. What's the worst they can do to us? Take all our money, take away our ability to travel, take away our ability to earn a living. Brand us as radicals dangerous to the new, radically transformed America and throw us in prison. Execute us.
Whatever happens, bring it on. I'm pretty sure the worst fears won't be realized, but I'm also pretty sure many of the other fears have already come to pass and will continue to build in the next 4 years under a continued Obama/Reid/Leftist Supreme Court. Some folks I've met or heard talk think Romney will prove to be no better, but I have hopes he has the potential to be this generation's Reagan.
So I'm skipping tonight's debate. There's nothing I expect to learn from watching, and think I could predict the general direction of the debate anyway. Obama will atempt to paint Romney as some sort of Bush clone who will rush into foreign wars that will further deplete our young peoples' lives and piles of money we don't have. Romney will hit Obama as unserious about security, hostile to America's friends and obsequious and weak in front of our enemies.
If tonight's debate tips the election one way or the other, I'd be very surprised. It seems more likely to me that Romney will allay fears of folks who lean toward Obama because they fear war. But I doubt either candidate will swing the tiny undecided vote in their favor.
Congratulations to the Indiana Fever, finally the WNBA champs!
Notre Dame is still undefeated. Will Oklahoma bring that string to an end?
My South Carolina Gamecocks are on a steep slide, losing their second in a row by a big margin to Florida. Too bad they've lost their offense and their defense has stumbled.
The Colts got an ugly victory against Cleveland this weekend to go 3-3. They'll need to get a lot better if they have any hope of making the playoffs this year.
I hear the Columbus North soccer team's going to the Indiana State Final. Maybe this is finally their year to break through, after so many trips that ended at Semi-State.
Finally, let's wait to see if Columbus East can get all the way through to the State Football Final in Lucas Oil Stadium.
Now that the election is in sight, it's time to relax and put such worries aside. What's the worst they can do to us? Take all our money, take away our ability to travel, take away our ability to earn a living. Brand us as radicals dangerous to the new, radically transformed America and throw us in prison. Execute us.
Whatever happens, bring it on. I'm pretty sure the worst fears won't be realized, but I'm also pretty sure many of the other fears have already come to pass and will continue to build in the next 4 years under a continued Obama/Reid/Leftist Supreme Court. Some folks I've met or heard talk think Romney will prove to be no better, but I have hopes he has the potential to be this generation's Reagan.
So I'm skipping tonight's debate. There's nothing I expect to learn from watching, and think I could predict the general direction of the debate anyway. Obama will atempt to paint Romney as some sort of Bush clone who will rush into foreign wars that will further deplete our young peoples' lives and piles of money we don't have. Romney will hit Obama as unserious about security, hostile to America's friends and obsequious and weak in front of our enemies.
If tonight's debate tips the election one way or the other, I'd be very surprised. It seems more likely to me that Romney will allay fears of folks who lean toward Obama because they fear war. But I doubt either candidate will swing the tiny undecided vote in their favor.
Congratulations to the Indiana Fever, finally the WNBA champs!
Notre Dame is still undefeated. Will Oklahoma bring that string to an end?
My South Carolina Gamecocks are on a steep slide, losing their second in a row by a big margin to Florida. Too bad they've lost their offense and their defense has stumbled.
The Colts got an ugly victory against Cleveland this weekend to go 3-3. They'll need to get a lot better if they have any hope of making the playoffs this year.
I hear the Columbus North soccer team's going to the Indiana State Final. Maybe this is finally their year to break through, after so many trips that ended at Semi-State.
Finally, let's wait to see if Columbus East can get all the way through to the State Football Final in Lucas Oil Stadium.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
WNBA Observations
Since the Indiana Fever happen to be in the WNBA Finals this year, I caught the first two games of the series against Minnesota.
From the standpoint of pure basketball, I'm fairly impressed with the generally good display of fundamentals in the WNBA. Almost no women can dunk a basketball, so the members of the NBA's ladies league have to rely on basketball skills and teamwork to succeed. Indiana and Minnesota both display very good passing, ball handling, shooting, and defense.
But the WNBA still has limited appeal. I admit if it weren't for the appeal of the home team, I wouldn't be watching. Good thing I'm not in public office or running for one, because the truth I'm about to express here is decidedly politically incorrect.
That truth is that there's just not much in the WNBA product beyond pure basketball to draw the interest of sports fans.
Sorry, but how compelling can it be to watch a 6'5", 250lb woman play basketball? Granted, there are a few attractive ladies in the WNBA. But very few.
Then there's the current story of the Minnesota all-star player who's an activist against the gay marriage ban on the ballot in that state this fall. Sure, NBA players like Steve Nash are also advocating for the gay marriage issue, but as far as I know Nash isn't planning to marry Ron Artest (or is is Metta World Peace?). The Lynx player is planning to marry her girlfriend, and seems a bit over-the-top in her advocacy on the subject.
The Fever coach, Lin Dunn, was abruptly terminated from Purdue a few years back, even though that Purdue team was one of the elite college women's teams in the country. Reasons weren't provided in the official news releases, but the whispers from folks connected with Purdue were that Dunn was either engaging in sexual relationships with her players or may have been making unwelcome advances toward certain players (or maybe other students). Rumors can be destructive, but I can't help it if they contribute to a larger perception.
The gay rights crowd might scream over my pointing out such things, but there's no denying that these stories are not helpful to efforts being made to market the WNBA to a larger audience. They seem to be developing the same image the LPGA would like to quash.
Hopefully Indiana will be able to get their injured players back on the court and get two more wins for their first championship. I'll be happy for them, especially Tamika Catchings, who seems to be a great person for the community who probably deserves at least one championship before her playing days end.
From the standpoint of pure basketball, I'm fairly impressed with the generally good display of fundamentals in the WNBA. Almost no women can dunk a basketball, so the members of the NBA's ladies league have to rely on basketball skills and teamwork to succeed. Indiana and Minnesota both display very good passing, ball handling, shooting, and defense.
But the WNBA still has limited appeal. I admit if it weren't for the appeal of the home team, I wouldn't be watching. Good thing I'm not in public office or running for one, because the truth I'm about to express here is decidedly politically incorrect.
That truth is that there's just not much in the WNBA product beyond pure basketball to draw the interest of sports fans.
Sorry, but how compelling can it be to watch a 6'5", 250lb woman play basketball? Granted, there are a few attractive ladies in the WNBA. But very few.
Then there's the current story of the Minnesota all-star player who's an activist against the gay marriage ban on the ballot in that state this fall. Sure, NBA players like Steve Nash are also advocating for the gay marriage issue, but as far as I know Nash isn't planning to marry Ron Artest (or is is Metta World Peace?). The Lynx player is planning to marry her girlfriend, and seems a bit over-the-top in her advocacy on the subject.
The Fever coach, Lin Dunn, was abruptly terminated from Purdue a few years back, even though that Purdue team was one of the elite college women's teams in the country. Reasons weren't provided in the official news releases, but the whispers from folks connected with Purdue were that Dunn was either engaging in sexual relationships with her players or may have been making unwelcome advances toward certain players (or maybe other students). Rumors can be destructive, but I can't help it if they contribute to a larger perception.
The gay rights crowd might scream over my pointing out such things, but there's no denying that these stories are not helpful to efforts being made to market the WNBA to a larger audience. They seem to be developing the same image the LPGA would like to quash.
Hopefully Indiana will be able to get their injured players back on the court and get two more wins for their first championship. I'll be happy for them, especially Tamika Catchings, who seems to be a great person for the community who probably deserves at least one championship before her playing days end.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Destroying Lance Armstrong
Some things are beyond my ability to comprehend. One of those is the movement to destroy Lance Armstrong. He's been banned from the sport of professional cycling. He's just stepped down from the cancer charity he founded, "Livestrong". As far as I can tell, the only sanctions they haven't imposed yet are imprisonment and torture.
They claim he cheated. Used performance-enhancing drugs. They never actually caught him. He reportedly had a positive result once, but it's unclear what happened - it seemed to just go away. The case was built on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, the most convincing of which was Armstrong's supposed relationship with a known enabler of athletes who doped. There seem to be lots of related stories that doping was rampant among nearly all of the top riders in the Tour de France.
Anyway, based on all that hearsay and rumors and stories told by other riders who may have been envious of Armstrong's success, the organization that's supposed to be the enforcer against performance-enhancing drugs decided to persecute him fully.
I thought athletes were subjected to lots of rigorous testing, and if one is caught with a positive sample, the sanctions will kick in. That's not what happened to Armstrong. They instead spent years gathering the gossip from other riders and everyone they could find who was willing to say they thought Armstrong was a doper. Then they sprung it all on the public as justification for rescinding all of his cycling victories, even those in years they didn't find anybody suggesting he had doped.
What's confusing to me is this: Doesn't this mean that when an athlete wins an event, all it takes for the award to be rescinded is a sour-grapes runner-up coming forward to suggest he was a doper? What happened to standards of evidence? If Lance was doping all those years, isn't it more appropriate to blame the enforcement organization for missing it, and focusing on tightening the testing protocols?
Guilty or not, it just seems to me Armstrong's been railroaded.
They claim he cheated. Used performance-enhancing drugs. They never actually caught him. He reportedly had a positive result once, but it's unclear what happened - it seemed to just go away. The case was built on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, the most convincing of which was Armstrong's supposed relationship with a known enabler of athletes who doped. There seem to be lots of related stories that doping was rampant among nearly all of the top riders in the Tour de France.
Anyway, based on all that hearsay and rumors and stories told by other riders who may have been envious of Armstrong's success, the organization that's supposed to be the enforcer against performance-enhancing drugs decided to persecute him fully.
I thought athletes were subjected to lots of rigorous testing, and if one is caught with a positive sample, the sanctions will kick in. That's not what happened to Armstrong. They instead spent years gathering the gossip from other riders and everyone they could find who was willing to say they thought Armstrong was a doper. Then they sprung it all on the public as justification for rescinding all of his cycling victories, even those in years they didn't find anybody suggesting he had doped.
What's confusing to me is this: Doesn't this mean that when an athlete wins an event, all it takes for the award to be rescinded is a sour-grapes runner-up coming forward to suggest he was a doper? What happened to standards of evidence? If Lance was doping all those years, isn't it more appropriate to blame the enforcement organization for missing it, and focusing on tightening the testing protocols?
Guilty or not, it just seems to me Armstrong's been railroaded.
The Obligatory Debate Post
Just because I've posted after the previous debates, it almost feels like an obligation to post something about last night. The media script was written well before the debate started last night, the headline being "Obama Recovers to Win Debate Number Two".
So let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Candy Crowley was the homer referee who went out of her way to help Obama. Obama lied and spun and pandered as expected. Romney was fairly solid, but I think he moderated his message too much and left lots of stuff on the table. My biggest disappointment was that he passed up the opening Obama gave him to hammer the HHS Mandate after Obama bragged about it.
What I hope people start to come away from these debates with isn't who scored more points or who won the rhetorical battle, but what's the actual substance of each candidate's promises for the next 4 years?
Romney's given us plenty of policy initiatives to consider, and Obama's vociferously objected to every one of them. But what policy initiatives is Obama promising for the next 4 years?
The only one we all know for sure is his obsessive focus on increasing taxes on the rich. Even though he keeps talking about "millionaires and billionaires", his actual proposal is to tax everybody that earns over $200K ($250 for couples).
What else does he propose? If you listen closely, you might come up with this list, which interestingly enough involves only spending increases, except for the military.
More money for:
Planned Parenthood
Green Energy (more Solyndras, O boy!)
Education
Cut money for the military.
Perhaps Romney's best point of the night was his comment that if we re-elect Obama, we have the past 4 years of experience to tell us what we'll get the next 4. More of the same. I think not only more of the same, but exponentially more government control and dictatorial policies.
Suddenly it's become clear that the only hope for the nation is that enough citizens have just enough brains to figure out just how bad Obama policies have been and will be for the nation and everyone's well-being and vote for the other guy. They may not be excited about Mitt, but must begin to realize that he's our only way out of this terrible mess.
So let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Candy Crowley was the homer referee who went out of her way to help Obama. Obama lied and spun and pandered as expected. Romney was fairly solid, but I think he moderated his message too much and left lots of stuff on the table. My biggest disappointment was that he passed up the opening Obama gave him to hammer the HHS Mandate after Obama bragged about it.
What I hope people start to come away from these debates with isn't who scored more points or who won the rhetorical battle, but what's the actual substance of each candidate's promises for the next 4 years?
Romney's given us plenty of policy initiatives to consider, and Obama's vociferously objected to every one of them. But what policy initiatives is Obama promising for the next 4 years?
The only one we all know for sure is his obsessive focus on increasing taxes on the rich. Even though he keeps talking about "millionaires and billionaires", his actual proposal is to tax everybody that earns over $200K ($250 for couples).
What else does he propose? If you listen closely, you might come up with this list, which interestingly enough involves only spending increases, except for the military.
More money for:
Planned Parenthood
Green Energy (more Solyndras, O boy!)
Education
Cut money for the military.
Perhaps Romney's best point of the night was his comment that if we re-elect Obama, we have the past 4 years of experience to tell us what we'll get the next 4. More of the same. I think not only more of the same, but exponentially more government control and dictatorial policies.
Suddenly it's become clear that the only hope for the nation is that enough citizens have just enough brains to figure out just how bad Obama policies have been and will be for the nation and everyone's well-being and vote for the other guy. They may not be excited about Mitt, but must begin to realize that he's our only way out of this terrible mess.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Simple Questions
The Romney campaign isn't likely to read my humble blog, but if they did, I'd like to offer just a few simple questions that Mitt might consider posing to the president during tonight's or the last debate.
Energy question: "Mr. President, given your past public statements and the regulatory policies you've actually implemented through the EPA and DOE, it's pretty clear why we Americans are paying $4 and $5 a gallon at the pump these days to get to work, at least those of us who still have a job to get to. Your administration has aggressively implemented pro-green and anti-carbon energy, so has led to America importing more than half of our oil over the last 4 years because you've cut oil permits on federal lands by half. In addition, you're moving aggressively forward on your promise to bankrupt the coal industry. And you still refuse to allow the oil pipeline from Canada that have been predicted by experts across the country to generate millions of new jobs".
"Meanwhile, you've funnelled 90 billion dollars to investments in wind and solar energy, electric cars, and biofuel production, which have not proven cost-effective replacements for oil, gas, and coal. So people continue to suffer to try to scrape money from their shrinking budgets to pay their heating bill and get gas in their cars while your political cronies benefit from your generous handouts while their unsustainable businesses ship jobs overseas and still are failing spectacularly. Not to mention haven't done a thing to help clean up our water and air quality."
"Do you want to explain to the American people whether those policies remain your priorities, and if so, how much longer do families have to suffer before they begin to see the benefits of your clean energy programs in their pocketbooks?"
Response when Obama strikes out with some variation of the 47% comment:
"You know, Mr. President, that's a statement I wish I knew was being recorded, or I would have been more careful about how I phrased it. It sounded like I was accusing 47 percent of the country of being government dependents who had no interest in self-sufficiency. In reality, all I was trying to say was that, at that point in time, there were about 47 percent of Americans who were going to support you regardless of anything I could do or say. Therefore, it wouldn't be prudent to spend a great deal of time and effort in my campaign trying to win them over. Separate that from the idea I expressed that referred to a sub-fraction of that 47 percent group only; folks that will be guaranteed to vote for you because they somehow mistakenly believe that monthly checks they already receive and rely upon from the Federal Government are guaranteed to keep coming only if they work to keep you in the White House."
"I'd like to convince those Americans who are of working age and sound mind and body that their lives will be much better, more prosperous, and more fulfilling if they get out of the house and get to work in a good-paying job. Then they'll be able to provide housing, food, insurance, transportation, and even some luxuries and entertainment for their families without any reliance on the government. Which is good for everyone. And my campaign is all about bringing those kinds of opportunities back to America."
"I seem to recall a quote attributed to you from awhile back, Mr. President, where you suggested that there were too many Americans in the heartland who 'cling to their guns and their religion' because they have some kind of antipathy toward anybody who is different from them. Can we make a deal tonight, Mr. President, that I promise not to bring up your embarrasing quote again if you promise to stop running ads about the 47 percent?"
Energy question: "Mr. President, given your past public statements and the regulatory policies you've actually implemented through the EPA and DOE, it's pretty clear why we Americans are paying $4 and $5 a gallon at the pump these days to get to work, at least those of us who still have a job to get to. Your administration has aggressively implemented pro-green and anti-carbon energy, so has led to America importing more than half of our oil over the last 4 years because you've cut oil permits on federal lands by half. In addition, you're moving aggressively forward on your promise to bankrupt the coal industry. And you still refuse to allow the oil pipeline from Canada that have been predicted by experts across the country to generate millions of new jobs".
"Meanwhile, you've funnelled 90 billion dollars to investments in wind and solar energy, electric cars, and biofuel production, which have not proven cost-effective replacements for oil, gas, and coal. So people continue to suffer to try to scrape money from their shrinking budgets to pay their heating bill and get gas in their cars while your political cronies benefit from your generous handouts while their unsustainable businesses ship jobs overseas and still are failing spectacularly. Not to mention haven't done a thing to help clean up our water and air quality."
"Do you want to explain to the American people whether those policies remain your priorities, and if so, how much longer do families have to suffer before they begin to see the benefits of your clean energy programs in their pocketbooks?"
Response when Obama strikes out with some variation of the 47% comment:
"You know, Mr. President, that's a statement I wish I knew was being recorded, or I would have been more careful about how I phrased it. It sounded like I was accusing 47 percent of the country of being government dependents who had no interest in self-sufficiency. In reality, all I was trying to say was that, at that point in time, there were about 47 percent of Americans who were going to support you regardless of anything I could do or say. Therefore, it wouldn't be prudent to spend a great deal of time and effort in my campaign trying to win them over. Separate that from the idea I expressed that referred to a sub-fraction of that 47 percent group only; folks that will be guaranteed to vote for you because they somehow mistakenly believe that monthly checks they already receive and rely upon from the Federal Government are guaranteed to keep coming only if they work to keep you in the White House."
"I'd like to convince those Americans who are of working age and sound mind and body that their lives will be much better, more prosperous, and more fulfilling if they get out of the house and get to work in a good-paying job. Then they'll be able to provide housing, food, insurance, transportation, and even some luxuries and entertainment for their families without any reliance on the government. Which is good for everyone. And my campaign is all about bringing those kinds of opportunities back to America."
"I seem to recall a quote attributed to you from awhile back, Mr. President, where you suggested that there were too many Americans in the heartland who 'cling to their guns and their religion' because they have some kind of antipathy toward anybody who is different from them. Can we make a deal tonight, Mr. President, that I promise not to bring up your embarrasing quote again if you promise to stop running ads about the 47 percent?"
Monday, October 15, 2012
Debates and Sports Analogy
There's not much left for me to learn about the candidates. Certainly nothing that can possibly change my vote. So why bother watching the second Obama/Romney debate?
As a Colts fan, I think I'll use them as the analogy. Suppose the debates are the playoffs, and November 6th is the Super Bowl. But in this case, the 3 playoff games (4 if you count the VP debate) are more like the NBA Finals, where the same two teams square off against each other.
Going back to the Colts' Super Bowl era with Peyton Manning, I'll have them represent Romney. The New England Patriots, who were the Colts' nemesis in those days, represent Obama.
Going into the playoffs, the Colts were the underdog. They have a suspect defense, but still have hope because of the skills of Manning. But they've got lots of other factors working against them. The "cool" people (Northeastern urban folks) love the Pats, as do all the Television commentators. The playoff game pulls Vegas odds something like Pats +3.
Also, it's well known that the referee is a "homer" for the Patriots, and nobody expects the game to be called fairly for the Colts.
So the debate itself is analogous to the second playoff game. The first game was a blowout for the Colts, and the talking heads are still expressing shock that Peyton was able to hit Reggie Wayne for 4 touchdowns. But they don't credit Peyton for the great game; instead they've been piling on Tom Brady for a sub-par performance. No matter that Brady had a very good game himself, throwing for over 300 yards - he's been squarely blamed by the big media pundits for the loss. They cite his 2 late-game interceptions and an impression that he just gave up in the last five minutes.
So everybody says game 2 is going to be different. Brady's promising to be more aggressive against the below-average Colts defense this time. And Manning's surely not going to get so lucky as to have two stellar games in a row, right?
The referee has also been warned. There had better be more flags thrown against the Colts this time! Patriots fans don't believe it's possible for a team to score as much as the Colts did without cheating; therefore, there have to be lots of penalties the referee missed the first time!
Patriot fans are hoping for a drubbing of the Colts in game 2. They firmly believe the game 1 outcome was a fluke. Colts fans from the heartland and the countryside believe their team is better, and will tune into game 2 hoping to see that faith justified.
A victory by the Colts will give them momentum that could mean almost certain victory in the Super Bowl. But a Patriots victory will mean the outcome of the Super Bowl is much less certain, and of course the "experts" will immediately jump in to tell all the fans their favorite team from the big market is a sure thing.
So will the Colts' quarterback (Romney) have another great game, or will the Patriots' quarterback (Obama) return to his expected form and shred the weak Colts' defense (GOP Establishment) to set the Patriots up for a strong Super Bowl?
Will the referee (Candy Crowley) succeed in managing the game with timely Colts penalties and ignoring Pats penalties to help guarantee a Patriot victory?
That's why folks like me might still watch.
As a Colts fan, I think I'll use them as the analogy. Suppose the debates are the playoffs, and November 6th is the Super Bowl. But in this case, the 3 playoff games (4 if you count the VP debate) are more like the NBA Finals, where the same two teams square off against each other.
Going back to the Colts' Super Bowl era with Peyton Manning, I'll have them represent Romney. The New England Patriots, who were the Colts' nemesis in those days, represent Obama.
Going into the playoffs, the Colts were the underdog. They have a suspect defense, but still have hope because of the skills of Manning. But they've got lots of other factors working against them. The "cool" people (Northeastern urban folks) love the Pats, as do all the Television commentators. The playoff game pulls Vegas odds something like Pats +3.
Also, it's well known that the referee is a "homer" for the Patriots, and nobody expects the game to be called fairly for the Colts.
So the debate itself is analogous to the second playoff game. The first game was a blowout for the Colts, and the talking heads are still expressing shock that Peyton was able to hit Reggie Wayne for 4 touchdowns. But they don't credit Peyton for the great game; instead they've been piling on Tom Brady for a sub-par performance. No matter that Brady had a very good game himself, throwing for over 300 yards - he's been squarely blamed by the big media pundits for the loss. They cite his 2 late-game interceptions and an impression that he just gave up in the last five minutes.
So everybody says game 2 is going to be different. Brady's promising to be more aggressive against the below-average Colts defense this time. And Manning's surely not going to get so lucky as to have two stellar games in a row, right?
The referee has also been warned. There had better be more flags thrown against the Colts this time! Patriots fans don't believe it's possible for a team to score as much as the Colts did without cheating; therefore, there have to be lots of penalties the referee missed the first time!
Patriot fans are hoping for a drubbing of the Colts in game 2. They firmly believe the game 1 outcome was a fluke. Colts fans from the heartland and the countryside believe their team is better, and will tune into game 2 hoping to see that faith justified.
A victory by the Colts will give them momentum that could mean almost certain victory in the Super Bowl. But a Patriots victory will mean the outcome of the Super Bowl is much less certain, and of course the "experts" will immediately jump in to tell all the fans their favorite team from the big market is a sure thing.
So will the Colts' quarterback (Romney) have another great game, or will the Patriots' quarterback (Obama) return to his expected form and shred the weak Colts' defense (GOP Establishment) to set the Patriots up for a strong Super Bowl?
Will the referee (Candy Crowley) succeed in managing the game with timely Colts penalties and ignoring Pats penalties to help guarantee a Patriot victory?
That's why folks like me might still watch.
Friday, October 12, 2012
VP Debate (Update)
Well, I misjudged Joe Biden. I held his intelligence in low esteem, and thought Paul Ryan would use his superior intellect to roll over the VP even more decisively than Mitt Romney did Obama.
This post is being created before I have a chance to hear any of the pundits or talking heads tell me what I should think about the debate. I was sitting in a traffic jam on I70, not moving an inch for most of the debate. So I only heard it - I didn't see it. I know that body language and facial expression can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of debaters, so I can only comment on what I heard.
Everybody knew that Biden was going to hammer his campaign's theme that Mitt is a liar, and boy did he ever. He continuously sniped, snickered, and interruped Ryan, which was a stark contrast to the much more polite Republican who stayed silent while Joe had the floor. The strategy was obvious - keep interuppting Ryan to try to throw him and knock him off balance, while challenging every single Ryan statement as untrue.
It got almost ridiculous, as Biden would pretend to be trying his hardest to suppress the word "Liar!". He also delivered his own talking points passionately, making the audience understand that he really is a true believer in his party's platforms and philosophies.
When the Catholic values question came up and Ryan talked about the First Amendment violation the President has perpetrated through his ObamaCare Contraceptive Regulation, you would have believed from Biden's response that Ryan was lying about that too. But no, if you just follow what he said and think about it for a couple of minutes, you realize he just changed the subject! He gave a litany of examples of things ObamaCare does NOT force Catholics to do, as if that excuses the mandate.
Biden's soft tone while he explained his view on abortion (pro) must have been a terrific acting job, as he sounded compassionate while pretending he cares about the health and well-being of women. Gay Marriage never came up.
I came away from the debate disappointed. My expectation that Ryan would embarass the VP was thoroughly destroyed. If I had to vote on who "won", I'd have to give the nod to Joe by just a few points. Based on his passion, his success in using interruption and feigned outrage to knock Ryan off balance, and his ability to lie extremely convincingly.
Ryan should have realized that Biden had turned the tables on him, instead of being forced to try defending his administration, he was forcing Ryan to defend his team's proposals. Biden almost made it sound as if it was Romney and Ryan that had been in charge the last 4 years, not he and Obama.
I generally think of myself as fairly knowledgeable, but Biden kept bringing up obscure "facts" I'd never heard anywhere to defend his president. I was amazed as his brazenness in continually asserting outright lies passionately and turning them back on Ryan, at one point actually trying to suggest the debacle in Benghazi was Ryan's fault because he cut the security funding!
All that's left is to hope that those who asserted pre-debate that the VP debate normally has no bearing on the election outcome are correct.
Update: What I missed first time around was the visual. Biden was outrageous for the entire debate, going well beyond the audible interruptions I heard over the radio. He used exaggerated expressions and gestures along with verbal assaults to try to convey the impression of Ryan as either grossly ignorant or an outrageous liar. You would have thought that Biden considered every single Ryan sentence (even "Nice to see you, Mr. Vice President") a horrible lie.
The visuals definitely changed my perception on who may have won the debate; now I wouldn't say Ryan won, but would say that Biden lost.
This post is being created before I have a chance to hear any of the pundits or talking heads tell me what I should think about the debate. I was sitting in a traffic jam on I70, not moving an inch for most of the debate. So I only heard it - I didn't see it. I know that body language and facial expression can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of debaters, so I can only comment on what I heard.
Everybody knew that Biden was going to hammer his campaign's theme that Mitt is a liar, and boy did he ever. He continuously sniped, snickered, and interruped Ryan, which was a stark contrast to the much more polite Republican who stayed silent while Joe had the floor. The strategy was obvious - keep interuppting Ryan to try to throw him and knock him off balance, while challenging every single Ryan statement as untrue.
It got almost ridiculous, as Biden would pretend to be trying his hardest to suppress the word "Liar!". He also delivered his own talking points passionately, making the audience understand that he really is a true believer in his party's platforms and philosophies.
When the Catholic values question came up and Ryan talked about the First Amendment violation the President has perpetrated through his ObamaCare Contraceptive Regulation, you would have believed from Biden's response that Ryan was lying about that too. But no, if you just follow what he said and think about it for a couple of minutes, you realize he just changed the subject! He gave a litany of examples of things ObamaCare does NOT force Catholics to do, as if that excuses the mandate.
Biden's soft tone while he explained his view on abortion (pro) must have been a terrific acting job, as he sounded compassionate while pretending he cares about the health and well-being of women. Gay Marriage never came up.
I came away from the debate disappointed. My expectation that Ryan would embarass the VP was thoroughly destroyed. If I had to vote on who "won", I'd have to give the nod to Joe by just a few points. Based on his passion, his success in using interruption and feigned outrage to knock Ryan off balance, and his ability to lie extremely convincingly.
Ryan should have realized that Biden had turned the tables on him, instead of being forced to try defending his administration, he was forcing Ryan to defend his team's proposals. Biden almost made it sound as if it was Romney and Ryan that had been in charge the last 4 years, not he and Obama.
I generally think of myself as fairly knowledgeable, but Biden kept bringing up obscure "facts" I'd never heard anywhere to defend his president. I was amazed as his brazenness in continually asserting outright lies passionately and turning them back on Ryan, at one point actually trying to suggest the debacle in Benghazi was Ryan's fault because he cut the security funding!
All that's left is to hope that those who asserted pre-debate that the VP debate normally has no bearing on the election outcome are correct.
Update: What I missed first time around was the visual. Biden was outrageous for the entire debate, going well beyond the audible interruptions I heard over the radio. He used exaggerated expressions and gestures along with verbal assaults to try to convey the impression of Ryan as either grossly ignorant or an outrageous liar. You would have thought that Biden considered every single Ryan sentence (even "Nice to see you, Mr. Vice President") a horrible lie.
The visuals definitely changed my perception on who may have won the debate; now I wouldn't say Ryan won, but would say that Biden lost.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Movie Review
Just to get out for awhile, I saw Trouble with the Curve last night. The Clint Eastwood baseball movie was a very nicely done story that seems like it might be Eastwood's argument against Brad Pitt's Moneyball.
Eastwood's pretty good at playing the crochety old geezer, almost the same character he played in Gran Torino a couple years ago. Yet his subtle performance grants the audience a peek at his inner guilt and regret over his neglect of his daughter, played by the gorgeous Amy Adams.
Even though Adams made the film for me, as the competent yet emotionally fragile attorney daughter, her performance in the more dramatic scenes of confrontation with Eastwood was too over-the-top. It's not believable to me that the adult 30-something daughter would use such melodrama when she tried to talk with her father about the pain of her childhood abandonment.
She was called "emotionally unavailable" by Justin Timberlake, which should have meant her character dealt with her emotional conflicts with her father in much a more subtle and stoic manner. She would have been much more effective if her approach had been more like Eatwood's. Great drama doesn't always require tears and a raised voice ending with her stalking out of the room.
Timberlake wasn't bad as the love interest for Adams' character, but he's far from believable as an ex-major league pitcher. He doesn't look like a guy who could get a baseball all the way to the plate, let alone one who had a 100MPH fastball.
John Goodman was terrific and believable as Eastwood's beleagered boss, who's trying to hang on to his job against the younger, aggressively ambitious Matthew Lillard, who I mostly remember as Shaggy from the Scooby-Do movies.
The ending was especially contrived, but for some reason I didn't mind much. In the real world it would have taken at least a year or two for the Atlanta Braves to figure out Eastwood's scouting was right and Lillard's computer models were wrong, and that first draft pick was a bust. It also seems nearly impossible that the young pitching phenom Adams' character brought to the organization off the street would actually be given a chance to throw against the draft pick in front of the entire Braves management team. But I understand the story needed a quick resolution.
The movie makes a pretty good case for the human touch in scouting talent versus reliance on computer models and statistics. I'm pretty sure both have a place, just like everything else in the modern world. Computers are tools that help get work done faster, not magic boxes that can make all our decisions for us without the interjection of human judgement.
Eastwood's pretty good at playing the crochety old geezer, almost the same character he played in Gran Torino a couple years ago. Yet his subtle performance grants the audience a peek at his inner guilt and regret over his neglect of his daughter, played by the gorgeous Amy Adams.
Even though Adams made the film for me, as the competent yet emotionally fragile attorney daughter, her performance in the more dramatic scenes of confrontation with Eastwood was too over-the-top. It's not believable to me that the adult 30-something daughter would use such melodrama when she tried to talk with her father about the pain of her childhood abandonment.
She was called "emotionally unavailable" by Justin Timberlake, which should have meant her character dealt with her emotional conflicts with her father in much a more subtle and stoic manner. She would have been much more effective if her approach had been more like Eatwood's. Great drama doesn't always require tears and a raised voice ending with her stalking out of the room.
Timberlake wasn't bad as the love interest for Adams' character, but he's far from believable as an ex-major league pitcher. He doesn't look like a guy who could get a baseball all the way to the plate, let alone one who had a 100MPH fastball.
John Goodman was terrific and believable as Eastwood's beleagered boss, who's trying to hang on to his job against the younger, aggressively ambitious Matthew Lillard, who I mostly remember as Shaggy from the Scooby-Do movies.
The ending was especially contrived, but for some reason I didn't mind much. In the real world it would have taken at least a year or two for the Atlanta Braves to figure out Eastwood's scouting was right and Lillard's computer models were wrong, and that first draft pick was a bust. It also seems nearly impossible that the young pitching phenom Adams' character brought to the organization off the street would actually be given a chance to throw against the draft pick in front of the entire Braves management team. But I understand the story needed a quick resolution.
The movie makes a pretty good case for the human touch in scouting talent versus reliance on computer models and statistics. I'm pretty sure both have a place, just like everything else in the modern world. Computers are tools that help get work done faster, not magic boxes that can make all our decisions for us without the interjection of human judgement.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Affirmative Action
The University of Texas Affirmative Action case is being considered at the Supreme Court. Once again, we can expect a 5-4 decision that involves either 4 or 5 justices making a ruling that completely ignores the United States Constitution.
Affirmative Action is used by Universities across the country to justify admission policies that favor less-qualified students over more-qualified students solely because of the color of their skin. Universities claim race is only one small factor among many they consider in admission decisions, but simple observation puts the lie to that claim. My kids went to college and I took each of them to their Freshman orientation. Each one entered with a group of freshman that included about 1/3 black students. My MBA class had the same proportion.
As I've written in previous blog posts, when graduation came around, the 1/3 proportion of black students that entered with my class and my sons' classes all but disappeared. My class was about 100, so there were 30-some black students entering with me. When we graduated, I counted 2 black graduates from the program. Both were foreign students. When my sons graduated, the attrition rate was similarly dramatic.
As a practical matter, the first question about these affirmative action quotas is, how does the program benefit racial minorities when they enter the university ill-equipped to survive the rigorous programs? How does it help anyone to give a valuable spot in the university program to a student who most likely will not survive the first year?
Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's first Supreme Court appointment, has been open about being a product of Affirmative Action. She's admitted that her academic performance was inadequate, and by itself would have never allowed her to achieve her education. She also seems to suggest that even her higher education professors lowered the bar to help her squeak by and attain her degree. She's proud of that story, but I believe she should be ashamed. Because it proves what was apparent in her confirmation hearings - that she's woefully unqualified for her position on the court. The truth of the matter is that she's America's own Affirmative Action Supreme Court Justice. That should especially offend Clarence Thomas, who earned his seat on merit despite the Democrat show trial with Anita Hill designed to destroy his reputation and keep him from being seated.
Another key question is this: If we continue affirmative action to promote "diversity", why does it only benefit black persons and to a lesser extent, hispanics? What about Asians, who tend to achieve way beyone every other racial group and easily qualify on their merits? Don't Asians represent diversity as well, therefore a race-based admissions policy would necessarily limit their admission rate to approximately their representation in the population? Universities would end up rejecting Asian applicants in very large numbers, even though those rejected applicants easily outshine the vast majority of admissions from other groups.
Finally, I read somewhere that racial preferences in admissions primarily benefit black students from well-to-do families. These are kids who come from wealthy families with parents who are doctors or attorneys, but have underachieved academically. But they still get into the university classes easily solely because of their race. How does this practice help the underpriviledged find an escape from multi-generational poverty? If the social aim is to give students from poor families an opportunity to climb out, then why don't universities replace the racial preference with a preference for those from the lower classes?
Based on their recent decisions and the apparent ideological makeup of the court today, I don't hold out much hope for a constitutionally valid decision. But my hope is that the decision would reflect John Roberts' very insightful statement on the subject,
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race".
Well said.
Affirmative Action is used by Universities across the country to justify admission policies that favor less-qualified students over more-qualified students solely because of the color of their skin. Universities claim race is only one small factor among many they consider in admission decisions, but simple observation puts the lie to that claim. My kids went to college and I took each of them to their Freshman orientation. Each one entered with a group of freshman that included about 1/3 black students. My MBA class had the same proportion.
As I've written in previous blog posts, when graduation came around, the 1/3 proportion of black students that entered with my class and my sons' classes all but disappeared. My class was about 100, so there were 30-some black students entering with me. When we graduated, I counted 2 black graduates from the program. Both were foreign students. When my sons graduated, the attrition rate was similarly dramatic.
As a practical matter, the first question about these affirmative action quotas is, how does the program benefit racial minorities when they enter the university ill-equipped to survive the rigorous programs? How does it help anyone to give a valuable spot in the university program to a student who most likely will not survive the first year?
Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's first Supreme Court appointment, has been open about being a product of Affirmative Action. She's admitted that her academic performance was inadequate, and by itself would have never allowed her to achieve her education. She also seems to suggest that even her higher education professors lowered the bar to help her squeak by and attain her degree. She's proud of that story, but I believe she should be ashamed. Because it proves what was apparent in her confirmation hearings - that she's woefully unqualified for her position on the court. The truth of the matter is that she's America's own Affirmative Action Supreme Court Justice. That should especially offend Clarence Thomas, who earned his seat on merit despite the Democrat show trial with Anita Hill designed to destroy his reputation and keep him from being seated.
Another key question is this: If we continue affirmative action to promote "diversity", why does it only benefit black persons and to a lesser extent, hispanics? What about Asians, who tend to achieve way beyone every other racial group and easily qualify on their merits? Don't Asians represent diversity as well, therefore a race-based admissions policy would necessarily limit their admission rate to approximately their representation in the population? Universities would end up rejecting Asian applicants in very large numbers, even though those rejected applicants easily outshine the vast majority of admissions from other groups.
Finally, I read somewhere that racial preferences in admissions primarily benefit black students from well-to-do families. These are kids who come from wealthy families with parents who are doctors or attorneys, but have underachieved academically. But they still get into the university classes easily solely because of their race. How does this practice help the underpriviledged find an escape from multi-generational poverty? If the social aim is to give students from poor families an opportunity to climb out, then why don't universities replace the racial preference with a preference for those from the lower classes?
Based on their recent decisions and the apparent ideological makeup of the court today, I don't hold out much hope for a constitutionally valid decision. But my hope is that the decision would reflect John Roberts' very insightful statement on the subject,
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race".
Well said.
Monday, October 08, 2012
Great Weekend for Football
It was fun to be a football fan this weekend. From my assigned high school games at Brown County and Trinity Lutheran, to the College games, to the NFL, there was plenty to enjoy.
Brown County played in a downpour and unfortunately let a key fumble get away deep in their own territory to allow their opponent to score the lone touchdown of the game. Their coach was wishing they'd had good weather, because he felt his team's passing-oriented game would have won. They still had their share of chances to score, but just stalled in the red zone.
Trinity Lutheran played a Catholic school team from Chicago that looked bigger, stronger, and most defnitely faster. But Trinity had a strong defense and threw the ball all over the field for 6 touchdowns on their way to a blowout victory. It was surprising because their quarterback, a tall skinny kid who looked awkward just walking on the field, somehow demonstrated pretty good accuracy with his throws. Not a particularly strong arm, but more often then not, he could hit his receivers in the hands. And he had some pretty decent receivers.
My South Carolina Gamecocks blew out Georgia at home for a big victory in the SEC. Now they're undefeated and ranked #3 in the country. Likewise, Notre Dame blew out Miami (Florida) and are ranked #7. Indiana had a chance to beat Michigan State, but blew it in the fourth quarter (again), so that was a little disappointing. Also a bit of a disappointment was Ball State, who dropped their second in a row in the MAC by also blowing a lead in the fourth quarter.
Then there's the NFL. Columbus' own Stevie Brown had a great game in his first start with the New York Giants, getting his second interception of the year against the Cleveland Browns. More importantly, his interception came at an important point in the game, with the Browns up 2 touchdowns and driving toward a third score. Stevie intercepted Brandon Weeden's overthrow and returned the ball 46 yards to set up Eli Manning for the Giants' first touchdown, then he recovered a Browns fumble on the ensuing kickoff. From that point on, the Giants rolled for a 41-27 victory.
Finally, the Colts. I was on the road (as usual), but had Sirius in the rental car so I could listen to the Colts and Packers. I actually had switched to the Browns-Giants game because it sounded like the Packers were steamrolling the Colts, as they were up 21-3 in the first half. But I tuned back in in time to catch the Colt comeback and an eventful fourth quarter. The Colts finally got a lead on an impressive drive featuring the Luck-to-Wayne passing show. But the brief feeling that the Colts had hope for a win was dashed almost immediately as Aaron Rogers drove his team down the field so fast it seemed as if the Colts defense had stayed on the sideline, and regained a Packer lead late.
But the Luck-to-Wayne show resumed immediately after that Packer score. Several times it sounded like the Colts' final drive had stalled. But they kept picking up first downs, even on fourth down plays, and had a little bit of help from Packer defensive penalties. Finally Reggie Wayne caught Luck's pass on the 1 or 2 and reached the ball over the goal line as he was being tackled.
The Pack still had a chance to tie the game and send it to overtime. Rogers threw too easily down the field to get his team into field goal range, albeit a difficult 52 yard attempt. Crosby missed and the Colts celebrated.
The accolades for the rookie quarterback are certainly deserved. He was harrassed, knocked down and beaten up by the Packer defense the entire game, yet somehow hung in there to get his throws downfield. But without Reggie Wayne snaring those passes on the other end, neither the victory nor the adulation for Andrew Luck would have happened. Reggie had what I think was a career performance, and deserves at least equal billing with Luck as the star of the game.
Brown County played in a downpour and unfortunately let a key fumble get away deep in their own territory to allow their opponent to score the lone touchdown of the game. Their coach was wishing they'd had good weather, because he felt his team's passing-oriented game would have won. They still had their share of chances to score, but just stalled in the red zone.
Trinity Lutheran played a Catholic school team from Chicago that looked bigger, stronger, and most defnitely faster. But Trinity had a strong defense and threw the ball all over the field for 6 touchdowns on their way to a blowout victory. It was surprising because their quarterback, a tall skinny kid who looked awkward just walking on the field, somehow demonstrated pretty good accuracy with his throws. Not a particularly strong arm, but more often then not, he could hit his receivers in the hands. And he had some pretty decent receivers.
My South Carolina Gamecocks blew out Georgia at home for a big victory in the SEC. Now they're undefeated and ranked #3 in the country. Likewise, Notre Dame blew out Miami (Florida) and are ranked #7. Indiana had a chance to beat Michigan State, but blew it in the fourth quarter (again), so that was a little disappointing. Also a bit of a disappointment was Ball State, who dropped their second in a row in the MAC by also blowing a lead in the fourth quarter.
Then there's the NFL. Columbus' own Stevie Brown had a great game in his first start with the New York Giants, getting his second interception of the year against the Cleveland Browns. More importantly, his interception came at an important point in the game, with the Browns up 2 touchdowns and driving toward a third score. Stevie intercepted Brandon Weeden's overthrow and returned the ball 46 yards to set up Eli Manning for the Giants' first touchdown, then he recovered a Browns fumble on the ensuing kickoff. From that point on, the Giants rolled for a 41-27 victory.
Finally, the Colts. I was on the road (as usual), but had Sirius in the rental car so I could listen to the Colts and Packers. I actually had switched to the Browns-Giants game because it sounded like the Packers were steamrolling the Colts, as they were up 21-3 in the first half. But I tuned back in in time to catch the Colt comeback and an eventful fourth quarter. The Colts finally got a lead on an impressive drive featuring the Luck-to-Wayne passing show. But the brief feeling that the Colts had hope for a win was dashed almost immediately as Aaron Rogers drove his team down the field so fast it seemed as if the Colts defense had stayed on the sideline, and regained a Packer lead late.
But the Luck-to-Wayne show resumed immediately after that Packer score. Several times it sounded like the Colts' final drive had stalled. But they kept picking up first downs, even on fourth down plays, and had a little bit of help from Packer defensive penalties. Finally Reggie Wayne caught Luck's pass on the 1 or 2 and reached the ball over the goal line as he was being tackled.
The Pack still had a chance to tie the game and send it to overtime. Rogers threw too easily down the field to get his team into field goal range, albeit a difficult 52 yard attempt. Crosby missed and the Colts celebrated.
The accolades for the rookie quarterback are certainly deserved. He was harrassed, knocked down and beaten up by the Packer defense the entire game, yet somehow hung in there to get his throws downfield. But without Reggie Wayne snaring those passes on the other end, neither the victory nor the adulation for Andrew Luck would have happened. Reggie had what I think was a career performance, and deserves at least equal billing with Luck as the star of the game.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
A Brief Sojourn to the Left Side of the Tracks
I was driving to cover a football game last night, and hit the Scan button to find a radio station. NPR appeared, so I stopped the scan to listen to what the NPR Left is talking about. They were discussing the surprising announcement by the feds that the unemployment rate suddenly and dramatically dropped from 8.2 to 7.8 percent.
The host repeatedly said that there's no way the Department of Labor Statistics could or would ever risk their reputation by "cooking the books" to get a favorable number for President Obama coincidentally a month before the election. She brought in two "journalists", Dana Milbank and David Brooks, to amplify her message.
Even listening to them ramble on about the integrity of the "nonpartisan" bureaucrats in Washington who are "immune" from pressure from the White House to favor their president by posting bogus statistics, I found myself even more suspicious.
Thou protesteth too much, methinks. The group came off to my ear as desperate. They're worried that Obama's poor debate performance has caused many voters to abandon their beloved president to begin seriously considering giving Mitt Romney a try. David Brooks is the default choice by the left-wing media complex as the token Conservative, but I don't know whether he's ever been a conservative - he just plays one at the Times for the job, exposure, and praise he gets from the Left for being some sort of rare "reasonable" conservative voice.
The economy added only about 114,000 jobs last month, and somehow the unemployment rate magically dropped 3 percent? Nobody with a brain would call that logical. As far as I can tell, they switched to something called a "Household Survey" to come up with the new rate. It sounds like they changed the definition of unemployed and stretched the rules to begin counting folks who make a few bucks here and there picking up odd jobs as employed.
Obama needed this number desperately because he needed to change the subject. It doesn't require some kind of cynical partisanship to suspect that the president asked Hilda Solis for help, and she delivered. Now he finally has shut Romney up about the 30-some straight months of unemployment over 8 percent. Now instead of continuing to talk about his thrashing in the debate, he's got the media working hard to cover for him with this new manufactured unemployment statistic.
Just a postscript about NPR. Suppose you were part of a truly non-partisan media organization that only cared about uncovering and reporting the truth. When this sudden and inexplicable drop in the unemployment rate was announced, what would be your first priority? Would it be to get busy talking to the folks that compile those statistics, study the raw numbers and methodologies that went into them, and reporting the truth of whatever you find to the public? Or would it be to immediately go on air to defend the agency and the president, and reassure the public that there's absolutely no possibility that they've been playing hanky-panky with the numbers to try to help re-elect their president?
We know which path NPR chose.
The host repeatedly said that there's no way the Department of Labor Statistics could or would ever risk their reputation by "cooking the books" to get a favorable number for President Obama coincidentally a month before the election. She brought in two "journalists", Dana Milbank and David Brooks, to amplify her message.
Even listening to them ramble on about the integrity of the "nonpartisan" bureaucrats in Washington who are "immune" from pressure from the White House to favor their president by posting bogus statistics, I found myself even more suspicious.
Thou protesteth too much, methinks. The group came off to my ear as desperate. They're worried that Obama's poor debate performance has caused many voters to abandon their beloved president to begin seriously considering giving Mitt Romney a try. David Brooks is the default choice by the left-wing media complex as the token Conservative, but I don't know whether he's ever been a conservative - he just plays one at the Times for the job, exposure, and praise he gets from the Left for being some sort of rare "reasonable" conservative voice.
The economy added only about 114,000 jobs last month, and somehow the unemployment rate magically dropped 3 percent? Nobody with a brain would call that logical. As far as I can tell, they switched to something called a "Household Survey" to come up with the new rate. It sounds like they changed the definition of unemployed and stretched the rules to begin counting folks who make a few bucks here and there picking up odd jobs as employed.
Obama needed this number desperately because he needed to change the subject. It doesn't require some kind of cynical partisanship to suspect that the president asked Hilda Solis for help, and she delivered. Now he finally has shut Romney up about the 30-some straight months of unemployment over 8 percent. Now instead of continuing to talk about his thrashing in the debate, he's got the media working hard to cover for him with this new manufactured unemployment statistic.
Just a postscript about NPR. Suppose you were part of a truly non-partisan media organization that only cared about uncovering and reporting the truth. When this sudden and inexplicable drop in the unemployment rate was announced, what would be your first priority? Would it be to get busy talking to the folks that compile those statistics, study the raw numbers and methodologies that went into them, and reporting the truth of whatever you find to the public? Or would it be to immediately go on air to defend the agency and the president, and reassure the public that there's absolutely no possibility that they've been playing hanky-panky with the numbers to try to help re-elect their president?
We know which path NPR chose.
Friday, October 05, 2012
Still Shocking Me with Outrageous Behavior
The petulant behavior of the president after being embarrassed in Wednesday's debate went beyond my expectations. I knew the narcissist-in-chief would probably be less than gracious in defeat, but he went far beyond a sore loser.
He immediately sought out a friendly venue (a Colorado university campus) and showed everyone just how unpresidential he can be. He threw a tantrum of the type we'd punish our 8 year old who screams "cheaters!" at members of the baseball team that just beat his team by the 10 run rule. As we know, Barry never had a father to pull him aside and give him the lesson about being a good sport. He never had a Dad to explain to him that you congratulate the victor, then go work harder so you have a chance to win next time.
Obama's debate strategy was fully and completely focused on destroying Romney. Because Obama's team knew he had no accomplishments he could brag about, the only remaining option was to try to make Romney look like an unacceptable alternative to the voters.
What really ticked Barry off was that Romney didn't cooperate. Every time Obama threw a punch at the challenger, it was parried aside easily.
Obama: "Your plan gives a 5 Trillion dollar tax break to the wealthy and increase taxes $2,500 on everyone in the middle class!"
Romney: "That's not true. Now listen as I explain the truth about my tax plan."
As the night went on, Obama would level an outrageous charge and Romney would refute it. Until Obama just gave up.
The Obama sycophants in the media who were appalled and demoralized by the thrashing their president received have been trying to figure out why their messianic president didn't bring out the "big guns" against Romney. Like the 47 percent comment.
Excuse me, all you wild-eyed Liberals at MSNBC and the rest of the leftist television networks: Obama's at least smart enough to know when to quit. After having every punch turned aside, then being knocked down by the counter-punch, the only way to survive is to raise your guard and try to minimize any further damage.
For example, if Obama had tried to throw the 47 percent attack at Romney, he had to know it would have been effectively refuted, then used as an opening to hammer Obama on one of his own, much more outrageous gaffes. I think Obama's at least smart enough to know that manufactured characterizations of Romney policy proposals that work so well out on the campaign trail in front of adoring audiences get destroyed in any venue where the truth actually matters.
So he saved his favorite Romney attack lines for the stump. Because if he pulled out "47 percent" in the debate and allowed Mitt to point out how terribly out of context it's been used, he won't be able to use it credibly anymore out in front of his brainwashed masses.
Now Obama's campaign strategy is "Mitt Romney's a liar". It makes me wonder, after spending the last 6 months making campaign speeches full of lies and mischaracterizations against your opponent, have you actually started to believe what you're saying every day? Is that why you're so surprised when they get shot down in the first debate, and therefore have you really convinced yourself he's a liar for pointing out those things you've come to believe are actually false?
Those network sycophants have been broadcasting the same lies for so long that they forgot what is the truth long ago.
Is there any advice I could offer Barry that might save his campaign? Not really. Continue the dishonest campaign and you'll still be guaranteed all the votes of the leftists who have no other choice, plus the ignorant who will never know what's true. That might still turn out to be your winning formula, but I hope not.
But if you have any desire to find some personal integrity, just abandon the strategy your campaign team has been calling "kill Romney", and try the truth for a change. Give people the whole truth about what you intend to do with your second term - tell us you intend to move past the charade of Obamacare and impose your version of Medicare for everyone. Tell us you intend to nationalize the energy industry. Tell us you'll support United Nations initiatives for Global Governance, Global Taxation, and Gun Control. Tell us you intend to outlaw Christianity. That you will act to destroy the state of Israel and turn that tiny strip of land over to the Muslim Palestinians. That you will redistribute all American wealth, not just to American poor, but to the poor nations around the world. Tell us that you will stop all development of fossil fuels and force America to get our energy only from "clean and renewable" sources. Tell us if your plans include overturning the term limits for Presidents so you can become Dictator for Life.
At least then we finally will know what sort of country we are voting to have in the future.
He immediately sought out a friendly venue (a Colorado university campus) and showed everyone just how unpresidential he can be. He threw a tantrum of the type we'd punish our 8 year old who screams "cheaters!" at members of the baseball team that just beat his team by the 10 run rule. As we know, Barry never had a father to pull him aside and give him the lesson about being a good sport. He never had a Dad to explain to him that you congratulate the victor, then go work harder so you have a chance to win next time.
Obama's debate strategy was fully and completely focused on destroying Romney. Because Obama's team knew he had no accomplishments he could brag about, the only remaining option was to try to make Romney look like an unacceptable alternative to the voters.
What really ticked Barry off was that Romney didn't cooperate. Every time Obama threw a punch at the challenger, it was parried aside easily.
Obama: "Your plan gives a 5 Trillion dollar tax break to the wealthy and increase taxes $2,500 on everyone in the middle class!"
Romney: "That's not true. Now listen as I explain the truth about my tax plan."
As the night went on, Obama would level an outrageous charge and Romney would refute it. Until Obama just gave up.
The Obama sycophants in the media who were appalled and demoralized by the thrashing their president received have been trying to figure out why their messianic president didn't bring out the "big guns" against Romney. Like the 47 percent comment.
Excuse me, all you wild-eyed Liberals at MSNBC and the rest of the leftist television networks: Obama's at least smart enough to know when to quit. After having every punch turned aside, then being knocked down by the counter-punch, the only way to survive is to raise your guard and try to minimize any further damage.
For example, if Obama had tried to throw the 47 percent attack at Romney, he had to know it would have been effectively refuted, then used as an opening to hammer Obama on one of his own, much more outrageous gaffes. I think Obama's at least smart enough to know that manufactured characterizations of Romney policy proposals that work so well out on the campaign trail in front of adoring audiences get destroyed in any venue where the truth actually matters.
So he saved his favorite Romney attack lines for the stump. Because if he pulled out "47 percent" in the debate and allowed Mitt to point out how terribly out of context it's been used, he won't be able to use it credibly anymore out in front of his brainwashed masses.
Now Obama's campaign strategy is "Mitt Romney's a liar". It makes me wonder, after spending the last 6 months making campaign speeches full of lies and mischaracterizations against your opponent, have you actually started to believe what you're saying every day? Is that why you're so surprised when they get shot down in the first debate, and therefore have you really convinced yourself he's a liar for pointing out those things you've come to believe are actually false?
Those network sycophants have been broadcasting the same lies for so long that they forgot what is the truth long ago.
Is there any advice I could offer Barry that might save his campaign? Not really. Continue the dishonest campaign and you'll still be guaranteed all the votes of the leftists who have no other choice, plus the ignorant who will never know what's true. That might still turn out to be your winning formula, but I hope not.
But if you have any desire to find some personal integrity, just abandon the strategy your campaign team has been calling "kill Romney", and try the truth for a change. Give people the whole truth about what you intend to do with your second term - tell us you intend to move past the charade of Obamacare and impose your version of Medicare for everyone. Tell us you intend to nationalize the energy industry. Tell us you'll support United Nations initiatives for Global Governance, Global Taxation, and Gun Control. Tell us you intend to outlaw Christianity. That you will act to destroy the state of Israel and turn that tiny strip of land over to the Muslim Palestinians. That you will redistribute all American wealth, not just to American poor, but to the poor nations around the world. Tell us that you will stop all development of fossil fuels and force America to get our energy only from "clean and renewable" sources. Tell us if your plans include overturning the term limits for Presidents so you can become Dictator for Life.
At least then we finally will know what sort of country we are voting to have in the future.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Debate Analysis
Unlike so many of the crowing conservatives this morning, I was overall a bit disappointed in Romney last night. Not that he didn't outshine the president in the debate, but I believe he fumbled a chance to destroy Obama.
Particularly in the first half hour, it seemed to me that Romney was pulled into the deep weeds by Obama arguing wonky policy stuff that must have had half the audience picking up their remotes to change the channel. Instead of arguing the fine points of tax policy, Romney should have focused on the big picture principled discussion of why Obama's socialist ideas have failed and why Romney's market-friendly approach will succeed.
I give Romney credit for blunting Obama's misleading attacks on his proposals. He was effective when he called Obama out for lying by saying, "Everything you just said about my tax plan is inaccurate". It's nicer than calling him a liar, but still conveys the message.
USA Today published a fundamentally dishonest review of the debate, with an article from their so-called "fact checkers", who of course went to greatly dishonest lengths trying to suggest Romney twisted the truth. At least they confirmed other Romney statements in the article, maybe because they knew they had to show at least some credibility.
A big disappointment for me was that Romney allowed Obama to pull him into a wonky discussion of ObamaCare, trying to argue the merits of the law's supposedly popular provisions, like forcing insurers to cover folks with pre-existing conditions or cover grown children. Romney should have redirected the discussion to the principles of freedom and the error of one-size-fits-all dictatorial management of healthcare from the ivory towers in Washington. I especially wanted him to make a strong principled argument against the HHS Mandate for free contraception.
Romney at least gave a good principled argument against the IPAB. I thought Obama's defense of IPAB was weak.
Late in the debate it seemed obvious that Romney had Obama on the ropes, as we saw the president scowling and shaking his head while Romney landed his body blows, especially about the Obama "green energy" disaster.
Only the political junkies get much out of the debate. I think regular people were probably unaffected. I'd be surprised if the persuadable people came away from watching the debate as Romney supporters; actually, I'd be surprised if the persuadable people even watched.
Particularly in the first half hour, it seemed to me that Romney was pulled into the deep weeds by Obama arguing wonky policy stuff that must have had half the audience picking up their remotes to change the channel. Instead of arguing the fine points of tax policy, Romney should have focused on the big picture principled discussion of why Obama's socialist ideas have failed and why Romney's market-friendly approach will succeed.
I give Romney credit for blunting Obama's misleading attacks on his proposals. He was effective when he called Obama out for lying by saying, "Everything you just said about my tax plan is inaccurate". It's nicer than calling him a liar, but still conveys the message.
USA Today published a fundamentally dishonest review of the debate, with an article from their so-called "fact checkers", who of course went to greatly dishonest lengths trying to suggest Romney twisted the truth. At least they confirmed other Romney statements in the article, maybe because they knew they had to show at least some credibility.
A big disappointment for me was that Romney allowed Obama to pull him into a wonky discussion of ObamaCare, trying to argue the merits of the law's supposedly popular provisions, like forcing insurers to cover folks with pre-existing conditions or cover grown children. Romney should have redirected the discussion to the principles of freedom and the error of one-size-fits-all dictatorial management of healthcare from the ivory towers in Washington. I especially wanted him to make a strong principled argument against the HHS Mandate for free contraception.
Romney at least gave a good principled argument against the IPAB. I thought Obama's defense of IPAB was weak.
Late in the debate it seemed obvious that Romney had Obama on the ropes, as we saw the president scowling and shaking his head while Romney landed his body blows, especially about the Obama "green energy" disaster.
Only the political junkies get much out of the debate. I think regular people were probably unaffected. I'd be surprised if the persuadable people came away from watching the debate as Romney supporters; actually, I'd be surprised if the persuadable people even watched.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Defining Journalism
When I was young, most people defined journalism as the act of delivering a factual description of events to inform the general public. Now journalism is pure advocacy.
I can still remember when news programs had a segment near the end that was labeled and clearly stated as the "Opinion" segment. The anchor would turn to another camera and introduce his topic with a clear statement that he was going to share his opinion, often supported by a banner on the screen that read "Opinion".
These days nearly the entire program, regardless of network, is opinion. NBC is the worst, but CBS, ABC, PBS, and CNN aren't far behind. The presentation of each story is easy to deconstruct for its obvious design, which is to inculcate a specific attitude about the event in the audience.
Those who would disagree with my premise will point to Fox News, which they say is far more partisan and manipulative with stories toward the Right than any of the other networks. Sure, the trio of personalities on Fox & Friends are transparently conservative. O'Reilly and Hannity make no attempt to hide their conservative advocacy, although O'Reilly is more fairly described as a Moderate.
Can anyone name a single hard news anchor on TV today, on any network, who sticks with the facts and does not editorialize or design the broadcast in an attempt to manage viewers' attitudes? I think I can name only two: Bret Baier and Chris Wallace. Both from Fox News. Baier does stories straight, and I've never heard him go beyond the facts of the story to go on partisan rants. Wallace interviews Republican and Democrat leaders every Sunday morning, and ask everybody very tough questions and is decidedly not chummy with leaders on either side, as are his counterparts on the other networks.
Let's use just one current story as an example. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed the Libyan Ambassador and the 4 former Seals who don't seem to have been there for any security-related purpose. What questions would an ordinary American want answered about this disastrous event?
What was the mission of the Ambassador and the Seals? Why was there no security there to protect them from possible attack, especially given that it was the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attack in New York? Why wasn't the consulate hardened or protected against attack? Are stories from State Department whistleblowers that the danger was foreseen and additional security requested and denied by Hillary or her top assistants true? Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different Sunday news shows to lie about the conditions and events of the attack, when it's now clear that the Obama administration knew at that time that the cover story she was peddling about the event was false?
Has anybody from the networks made any visible attempt to answer even one of those questions? No. All I've observed is an almost desperate attempt to cover for the White House and attack Romney for criticizing the president for his weak response and attempt to deflect the narrative toward a silly YouTube video.
Is there not one single reporter at CBS or ABC that has the slightest bit of curiosity about finding out the truth behind this disaster for America? This is just the sort of expose that might one day have meant a Pulitzer for the intrepid reporter that managed to uncover the facts. But today the networks do not dare pursue such a story, because heaven forbid it make their president look bad and possibly cause him to lose his re-election campaign! Not to mention the president might punish the network by denying access to him for interviews if they dare publicize a story that casts him in a poor light.
I wonder why Fox News doesn't do the investigative journalism either. Why can't one of the Fox reporters go out and dig up the facts of this debacle and present them on a Fox News Special or a special investigative series?
I have a guess. Reporters from Fox News are pariahs in the halls of Democratic governance. Doors are closed to them in the White House and the State Department. They can only talk to people outside those opulent Washington buildings who may be able to give them background information, but they'll never get access to the folks on the inside who know what happened.
The country needs a news organization that is dedicated only to finding and reporting the truth. That separates facts from opinion and presents news stories and does investigations that are unvarnished and unconcerned with the political affiliation of bad actors. That trusts the American people to absorb their straightfoward stories and exposes and draw their own conclusions.
It's the only way a democratic republic can survive.
I can still remember when news programs had a segment near the end that was labeled and clearly stated as the "Opinion" segment. The anchor would turn to another camera and introduce his topic with a clear statement that he was going to share his opinion, often supported by a banner on the screen that read "Opinion".
These days nearly the entire program, regardless of network, is opinion. NBC is the worst, but CBS, ABC, PBS, and CNN aren't far behind. The presentation of each story is easy to deconstruct for its obvious design, which is to inculcate a specific attitude about the event in the audience.
Those who would disagree with my premise will point to Fox News, which they say is far more partisan and manipulative with stories toward the Right than any of the other networks. Sure, the trio of personalities on Fox & Friends are transparently conservative. O'Reilly and Hannity make no attempt to hide their conservative advocacy, although O'Reilly is more fairly described as a Moderate.
Can anyone name a single hard news anchor on TV today, on any network, who sticks with the facts and does not editorialize or design the broadcast in an attempt to manage viewers' attitudes? I think I can name only two: Bret Baier and Chris Wallace. Both from Fox News. Baier does stories straight, and I've never heard him go beyond the facts of the story to go on partisan rants. Wallace interviews Republican and Democrat leaders every Sunday morning, and ask everybody very tough questions and is decidedly not chummy with leaders on either side, as are his counterparts on the other networks.
Let's use just one current story as an example. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed the Libyan Ambassador and the 4 former Seals who don't seem to have been there for any security-related purpose. What questions would an ordinary American want answered about this disastrous event?
What was the mission of the Ambassador and the Seals? Why was there no security there to protect them from possible attack, especially given that it was the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attack in New York? Why wasn't the consulate hardened or protected against attack? Are stories from State Department whistleblowers that the danger was foreseen and additional security requested and denied by Hillary or her top assistants true? Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different Sunday news shows to lie about the conditions and events of the attack, when it's now clear that the Obama administration knew at that time that the cover story she was peddling about the event was false?
Has anybody from the networks made any visible attempt to answer even one of those questions? No. All I've observed is an almost desperate attempt to cover for the White House and attack Romney for criticizing the president for his weak response and attempt to deflect the narrative toward a silly YouTube video.
Is there not one single reporter at CBS or ABC that has the slightest bit of curiosity about finding out the truth behind this disaster for America? This is just the sort of expose that might one day have meant a Pulitzer for the intrepid reporter that managed to uncover the facts. But today the networks do not dare pursue such a story, because heaven forbid it make their president look bad and possibly cause him to lose his re-election campaign! Not to mention the president might punish the network by denying access to him for interviews if they dare publicize a story that casts him in a poor light.
I wonder why Fox News doesn't do the investigative journalism either. Why can't one of the Fox reporters go out and dig up the facts of this debacle and present them on a Fox News Special or a special investigative series?
I have a guess. Reporters from Fox News are pariahs in the halls of Democratic governance. Doors are closed to them in the White House and the State Department. They can only talk to people outside those opulent Washington buildings who may be able to give them background information, but they'll never get access to the folks on the inside who know what happened.
The country needs a news organization that is dedicated only to finding and reporting the truth. That separates facts from opinion and presents news stories and does investigations that are unvarnished and unconcerned with the political affiliation of bad actors. That trusts the American people to absorb their straightfoward stories and exposes and draw their own conclusions.
It's the only way a democratic republic can survive.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Ruler or Representative?
Funny how things just pop into my head. This year's election is between the man who wants to be our ruler and one who wants to be our representative.
Simple idea that could easily be boiled down to a slogan for the campaign. Not that anybody would do that.
Simple idea that could easily be boiled down to a slogan for the campaign. Not that anybody would do that.
This Should Be Easy
Wednesday's debate should be the easiest ever for Romney, given the extensive and negative record of the president. Supposedly this debate's about domestic policy stuff, which should be a walk in the park if you're Romney.
The debt and deficit, the waste, not a single budget in the president's tenure in direct violation of law, acting like a dictator by illegally imposing things like amnesty for illegals, oil drilling moratoria, the HHS contraception mandate, and wasting billions on "clean energy" boondoggles from Solyndra to Fisker.
Then there's Fast & Furious, the unstimulating and corrupt trillion-dollar "Stimulus" legislation, blocking the oil pipeline from Canada and shutting down the coal companies, promising defense contractors he'll cover their fines if they put off their layoff notices until after election day.
Corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, indolence. This is easy.
I know, Romney has to be careful not to hit too hard, because that will risk offending the legions that worship Obama and don't care what he's done.
So he doesn't have to hit too hard. But he must also present a clear and simple message to Americans that it's not just about the incompetence and corruption of the current president, but more about how a Romney presidency is going to fix things and make peoples' lives better.
I actually think I could win this debate, even though I'm far from a decent public speaker.
The debt and deficit, the waste, not a single budget in the president's tenure in direct violation of law, acting like a dictator by illegally imposing things like amnesty for illegals, oil drilling moratoria, the HHS contraception mandate, and wasting billions on "clean energy" boondoggles from Solyndra to Fisker.
Then there's Fast & Furious, the unstimulating and corrupt trillion-dollar "Stimulus" legislation, blocking the oil pipeline from Canada and shutting down the coal companies, promising defense contractors he'll cover their fines if they put off their layoff notices until after election day.
Corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, indolence. This is easy.
I know, Romney has to be careful not to hit too hard, because that will risk offending the legions that worship Obama and don't care what he's done.
So he doesn't have to hit too hard. But he must also present a clear and simple message to Americans that it's not just about the incompetence and corruption of the current president, but more about how a Romney presidency is going to fix things and make peoples' lives better.
I actually think I could win this debate, even though I'm far from a decent public speaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)