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.
Monday, October 22, 2012
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.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
OK, I Admit it, Democrats Mystify Me
So I've been hearing stuff from people I know who still support Obama, despite his disastrous first term. I listen closely, and my only possible reaction is
"You have to be kidding me!"
Here's a sampling:
1. "Free contraceptives! Isn't it wonderful?"
Me: "How do you feel about the mandate that tells Catholics who believe contraception is a sin that they must pay for it?"
Democrat: Blank look.
2. "We can keep our kids on our health insurance until they're 26!"
Me: "Are you also happy about having your adult kids still living with you, eating your food, driving your car, leaving their messes for your to clean up? Wouldn't you rather they get a job and take care of themselves?"
Democrat: Blank look.
3. "Now nobody can be turned down for health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions!"
Me: "That does sound like a good thing. But I wonder, who's going to pay for all that care for sick people?"
Democrat: "Well, we already pay for it with higher premiums and taxes"
My reaction is yes, you've got a point, but have any of your premiums or taxes gone down? Do you think they will go down anytime soon?
4. "Gay people who love each other should be able to get married just like the rest of us".
Me: "You mean they can't already? Will somebody arrest a gay couple of they gather their friends together somewhere and make public promises of marriage-type commitments to each other? Explain to me, who's stopping them?"
Democrat: Blank look.
5. "I'm sick and tired of rich people always getting away with not paying their fair share!"
Me: You mean those top 10 percent rich people who pay 70 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the Federal Government? What rate should they pay? What rate do you pay? What rate should you pay? What rate should I pay?
Democrat: Blank look.
6. "I don't want to have any more of our kids sent overseas to fight and die in an unnecessary war in some desert"
Me: "Yeah, Obama's made it pretty clear he won't take on Iran under any circumstances. Are you comfortable with our country standing by and doing nothing when Iran launches their first nuclear missile into Israel?"
Democrat: "Well, hopefully that won't happen"
Yes, they mystify me. But it appears that I mystify them as well.
This is what happens when the ignorant are manipulated by the "elites" to vote them permanent power. The "elites" will live like kings (or like Barack and Michelle), while the sheep that voted to keep them in charge suffer. That's always been the story of socialism, everywhere it's been imposed.
It appears I belong to the shrinking class of productive people who make the country run. The elites want to milk me dry of the fruits of my labor, keep most of it for themselves, then use the rest to toss a few crumbs out to the unproductive so they can pretend they're "taking care" of them.
Sorry kids about my generation handing you this mess. Too bad you haven't grown up enough to realize how bad its getting, and it looks like by the time you do it will be too late.
"You have to be kidding me!"
Here's a sampling:
1. "Free contraceptives! Isn't it wonderful?"
Me: "How do you feel about the mandate that tells Catholics who believe contraception is a sin that they must pay for it?"
Democrat: Blank look.
2. "We can keep our kids on our health insurance until they're 26!"
Me: "Are you also happy about having your adult kids still living with you, eating your food, driving your car, leaving their messes for your to clean up? Wouldn't you rather they get a job and take care of themselves?"
Democrat: Blank look.
3. "Now nobody can be turned down for health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions!"
Me: "That does sound like a good thing. But I wonder, who's going to pay for all that care for sick people?"
Democrat: "Well, we already pay for it with higher premiums and taxes"
My reaction is yes, you've got a point, but have any of your premiums or taxes gone down? Do you think they will go down anytime soon?
4. "Gay people who love each other should be able to get married just like the rest of us".
Me: "You mean they can't already? Will somebody arrest a gay couple of they gather their friends together somewhere and make public promises of marriage-type commitments to each other? Explain to me, who's stopping them?"
Democrat: Blank look.
5. "I'm sick and tired of rich people always getting away with not paying their fair share!"
Me: You mean those top 10 percent rich people who pay 70 percent of the total tax revenue collected by the Federal Government? What rate should they pay? What rate do you pay? What rate should you pay? What rate should I pay?
Democrat: Blank look.
6. "I don't want to have any more of our kids sent overseas to fight and die in an unnecessary war in some desert"
Me: "Yeah, Obama's made it pretty clear he won't take on Iran under any circumstances. Are you comfortable with our country standing by and doing nothing when Iran launches their first nuclear missile into Israel?"
Democrat: "Well, hopefully that won't happen"
Yes, they mystify me. But it appears that I mystify them as well.
This is what happens when the ignorant are manipulated by the "elites" to vote them permanent power. The "elites" will live like kings (or like Barack and Michelle), while the sheep that voted to keep them in charge suffer. That's always been the story of socialism, everywhere it's been imposed.
It appears I belong to the shrinking class of productive people who make the country run. The elites want to milk me dry of the fruits of my labor, keep most of it for themselves, then use the rest to toss a few crumbs out to the unproductive so they can pretend they're "taking care" of them.
Sorry kids about my generation handing you this mess. Too bad you haven't grown up enough to realize how bad its getting, and it looks like by the time you do it will be too late.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Distrusting the Media Manipulators
What to believe?
The so-called Mainstream Media are telling us it's over - Obama's already won. They've got polls showing him winning virtually all the "battleground" states, many by double digits.
Then the conservative talkers and sites speak up and say, "Not so Fast". Those polls showing Obama so far ahead are grossly oversampling Democrats and practically ignoring Independents. Besides, they haven't noticed anything that's happened except the Convention that could possibly account for such a dramatic change in the polls for Obama.
Didn't he just fail to protect his own Libyan Ambassador from being murdered by terrorists while he had virtually no security detail protecting him? Hasn't he been caught lying about what happened in Libya and Egypt and a dozen other middle east and north african embassies, trying to pawn off a silly message that they're just angry over some stupid YouTube video? Wouldn't that story make people sick about the weak and prevaricating President and drive them to Romney, much like many folks got fed up with Jimmy Carter's weakness in the Iran Hostage crisis and turned to Reagan over 30 years ago?
Then there's Rasmussen, who keeps showing the same polling results that have been virtually stuck on the same numbers all summer. How could the networks and liberal pollsters show a 10 percent advantage for Obama while Rasmussen keeps showing the race tied? Somebody's wrong. Just maybe everybody's wrong.
I only have my small circle of family, friends, and acquaintences. The only people I know who have been Obama supporters admit to me that they're rethinking it. They're demoralized by his obvious incompetence, but they think Romney's some sort of Viking raider who will starve poor people and elevate his own wealthy class to new heights of excess. So they don't know what to do.
If only I could influence some sense into those Democrats. But their misguided beliefs are so deeply entrenched they don't seem like they would ever be willing to become turncoats to their party by pulling the lever for a *gasp* Republican, even a wishy-washy Republican like Romney.
I suppose if you're told your entire life by people you trust that conservatives are evil people, the cognitive dissonance associated with knowing actual conservatives who aren't must be hard to accept.
So I wish I knew what was going to happen in November. But I don't. Earlier this summer I was beginning to feel somewhat hopeful that there was a chance Romney could win in a landslide. Now I'm not so sure of that, but expect that despite the seemingly biased Democrat polls, the race may be as close as Bush/Gore 2000. (Please Florida and Ohio, save us from ourselves!)
The so-called Mainstream Media are telling us it's over - Obama's already won. They've got polls showing him winning virtually all the "battleground" states, many by double digits.
Then the conservative talkers and sites speak up and say, "Not so Fast". Those polls showing Obama so far ahead are grossly oversampling Democrats and practically ignoring Independents. Besides, they haven't noticed anything that's happened except the Convention that could possibly account for such a dramatic change in the polls for Obama.
Didn't he just fail to protect his own Libyan Ambassador from being murdered by terrorists while he had virtually no security detail protecting him? Hasn't he been caught lying about what happened in Libya and Egypt and a dozen other middle east and north african embassies, trying to pawn off a silly message that they're just angry over some stupid YouTube video? Wouldn't that story make people sick about the weak and prevaricating President and drive them to Romney, much like many folks got fed up with Jimmy Carter's weakness in the Iran Hostage crisis and turned to Reagan over 30 years ago?
Then there's Rasmussen, who keeps showing the same polling results that have been virtually stuck on the same numbers all summer. How could the networks and liberal pollsters show a 10 percent advantage for Obama while Rasmussen keeps showing the race tied? Somebody's wrong. Just maybe everybody's wrong.
I only have my small circle of family, friends, and acquaintences. The only people I know who have been Obama supporters admit to me that they're rethinking it. They're demoralized by his obvious incompetence, but they think Romney's some sort of Viking raider who will starve poor people and elevate his own wealthy class to new heights of excess. So they don't know what to do.
If only I could influence some sense into those Democrats. But their misguided beliefs are so deeply entrenched they don't seem like they would ever be willing to become turncoats to their party by pulling the lever for a *gasp* Republican, even a wishy-washy Republican like Romney.
I suppose if you're told your entire life by people you trust that conservatives are evil people, the cognitive dissonance associated with knowing actual conservatives who aren't must be hard to accept.
So I wish I knew what was going to happen in November. But I don't. Earlier this summer I was beginning to feel somewhat hopeful that there was a chance Romney could win in a landslide. Now I'm not so sure of that, but expect that despite the seemingly biased Democrat polls, the race may be as close as Bush/Gore 2000. (Please Florida and Ohio, save us from ourselves!)
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Growing Up
As a high school teen, I believed I was probably a Democrat, but couldn't really tell you why besides that my father was a Democrat. My teachers seemed to all be Democrats, so out of respect and because we never heard any other points of view they had a significant influence on most of their students.
I was in high school when Nixon and Ford were presidents. Naturally I saw the movie about Woodward & Bernstein and was convinced Nixon was corrupt. Funny how Clinton and Obama have done much worse illegal, immoral, and unethical things since then while the media and Hollywood yawned.
Vietnam left me feeling conflicted. I heard the arguments for and against the war, and understood that we were fulfilling a promise to protect friendly countries from violent Communist overthrow. But the politicians seemed to be on tip-toe, trying harder to manage public perceptions than win a war. I definitely was appalled at the way liberal Democrats were treating returning veterans.
But not all Democrats were that radical back then. Many were people of faith and mostly conservative on issues, but were Democrats because they believed that Democrats cared more about the ordinary citizen than Republicans.
Being a Democrat back then mostly just meant you didn't believe that Corporate America deserved all the support and goodies they could possibly get in the name of a strong economy. I of course couldn't relate to the Corporate Executive and Country Club crowd that I believed ran the GOP.
The issues of the day I barely understood. Of course, back then nobody was even talking about today's hot social issues - we'd never heard of Political Correctness, nobody ever believed Gay Marriage would become a serious argument, nor would mandates for free contraception. Religious expression in public was taken for granted. People used to argue about tax rates and how much spending the government should be permitted.
In the college years I found myself surrounded by fairly radical leftists, especially amongst the professors. My reaction was more skepticism than agreement, and I was more likely to poke fun at some of the more outrageous characters. Such as my Sociology professor, who was a lesbian woman that embodied a cartoonish caricature of the angry, manly and man-hating liberal lesbian. She was so ridiculously over the top that I sometimes covered my mouth during class to stifle the urge to laugh out loud at one of her tirades against the "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male" who was responsible for every injustice on the planet.
It was after Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter that I became a Republican. That was when I first became aware of policy and observed first-hand how Reagan's free market, limited government, strength and courage in the face of enemies, and personal responsibility policies completely reversed the pain and suffering imposed by Carter's socialism at home and appeasement abroad. Under Carter I struggled to survive as a young adult, but saw my fortunes improve dramatically when Reagan took over.
Just as important, Ronald Reagan made sense to me. I connected with his gentle affability and agreed with most every argument he made in support of his vision for the country. I began to understand the code language used by Democrats that they still use in an attempt to divide people and sow envy and distrust without clearly stating what specific policies they would impose themselves.
Since I came of age, I've come to understand that conservatives believe in Freedom, while Democrats believe in Fairness. Freedom's easy to define. Fairness tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
I'm a Freedom guy.
I was in high school when Nixon and Ford were presidents. Naturally I saw the movie about Woodward & Bernstein and was convinced Nixon was corrupt. Funny how Clinton and Obama have done much worse illegal, immoral, and unethical things since then while the media and Hollywood yawned.
Vietnam left me feeling conflicted. I heard the arguments for and against the war, and understood that we were fulfilling a promise to protect friendly countries from violent Communist overthrow. But the politicians seemed to be on tip-toe, trying harder to manage public perceptions than win a war. I definitely was appalled at the way liberal Democrats were treating returning veterans.
But not all Democrats were that radical back then. Many were people of faith and mostly conservative on issues, but were Democrats because they believed that Democrats cared more about the ordinary citizen than Republicans.
Being a Democrat back then mostly just meant you didn't believe that Corporate America deserved all the support and goodies they could possibly get in the name of a strong economy. I of course couldn't relate to the Corporate Executive and Country Club crowd that I believed ran the GOP.
The issues of the day I barely understood. Of course, back then nobody was even talking about today's hot social issues - we'd never heard of Political Correctness, nobody ever believed Gay Marriage would become a serious argument, nor would mandates for free contraception. Religious expression in public was taken for granted. People used to argue about tax rates and how much spending the government should be permitted.
In the college years I found myself surrounded by fairly radical leftists, especially amongst the professors. My reaction was more skepticism than agreement, and I was more likely to poke fun at some of the more outrageous characters. Such as my Sociology professor, who was a lesbian woman that embodied a cartoonish caricature of the angry, manly and man-hating liberal lesbian. She was so ridiculously over the top that I sometimes covered my mouth during class to stifle the urge to laugh out loud at one of her tirades against the "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male" who was responsible for every injustice on the planet.
It was after Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter that I became a Republican. That was when I first became aware of policy and observed first-hand how Reagan's free market, limited government, strength and courage in the face of enemies, and personal responsibility policies completely reversed the pain and suffering imposed by Carter's socialism at home and appeasement abroad. Under Carter I struggled to survive as a young adult, but saw my fortunes improve dramatically when Reagan took over.
Just as important, Ronald Reagan made sense to me. I connected with his gentle affability and agreed with most every argument he made in support of his vision for the country. I began to understand the code language used by Democrats that they still use in an attempt to divide people and sow envy and distrust without clearly stating what specific policies they would impose themselves.
Since I came of age, I've come to understand that conservatives believe in Freedom, while Democrats believe in Fairness. Freedom's easy to define. Fairness tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
I'm a Freedom guy.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
It Must Be ... Peer Pressure?
This week I have been thinking about the irrational behavior of the Hollywood celebrities who continue to support Barack Obama in spite of the fact his policies are in direct conflict with most of their personal interests.
I keep puzzling over why singers and actors and other artists would continue idolizing the President who has promised to confiscate half their income, work against their ability to obtain healthcare for their various diseases (social and other), and tamp down their most treasured of rights - Freedom of Speech?
Then there's his demonstrated promise to impoverish most Americans and take the profits of companies that presumably would include film and music companies, which further depress the market for these people's artistic expression.
OK, so he promises to pay for their abortions, and provide government freebies for their same-sex bedfellows, but is it really rational for them to support a president who's going to harm their standard of living?
So then it hit me. The answer is Peer Pressure! Hollywood types behave just like teenagers, and what's the most important thing in the world to a teenager?
Acceptance. Being adored by their peers. Being Cool.
Have you seen those creepy ads put out by Hollywood actors with writing on their hands pledging allegiance to Obama as if he's some sort of god? It's beyond reason or rationality.
The bane of every parent of a teen is the comman phrase, "Everybody else is doing it!" to justify the latest stupid, crazy thing the kid wants to do. Certainly in Hollywood, everybody else is panting over the celebrity-in-chief and making absolute fools of themselves as they worship him and make a game of finding the most outrageous libel they can dream against Romney.
It feels sort of like a revelation. I think I can reasonably extend the theory beyond Hollywood to explain the leftists leanings of people from places like Manhattan and South Beach and Seattle. It doesn't have to be rational; it just has to feel good and achieve that positive feedback from one's peers.
Perhaps that's why Adolph Hitler managed to be elected Chancellor of Germany so many years ago. (OK, I'm not saying Obama's Hitler. Maybe a bit more like Vlad Lenin, or perhaps Hugo Chavez, but not exactly Hitler)
I keep puzzling over why singers and actors and other artists would continue idolizing the President who has promised to confiscate half their income, work against their ability to obtain healthcare for their various diseases (social and other), and tamp down their most treasured of rights - Freedom of Speech?
Then there's his demonstrated promise to impoverish most Americans and take the profits of companies that presumably would include film and music companies, which further depress the market for these people's artistic expression.
OK, so he promises to pay for their abortions, and provide government freebies for their same-sex bedfellows, but is it really rational for them to support a president who's going to harm their standard of living?
So then it hit me. The answer is Peer Pressure! Hollywood types behave just like teenagers, and what's the most important thing in the world to a teenager?
Acceptance. Being adored by their peers. Being Cool.
Have you seen those creepy ads put out by Hollywood actors with writing on their hands pledging allegiance to Obama as if he's some sort of god? It's beyond reason or rationality.
The bane of every parent of a teen is the comman phrase, "Everybody else is doing it!" to justify the latest stupid, crazy thing the kid wants to do. Certainly in Hollywood, everybody else is panting over the celebrity-in-chief and making absolute fools of themselves as they worship him and make a game of finding the most outrageous libel they can dream against Romney.
It feels sort of like a revelation. I think I can reasonably extend the theory beyond Hollywood to explain the leftists leanings of people from places like Manhattan and South Beach and Seattle. It doesn't have to be rational; it just has to feel good and achieve that positive feedback from one's peers.
Perhaps that's why Adolph Hitler managed to be elected Chancellor of Germany so many years ago. (OK, I'm not saying Obama's Hitler. Maybe a bit more like Vlad Lenin, or perhaps Hugo Chavez, but not exactly Hitler)
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
NFL Officials Contract Dispute
I haven't paid enough attention to the contract dispute to know what the sticking points are between the NFL owners and their referees. All I know is that the referees want more and the owners know they have the upper hand in negotiations, because people don't buy tickets or tune into NFL games to watch the officials.
Driving to work this morning I heard a brief mention on the radio that the two sides were about 3.5 million dollars apart. That surprised me, because in the economics of the NFL, that number's pocket change.
So now I'm thinking its about power, not about the money. The surprisingly small number, along with the lockout, suggests to me that the owners want to make a statement and cow their officials into taking what they're given and never fighting for more again.
I don't know what the refs made in the old contract, but suspect it's a pretty handsome paycheck for a part-time, seasonal job. Generally, if the refs were being asked to take a cut in the new contract, I'd be pretty sympathetic with their cause. But if they're asking for full-time status and lots of new benefits like a Cadillac health plan and generous pension, I'd probably lean more toward the owners' side.
But I don't know, and despite last night's debacle in the closing play of the Seahawks/Packers game, don't care too much. I don't know any NFL referees personally, which is the only way I'd have any interest. But as a fan, I hope they make a deal soon and get the pros back on the field so we can have a bit more confidence in the quality of officiating.
Driving to work this morning I heard a brief mention on the radio that the two sides were about 3.5 million dollars apart. That surprised me, because in the economics of the NFL, that number's pocket change.
So now I'm thinking its about power, not about the money. The surprisingly small number, along with the lockout, suggests to me that the owners want to make a statement and cow their officials into taking what they're given and never fighting for more again.
I don't know what the refs made in the old contract, but suspect it's a pretty handsome paycheck for a part-time, seasonal job. Generally, if the refs were being asked to take a cut in the new contract, I'd be pretty sympathetic with their cause. But if they're asking for full-time status and lots of new benefits like a Cadillac health plan and generous pension, I'd probably lean more toward the owners' side.
But I don't know, and despite last night's debacle in the closing play of the Seahawks/Packers game, don't care too much. I don't know any NFL referees personally, which is the only way I'd have any interest. But as a fan, I hope they make a deal soon and get the pros back on the field so we can have a bit more confidence in the quality of officiating.
Monday, September 24, 2012
In Search of a New Frontier
The media is not outright declaring that the race is over, but they seem to believe it. They're reporting on polling that shows Obama surging in the "swing" states since the Dem Convention. Some of those polls stretch believability, as they come back with double-digit leads in some cases in states where Obama won in 2008 by much less a margin.
What I think I know is that most folks are entrenched behind either Obama or Romney. And it appears that a very small group of folks, somewhere around 6 or 7 percent, will make the final decision for the rest of us. They can decide by pulling the lever on election day for one or the other, or by staying home.
I think most of Romney supporters aren't terribly excited about Mitt the man, but are highly motivated to replace the current occupant of the White House. I'm one of those that sees Romney as an almost apolitical moderate, who is unlikely to implement anything bold if he wins the office. He'll will implement policies that will begin to trim the deficit, but he won't solve the debt problem. I believe he'll work to repeal or defund or refuse to enforce ObamaCare, but I don't think he'll take the lead on some other, better healthcare plan to replace it.
I know of lots of folks who are thinking of sitting out this election because they're not inspired by either candidate. Many people share a sort of hopeless feeling, that Washington has become so corrupt and partisan that they're incapable of actually solving any problems.
I tell them I'm definitely going to vote for Romney for some critically important reasons. I'm appalled at Obama's disrespect for Christians - especially Catholics and Evangelicals, and his willingness to abridge the First Amendment in favor of secularist policies to prevent babies from surviving to birth. I'm appalled at his appeasement attitude toward Muslim terrorism alongside a disdain for America's traditional allies, especially Israel.
I fail to understand how it's possible for a president to win re-election given the disastrous circumstances we're experiencing when his campaign's only messages are, "At least I'm not as bad as the other guy", and "The rich need to pay more taxes". It's as if the entire country has gone insane, with a significant percentage seeming to worship the president as if he's some sort of demi-god.
We deserve the suffering we got when we elected him, and deserve the suffering to come should we do it again. If that happens, how can those like me who yearn for freedom go to start over as free people?
What I think I know is that most folks are entrenched behind either Obama or Romney. And it appears that a very small group of folks, somewhere around 6 or 7 percent, will make the final decision for the rest of us. They can decide by pulling the lever on election day for one or the other, or by staying home.
I think most of Romney supporters aren't terribly excited about Mitt the man, but are highly motivated to replace the current occupant of the White House. I'm one of those that sees Romney as an almost apolitical moderate, who is unlikely to implement anything bold if he wins the office. He'll will implement policies that will begin to trim the deficit, but he won't solve the debt problem. I believe he'll work to repeal or defund or refuse to enforce ObamaCare, but I don't think he'll take the lead on some other, better healthcare plan to replace it.
I know of lots of folks who are thinking of sitting out this election because they're not inspired by either candidate. Many people share a sort of hopeless feeling, that Washington has become so corrupt and partisan that they're incapable of actually solving any problems.
I tell them I'm definitely going to vote for Romney for some critically important reasons. I'm appalled at Obama's disrespect for Christians - especially Catholics and Evangelicals, and his willingness to abridge the First Amendment in favor of secularist policies to prevent babies from surviving to birth. I'm appalled at his appeasement attitude toward Muslim terrorism alongside a disdain for America's traditional allies, especially Israel.
I fail to understand how it's possible for a president to win re-election given the disastrous circumstances we're experiencing when his campaign's only messages are, "At least I'm not as bad as the other guy", and "The rich need to pay more taxes". It's as if the entire country has gone insane, with a significant percentage seeming to worship the president as if he's some sort of demi-god.
We deserve the suffering we got when we elected him, and deserve the suffering to come should we do it again. If that happens, how can those like me who yearn for freedom go to start over as free people?
Friday, September 21, 2012
Congratulations
To Columbus East's own Stevie Brown for his interception last night.
After the New York Giants had scored another touchdown in the fourth quarter to extend their lead over the Carolina Panthers to 33-7, Cam Newton passed his Panthers down the field into the red zone. Safety Anrel Rolle successfully defended against a Newton pass attempt in the end zone and was injured after colliding with a sideline cameraman (or woman).
So Stevie Brown took his place for Carolina's 3rd and goal play. As Newton dropped back to pass, Brown watched him from the goal line. Seeing that the Carolina quarterback's eyes were locked in on his receiver running a slant or post on the right side toward Brown, the reserve safety cut in front of the receiver and grabbed Newton's pass. Stevie returned the interception down the sideline for a 44-yard return, then jumped up and celebrated, grinning ear-to-ear.
Congratulations, Stevie, on your first career interception! It's been a challenging career, being cut by the Raiders and Colts before landing on the Giants' roster this season.
After the New York Giants had scored another touchdown in the fourth quarter to extend their lead over the Carolina Panthers to 33-7, Cam Newton passed his Panthers down the field into the red zone. Safety Anrel Rolle successfully defended against a Newton pass attempt in the end zone and was injured after colliding with a sideline cameraman (or woman).
So Stevie Brown took his place for Carolina's 3rd and goal play. As Newton dropped back to pass, Brown watched him from the goal line. Seeing that the Carolina quarterback's eyes were locked in on his receiver running a slant or post on the right side toward Brown, the reserve safety cut in front of the receiver and grabbed Newton's pass. Stevie returned the interception down the sideline for a 44-yard return, then jumped up and celebrated, grinning ear-to-ear.
Congratulations, Stevie, on your first career interception! It's been a challenging career, being cut by the Raiders and Colts before landing on the Giants' roster this season.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Tale of Two Videos
What's interesting about this week's campaign distraction is that the Romney video released by Mother Jones was intended to embarrass the candidate, so it was answered by a release of an Obama video where the incumbent made an unequivocal statement about his belief in wealth redistribution.
The videos are both revelations about each candidate's feelings and beliefs. And both are truthful, which I find most refreshing about the stories. Finally, the most committed supporters of each will exhort their candidate to stand up and own his statement.
Conservatives widely believe that the country is circling the drain because half the citizens are riding in the wagon while the other half are being forced to pull the wagon. It's getting harder for the pullers, and it hurts. Soon the wagon will cease to roll, because there won't be enough folks left to pull. That's when the country fails.
Romney's point was simply that that famous 47 percent aren't likely to vote for him, out of a belief that he represents a possible obstacle to their monthly check from the federal government. The media and Obama narrative that he "doesn't care" about 47 percent of the population is a lie. So all he was saying is that he has to focus on the 6 or 7 percent of the population that might be persuadable.
Romney supporters strongly approve of his comment, declaring it no gaffe at all but just a statement of fact. I think there are probably several net beneficiaries that are going to vote for Romney, such as disabled veterans and seniors who live on social security and medicare. So obviously it's a bit simplistic to group all government dependents into the Obama camp.
Obama supporters strongly approve of his declaration in favor of redistribution, because they also believe in socialism. These MSNBC types will exhort their president to stand behind his comments, because they think the only way America will ever be "fair" is when the government meets the needs of all of its citizens.
So the only point to the overexposure of these two videos is an attempt to influence anybody that might still be on the fence.
"Mr. Fence Sitter, which do you prefer?", ask the campaigners. "The Republican who dismisses all those who are dependent on the government for their lives, or the Democrat who promises more government handouts?".
Mr. Fence Sitter's decision is pretty easy to make, depending on his attitude toward wagon pullers and therefore whether he aspires to be a puller or rider.
The videos are both revelations about each candidate's feelings and beliefs. And both are truthful, which I find most refreshing about the stories. Finally, the most committed supporters of each will exhort their candidate to stand up and own his statement.
Conservatives widely believe that the country is circling the drain because half the citizens are riding in the wagon while the other half are being forced to pull the wagon. It's getting harder for the pullers, and it hurts. Soon the wagon will cease to roll, because there won't be enough folks left to pull. That's when the country fails.
Romney's point was simply that that famous 47 percent aren't likely to vote for him, out of a belief that he represents a possible obstacle to their monthly check from the federal government. The media and Obama narrative that he "doesn't care" about 47 percent of the population is a lie. So all he was saying is that he has to focus on the 6 or 7 percent of the population that might be persuadable.
Romney supporters strongly approve of his comment, declaring it no gaffe at all but just a statement of fact. I think there are probably several net beneficiaries that are going to vote for Romney, such as disabled veterans and seniors who live on social security and medicare. So obviously it's a bit simplistic to group all government dependents into the Obama camp.
Obama supporters strongly approve of his declaration in favor of redistribution, because they also believe in socialism. These MSNBC types will exhort their president to stand behind his comments, because they think the only way America will ever be "fair" is when the government meets the needs of all of its citizens.
So the only point to the overexposure of these two videos is an attempt to influence anybody that might still be on the fence.
"Mr. Fence Sitter, which do you prefer?", ask the campaigners. "The Republican who dismisses all those who are dependent on the government for their lives, or the Democrat who promises more government handouts?".
Mr. Fence Sitter's decision is pretty easy to make, depending on his attitude toward wagon pullers and therefore whether he aspires to be a puller or rider.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Marriage and Poverty
Mike Pence gave a speech promoting marriage. Not gay marriage, but traditional, mother and father and two kids nuclear family marriage. He promised to focus Indiana's policies on promotion and rewarding of those who finish their education, get a job, then get married and have children, then stay together. Statistically, those who follow that basic life formula are almost guaranteed to avoid poverty.
The snipers on the Left naturally sniffed their disapproval, saying it's not that simple. And he's some sort of bigot because he doesn't include homosexuals in that marriage promotion message.
The actual truth goes one step further. The foundation of this model of the committed marital relationship and nuclear family is faith. Those most likely to fit Mike's model of success are Christians who hold it as their moral obligation to honor their marital vows and take responsibility for their children. Without faith there isn't much of a hope of restoring the family.
I think Mike most likely agrees with this truth, but he has to be careful about expressing it clearly. These days that's the surest way to get himself marginalized as a "religious extremist", which despite its unfairness will cost him the Governor's office.
Still, if as governor he encourages churches to join him in promoting family values with consistent positive messages that show everybody why faith and family equals happiness, he could become the most successful governor in history.
The snipers on the Left naturally sniffed their disapproval, saying it's not that simple. And he's some sort of bigot because he doesn't include homosexuals in that marriage promotion message.
The actual truth goes one step further. The foundation of this model of the committed marital relationship and nuclear family is faith. Those most likely to fit Mike's model of success are Christians who hold it as their moral obligation to honor their marital vows and take responsibility for their children. Without faith there isn't much of a hope of restoring the family.
I think Mike most likely agrees with this truth, but he has to be careful about expressing it clearly. These days that's the surest way to get himself marginalized as a "religious extremist", which despite its unfairness will cost him the Governor's office.
Still, if as governor he encourages churches to join him in promoting family values with consistent positive messages that show everybody why faith and family equals happiness, he could become the most successful governor in history.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Is Obama Pulling Away?
The polling would seem to suggest that Obama's pulling away from Romney in the campaign. Putting aside for now the argument that many of those polls grossly oversample Democrats, there is a simple explanation: Romney's a weak candidate.
Per my previous post, Democrats believe most of the narrative being promoted by the Obama campaign and amplified by the compliant media. Romney will make the rich richer at the expense of the middle class. Romney will deny healthcare to the uninsured, and especially women. Romney will kill all regulation and let his corporate brothers run roughshod over people and the environment. Romney will start a war with Iran. Everybody knows this narrative, because it's unavoidable for anyone who watches television - we don't even have to watch news programs to be bombarded by these messages.
What's the Romney campaign narrative? Anybody heard one? OK, Obama's a failure. But what's Romney's plan? Nobody knows unless they take initiative to go to his website to read his 59-point plan.
My sense is the Romney campaign is a poor one, poorly executed. How is it that these "expert" advisors to the campaign don't know that there has to be a simple, easy-to-understand theme. Last time around Obama's theme was "Hope and Change". Nobody really knew what that meant, but Democrat-leaning folks were included to fill in the blanks with their own hopes and desired changes.
But I'm realizing that nobody who barely pays attention actually knows what Romney's plan is. Debt and deficit is a huge problem, but how's he going to fix it? Iran is almost ready to launch nukes at Israel, how's Romney going to stop them? Economists are predicting another recession, and unemployment's going to spike back above 9 percent in 2013. What's his plan to reverse that trend?
Nobody outside of party activists and Romney's campaign staff knows the answers to those critical questions.
His campaign says, "Don't worry, he'll get his momentum back in the debates". Not if he debates like McCain. In that last campaign, Obama won the debates by making it seem like he agreed with McCain on most everything. So voters came away with the perception that both candidates were essentially the same on the issues, so they voted for the "cool" candidate. I think he'll do something very similar to Romney, since it worked so well for him last time.
I see Obama ads all the time, but seldom see a Romney ad. The last Romney ad I saw was just about what a great guy he is, it didn't even mention policy. It was ineffective. Why doesn't the Romney campaign run ads that tell the truth about Obama's policies and goals that are already harming Americans? It may be "going negative", but the truth is the truth regardless of whether it's positive or negative, and people need to know.
It's strange to see Romney so passive at this critical stage of the campaign, after he was so aggressive and even mean when campaigning against Newt and Santorum in the primaries.
Per my previous post, Democrats believe most of the narrative being promoted by the Obama campaign and amplified by the compliant media. Romney will make the rich richer at the expense of the middle class. Romney will deny healthcare to the uninsured, and especially women. Romney will kill all regulation and let his corporate brothers run roughshod over people and the environment. Romney will start a war with Iran. Everybody knows this narrative, because it's unavoidable for anyone who watches television - we don't even have to watch news programs to be bombarded by these messages.
What's the Romney campaign narrative? Anybody heard one? OK, Obama's a failure. But what's Romney's plan? Nobody knows unless they take initiative to go to his website to read his 59-point plan.
My sense is the Romney campaign is a poor one, poorly executed. How is it that these "expert" advisors to the campaign don't know that there has to be a simple, easy-to-understand theme. Last time around Obama's theme was "Hope and Change". Nobody really knew what that meant, but Democrat-leaning folks were included to fill in the blanks with their own hopes and desired changes.
But I'm realizing that nobody who barely pays attention actually knows what Romney's plan is. Debt and deficit is a huge problem, but how's he going to fix it? Iran is almost ready to launch nukes at Israel, how's Romney going to stop them? Economists are predicting another recession, and unemployment's going to spike back above 9 percent in 2013. What's his plan to reverse that trend?
Nobody outside of party activists and Romney's campaign staff knows the answers to those critical questions.
His campaign says, "Don't worry, he'll get his momentum back in the debates". Not if he debates like McCain. In that last campaign, Obama won the debates by making it seem like he agreed with McCain on most everything. So voters came away with the perception that both candidates were essentially the same on the issues, so they voted for the "cool" candidate. I think he'll do something very similar to Romney, since it worked so well for him last time.
I see Obama ads all the time, but seldom see a Romney ad. The last Romney ad I saw was just about what a great guy he is, it didn't even mention policy. It was ineffective. Why doesn't the Romney campaign run ads that tell the truth about Obama's policies and goals that are already harming Americans? It may be "going negative", but the truth is the truth regardless of whether it's positive or negative, and people need to know.
It's strange to see Romney so passive at this critical stage of the campaign, after he was so aggressive and even mean when campaigning against Newt and Santorum in the primaries.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Why Isn't Romney Ahead by 50 Points?
The common question these days asked by incredulous conservatives is, with the dismal Obama record, why isn't Romney way ahead in the polls?
I've been wondering that myself, and have been trying to find out. Hardly a pollster, I can only draw conclusions by listening to Democrats. So here are some of the reasons I'm picking up:
War Weariness: Some folks are still hung over from the Iraq war, and can't wait for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan. They see no point in sending our children overseas to be killed in some God-forsaken desert. Many of them think the Iraq war was initiated only for the benefit of Bush's friends in the Oil industry. And Romney will immediately go to war with Iran if elected.
Monthly Checks: Many seniors have succumbed to the endless drumbeat of the Obama campaign and now (falsely) believe they will lose their Medicare and Social Security if Republicans regain power. Welfare and Unemployment recipients believe their checks will stop after Republicans regain power.
Union Busting: Union members see Republicans as union busters. They have their evidence from what happened in Wisconsin and Indiana. Wisconsin cut back on bargaining priviledges for public unions, while Indiana became a Right to Work state.
Healthcare: Something I find rather shocking is that many Democrats still support Obamacare. They've convinced themselves that the law was critical to providing healthcare to those who can't afford it. They believe that without Obamacare, all those millions of uninsured people will die because doctors and hospitals will turn them away when they're sick or injured.
I suppose if I believed all those things I'd be a Democrat too. I don't know everything, but think at least partially the reason I don't share those beliefs is because I try every day to understand each issue completely and draw my own conclusions.
Rather than voting for the guy who seems to guarantee no war under any circumstances, I think the primary role of the Federal government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. So if Iran builds nukes and points them at Israel, I think we have to protect Israel from annihilation, even if it costs us another middle east war.
Retirees shouldn't and won't lose their benefits under Romney, and the Obama campaign is pushing a false message. Rather than taking away the monthly checks from the other poor and unemployed, Republicans want to stimulate the private economy so it hires those folks and returns them to self-sufficiency. To the degree that some of those folks have become dependent on those monthly checks and don't want to rejoin the productive class, we can only restore the Welfare-to-Work policies that nudge them back into the workforce.
Union Busting is definitely a Republican priority, so I don't have much that would refute the union members' belief that Republicans would happily bust unions. Except in Wisconsin, they only busted public employee unions, which I believe deserve to be busted because of the corruption that's resulted in their rise to power. I believe workers have the right to band together to form a union for the purpose of negotiating better pay and benefits for themselves, but the mob influences and abuse of union members so rampant in today's big unions is a travesty. I'm fine with Right-to-Work, because I think forcing people to belong to a union as a prerequisite to making a living for their families is un-American.
Healthcare needs reform, but not the Obamacare Federal kind of reform that will certainly make it harder for all of us to get healthcare and dictate what care we're permitted. The law is a horrible loss of freedom, and is interfering with our constitutional freedoms of religion and association. By picking the insurance companies that can participate, then dictating to them what they must cover and at what premiums, there is no longer a free market in healthcare. I believe the opposite of Democrats, that if Obamacare is allowed to stand, millions will find the treatments they need delayed or denied by the Federal government.
I'm also hearing folks who say they won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon. What puzzles me is how they'd answer the question, "But you'll vote for Obama, whose religion can't be determined?" I've become convinced that Obama's an atheist - he may be sympathetic to Muslims, but his policies are those of an unbeliever.
I only wish those Democrats would do a bit of homework and at least learn the facts behind what Obama has done and is doing in office. The truth is the best healer for toxic beliefs.
I've been wondering that myself, and have been trying to find out. Hardly a pollster, I can only draw conclusions by listening to Democrats. So here are some of the reasons I'm picking up:
War Weariness: Some folks are still hung over from the Iraq war, and can't wait for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan. They see no point in sending our children overseas to be killed in some God-forsaken desert. Many of them think the Iraq war was initiated only for the benefit of Bush's friends in the Oil industry. And Romney will immediately go to war with Iran if elected.
Monthly Checks: Many seniors have succumbed to the endless drumbeat of the Obama campaign and now (falsely) believe they will lose their Medicare and Social Security if Republicans regain power. Welfare and Unemployment recipients believe their checks will stop after Republicans regain power.
Union Busting: Union members see Republicans as union busters. They have their evidence from what happened in Wisconsin and Indiana. Wisconsin cut back on bargaining priviledges for public unions, while Indiana became a Right to Work state.
Healthcare: Something I find rather shocking is that many Democrats still support Obamacare. They've convinced themselves that the law was critical to providing healthcare to those who can't afford it. They believe that without Obamacare, all those millions of uninsured people will die because doctors and hospitals will turn them away when they're sick or injured.
I suppose if I believed all those things I'd be a Democrat too. I don't know everything, but think at least partially the reason I don't share those beliefs is because I try every day to understand each issue completely and draw my own conclusions.
Rather than voting for the guy who seems to guarantee no war under any circumstances, I think the primary role of the Federal government is to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. So if Iran builds nukes and points them at Israel, I think we have to protect Israel from annihilation, even if it costs us another middle east war.
Retirees shouldn't and won't lose their benefits under Romney, and the Obama campaign is pushing a false message. Rather than taking away the monthly checks from the other poor and unemployed, Republicans want to stimulate the private economy so it hires those folks and returns them to self-sufficiency. To the degree that some of those folks have become dependent on those monthly checks and don't want to rejoin the productive class, we can only restore the Welfare-to-Work policies that nudge them back into the workforce.
Union Busting is definitely a Republican priority, so I don't have much that would refute the union members' belief that Republicans would happily bust unions. Except in Wisconsin, they only busted public employee unions, which I believe deserve to be busted because of the corruption that's resulted in their rise to power. I believe workers have the right to band together to form a union for the purpose of negotiating better pay and benefits for themselves, but the mob influences and abuse of union members so rampant in today's big unions is a travesty. I'm fine with Right-to-Work, because I think forcing people to belong to a union as a prerequisite to making a living for their families is un-American.
Healthcare needs reform, but not the Obamacare Federal kind of reform that will certainly make it harder for all of us to get healthcare and dictate what care we're permitted. The law is a horrible loss of freedom, and is interfering with our constitutional freedoms of religion and association. By picking the insurance companies that can participate, then dictating to them what they must cover and at what premiums, there is no longer a free market in healthcare. I believe the opposite of Democrats, that if Obamacare is allowed to stand, millions will find the treatments they need delayed or denied by the Federal government.
I'm also hearing folks who say they won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon. What puzzles me is how they'd answer the question, "But you'll vote for Obama, whose religion can't be determined?" I've become convinced that Obama's an atheist - he may be sympathetic to Muslims, but his policies are those of an unbeliever.
I only wish those Democrats would do a bit of homework and at least learn the facts behind what Obama has done and is doing in office. The truth is the best healer for toxic beliefs.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Nauseating Incompetence
As the facts begin to trickle out about the debacles of Islamic invasions into our embassies in the middle east, I'm nauseated over the incompetence. If we can't explain the stunning incompetence of the State Department in failing to protect their embassies, we'd have to consider that our own leaders were complicit in the disasters.
We can't confirm the latest reports, that the Egyptian ambassador refused to allow those Marine guards to carry live ammunition, and that the State Department received 48 hours advance warning of the attacks in US embassies in the region and failed to do anything at all to protect their own people. Since the Obama Administration has proven remarkably adept at covering up and suppressing any information that they think could reflect negatively on the President, it will certainly be difficult to confirm these stories.
Even if those stories aren't precisely true, who in the world wouln't have been able to predict that Islamists would mount some sort of attack on the US on 9/11? It's simply unforgivable that Hillary seems to have treated the security of her department in the region so cavalierly. It's unforgivable that both Hillary and Barack came out initially with messages that sympathized with the terrorists and bemoaned that inconvenient principle of their own country commonly known as "Freedom of Speech". It's unforgivable that Obama spoke for a couple of minutes about the incidents as if it irritated him to have to deal with this distraction from his re-election campaign, then ran away from the press to fly out west to Vegas and Colorado for more campaigning.
No word on any actual response to these attacks. Embassies are considered US soil, and attacks on Embassies are acts of war. So Obama isn't sure whether Egypt is an enemy or an ally. Maybe somebody could give the so-called leader of the free world a clue?
Wait, Obama did do something. He had Eric Holder hunt down the filmmaker and expose him to the jihadists with the help of their Pravda-like sycophantic media. Maybe he hopes the jihadists will find and execute the filmmaker, whose film had previously reached maybe a couple hundred audience members before somebody at al Quaeda found it and brandished it to the faithful to inspire them to riot. Then he insulted Mitt Romney with some comment about firing then aiming.
Meanwhile the al Quaeda gang celebrates a great victory against the craven idiot Obama and plots their next attack.
Again, what more evidence does anybody need that this guy needs to become a private citizen before he can finish his reign of destruction?
We can't confirm the latest reports, that the Egyptian ambassador refused to allow those Marine guards to carry live ammunition, and that the State Department received 48 hours advance warning of the attacks in US embassies in the region and failed to do anything at all to protect their own people. Since the Obama Administration has proven remarkably adept at covering up and suppressing any information that they think could reflect negatively on the President, it will certainly be difficult to confirm these stories.
Even if those stories aren't precisely true, who in the world wouln't have been able to predict that Islamists would mount some sort of attack on the US on 9/11? It's simply unforgivable that Hillary seems to have treated the security of her department in the region so cavalierly. It's unforgivable that both Hillary and Barack came out initially with messages that sympathized with the terrorists and bemoaned that inconvenient principle of their own country commonly known as "Freedom of Speech". It's unforgivable that Obama spoke for a couple of minutes about the incidents as if it irritated him to have to deal with this distraction from his re-election campaign, then ran away from the press to fly out west to Vegas and Colorado for more campaigning.
No word on any actual response to these attacks. Embassies are considered US soil, and attacks on Embassies are acts of war. So Obama isn't sure whether Egypt is an enemy or an ally. Maybe somebody could give the so-called leader of the free world a clue?
Wait, Obama did do something. He had Eric Holder hunt down the filmmaker and expose him to the jihadists with the help of their Pravda-like sycophantic media. Maybe he hopes the jihadists will find and execute the filmmaker, whose film had previously reached maybe a couple hundred audience members before somebody at al Quaeda found it and brandished it to the faithful to inspire them to riot. Then he insulted Mitt Romney with some comment about firing then aiming.
Meanwhile the al Quaeda gang celebrates a great victory against the craven idiot Obama and plots their next attack.
Again, what more evidence does anybody need that this guy needs to become a private citizen before he can finish his reign of destruction?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Sociological Experiment
The purpose of this post has no particular point or statement to make, but instead is just to share some observations about race and diversity in the workplace.
In my capacity as a software consultant, I have the opportunity to visit lots of companies. While no substitute for a scientific study, my observations over the years do tend to indicate some general conclusions.
If I walk through a lunchroom in a plant, I can observe plenty of interesting social trends. In some places men tend to sit with men, women with women. But that's not consistently true - I've seen lunchrooms where there's no discernable division in the associations of men and women.
But there's certainly an observable racial trend. Here's what I've observed:
Where hispanics are mostly first-generation immigrants who may not have fully developed English language skills, they tend to self-segregate. But those folks of hispanic origin who may be native to the US are much more likely to be sitting with the white workers.
I notice that Asians are also not completely predictable in their associations, unless you separate them by country of origin. I observe that, say, Vietnamese are more likely to self-segregate in the lunchroom than those from Japan or Korea.
Black people often self-segregate, but not consistently. It's very common to see some black people mixing comfortably with the white and hispanic groups, while others continue to self-segregate. My working theory that's somewhat backed up by observation when I know a bit about the backgrounds of individuals is that the best identifiable factor in this trend is education level. It seems that college-educated black persons are more likely to feel comfortable interacting with the white and hispanic employees than those with less education.
I haven't observed any self-segregation by Indian immigrants; they generally seem to be making an effort to integrate with their co-workers. Although the Sikh immigrants may be an exception; but I haven't observed enough of that group to draw any specific conclusions.
White groups I don't find exclusive to their own race. In fact, they seem quite open and welcoming to anyone who would like to join them, regardless of race or national origin. Certainly there are exceptions with specific white cliques, but they seem to be exclusive more from a resistance to shuffling long-established relationships than from a racial bias.
Of course, I have never observed any open conflict or hostility between groups. People tend to hang out with other people with whom they feel comfortable. It's hard to be comfortable when there's a language barrier and cultural differences, which seems a good explanation for the self-segregation I see with Southeast Asians and first-generation hispanic immigrants.
Certainly the main trend I have noticed over the years is the significant increase in the population of immigrants in nearly all workplaces. It's fascinating to see the number of employees born in America, regardless of race, shrinking significantly while the population of immigrant employees has exploded. That trend is commonly celebrated as a virtue by most companies - but I struggle to identify exactly what's virtuous about importing folks from outside the country to fill your open positions while millions of American citizens can't find work.
In my capacity as a software consultant, I have the opportunity to visit lots of companies. While no substitute for a scientific study, my observations over the years do tend to indicate some general conclusions.
If I walk through a lunchroom in a plant, I can observe plenty of interesting social trends. In some places men tend to sit with men, women with women. But that's not consistently true - I've seen lunchrooms where there's no discernable division in the associations of men and women.
But there's certainly an observable racial trend. Here's what I've observed:
Where hispanics are mostly first-generation immigrants who may not have fully developed English language skills, they tend to self-segregate. But those folks of hispanic origin who may be native to the US are much more likely to be sitting with the white workers.
I notice that Asians are also not completely predictable in their associations, unless you separate them by country of origin. I observe that, say, Vietnamese are more likely to self-segregate in the lunchroom than those from Japan or Korea.
Black people often self-segregate, but not consistently. It's very common to see some black people mixing comfortably with the white and hispanic groups, while others continue to self-segregate. My working theory that's somewhat backed up by observation when I know a bit about the backgrounds of individuals is that the best identifiable factor in this trend is education level. It seems that college-educated black persons are more likely to feel comfortable interacting with the white and hispanic employees than those with less education.
I haven't observed any self-segregation by Indian immigrants; they generally seem to be making an effort to integrate with their co-workers. Although the Sikh immigrants may be an exception; but I haven't observed enough of that group to draw any specific conclusions.
White groups I don't find exclusive to their own race. In fact, they seem quite open and welcoming to anyone who would like to join them, regardless of race or national origin. Certainly there are exceptions with specific white cliques, but they seem to be exclusive more from a resistance to shuffling long-established relationships than from a racial bias.
Of course, I have never observed any open conflict or hostility between groups. People tend to hang out with other people with whom they feel comfortable. It's hard to be comfortable when there's a language barrier and cultural differences, which seems a good explanation for the self-segregation I see with Southeast Asians and first-generation hispanic immigrants.
Certainly the main trend I have noticed over the years is the significant increase in the population of immigrants in nearly all workplaces. It's fascinating to see the number of employees born in America, regardless of race, shrinking significantly while the population of immigrant employees has exploded. That trend is commonly celebrated as a virtue by most companies - but I struggle to identify exactly what's virtuous about importing folks from outside the country to fill your open positions while millions of American citizens can't find work.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
What More Evidence Do People Need?
Every single year on the 9/11 anniversary the Islamists have tried to hit us with terrorist strikes. This year they succeeded. President Obama and his State Department were asleep, and Americans were killed or nearly killed by Islamists in Egypt and Libya.
There must have been credible intelligence warning the president in advance that these attacks might be in the works. But according to news reports, the president's not really interested in attending intelligence briefings. We should have had beefed-up security, especially in the Middle East.
Worse yet, after the attacks finally ended, the president seemingly had no idea how to respond. So others responded. Now the White House is scrambling to repair all the mixed messages sent out by the State Department and the Administration. Either America is sorry for our misguided citizens making films critical of the Prophet, or America condemns the attacks and wants those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and his staff brought to justice.
Or maybe a little of both. Obama seems to have in the same statement offered regrets that American free speech rights gave offense, but at the same time condemns the violence. Hillary Clinton's remarks sounded as if she is treating the terrorist incident like a political disagreement, praising the Libyan government for trying to help diffuse the situation while other reporting suggests that same government gave the ambassador's location to the terrorists and encouraged them to go get him.
This is what they call the Arab Spring?
What more evidence do voters need to figure out that the child prince Obama must be demoted to "Former President"?
There must have been credible intelligence warning the president in advance that these attacks might be in the works. But according to news reports, the president's not really interested in attending intelligence briefings. We should have had beefed-up security, especially in the Middle East.
Worse yet, after the attacks finally ended, the president seemingly had no idea how to respond. So others responded. Now the White House is scrambling to repair all the mixed messages sent out by the State Department and the Administration. Either America is sorry for our misguided citizens making films critical of the Prophet, or America condemns the attacks and wants those responsible for killing Ambassador Stevens and his staff brought to justice.
Or maybe a little of both. Obama seems to have in the same statement offered regrets that American free speech rights gave offense, but at the same time condemns the violence. Hillary Clinton's remarks sounded as if she is treating the terrorist incident like a political disagreement, praising the Libyan government for trying to help diffuse the situation while other reporting suggests that same government gave the ambassador's location to the terrorists and encouraged them to go get him.
This is what they call the Arab Spring?
What more evidence do voters need to figure out that the child prince Obama must be demoted to "Former President"?
Chuck Norris Told Me to
Go see the movie, 'Last Ounce of Courage'. Who am I to ignore Chuck Norris?
So I saw it last night. Sure, it was obviously made on a shoestring, and production values were on par with a made-for-TV movie. It was sort of like a Hallmark Channel movie in many aspects. It was over-the-top with melodrama and sub-par acting.
Even so, it succeeded in extracting some liquid excretions from my ocular region. In its heavy-handed over-dramatized fashion, it delivers an important message about Freedom, Family, and Faith. The effect of years of ACLU-driven attacks on public displays of religion is depicted in a small town where students might get suspended if caught with a Bible on campus, the Ten Commandments have been torn down from the courthouse, and a Christmas Tree can no longer be erected in the town square.
The movie is about a grieving father of a soldier who lost his life in an overseas war, presumably Iraq or Afghanistan, who is challenged by his teenage grandson to step up against the erosion of freedoms for which he and his son both fought. Grandfather and grandson both step up with the help of others, and are of course persecuted by the Left-Wing PC crowd to the extent that Grandpa actually gets jailed briefly after replacing a cross that had been torn down from a rescue mission in town.
The movie message is valid, even if its presentation is a bit overbearing. The clear message is that Americans need to step up and be counted to save our most treasured freedoms from destruction by leftist forces.
Do I endorse this film? Sure. Everybody should see it. Christians and Conservatives will love it, while Atheists and Liberals will hate it. But if nothing else, I hope those who don't like the message at least will form some understanding about how the rest of us feel when they constantly try to drive our faith underground by telling us we're being "offensive" when we publicly celebrate Christmas.
So I saw it last night. Sure, it was obviously made on a shoestring, and production values were on par with a made-for-TV movie. It was sort of like a Hallmark Channel movie in many aspects. It was over-the-top with melodrama and sub-par acting.
Even so, it succeeded in extracting some liquid excretions from my ocular region. In its heavy-handed over-dramatized fashion, it delivers an important message about Freedom, Family, and Faith. The effect of years of ACLU-driven attacks on public displays of religion is depicted in a small town where students might get suspended if caught with a Bible on campus, the Ten Commandments have been torn down from the courthouse, and a Christmas Tree can no longer be erected in the town square.
The movie is about a grieving father of a soldier who lost his life in an overseas war, presumably Iraq or Afghanistan, who is challenged by his teenage grandson to step up against the erosion of freedoms for which he and his son both fought. Grandfather and grandson both step up with the help of others, and are of course persecuted by the Left-Wing PC crowd to the extent that Grandpa actually gets jailed briefly after replacing a cross that had been torn down from a rescue mission in town.
The movie message is valid, even if its presentation is a bit overbearing. The clear message is that Americans need to step up and be counted to save our most treasured freedoms from destruction by leftist forces.
Do I endorse this film? Sure. Everybody should see it. Christians and Conservatives will love it, while Atheists and Liberals will hate it. But if nothing else, I hope those who don't like the message at least will form some understanding about how the rest of us feel when they constantly try to drive our faith underground by telling us we're being "offensive" when we publicly celebrate Christmas.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Conspiracy Theories
I've been hearing lots of conspiracy theories from people I know who are completely turned off by the political scene. It's hard to blame them, and occasionally their theories even seem plausible. Here are a few recent theories I've been hearing.
The presidential election is meaningless. The battle between Obama and Romney's all for show. The fix is in. Some folks think the election's already been fixed for Obama; that no matter what the voters do, the Obama administration will cheat on the vote counts and claim victory. With what knowledge I have of the voting process, that theory's hard for me to swallow, since I've not seen any feds around the process that's mostly controlled at the precinct level and the president is elected by the electoral college.
Another theory is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney. All the arguments about Obama's socialist policies versus Romney's free market policies are window dressing - if Obama gets elected, we'll get more of the same of what we have had the last 4 years. If Romney gets elected, he won't change anything. Because the invisible big shots that pull the strings have rigged things to make sure no matter which guy gets elected, he'll be sure to do their bidding. I'm not sure who exactly the big shots are that are pulling the strings, but there's a sort of chilling plausibility to this theory.
Some think the string-pullers behind the scenes are from places like Goldman Sachs. They note that despite all the angry accusations against Wall Street for destroying the economy with those real estate derivitaves, not a single person responsible for that destruction has been named or prosecuted. The only name I've heard who misappropriated investor funds is John Corzine, who is apparently just as bad as Bernie Madoff but doesn't go to jail because he is being protected by the Democrats. He actually is a financier for Obama, so that theory is pretty true, but I can't say with any certainty that he has a great deal of influence on US policy.
I hear lots from Ron Pauliacs about the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke and the Fed Reserve board are the string-pullers. The Fed definitely needs a lot more transparency, but I worry about giving control over their policies over to politicians. But sometimes I wonder if we've already done so by allowing Obama to seat Bernanke and Geithner, who seem beholden to him.
A theory that worries me the most is the one where Obama has a plan to transform America into a Communist Dictatorship under the same tactics used by Chavez in Venezuela. All he has to do is get his own supreme court judges seated, then issue more unilateral laws like he has with immigration, energy regulation, and the HHS mandate. Once he has no court to stop him, who could stop him if in his second term he outlaws conservative talk radio and Fox News, jails prominent conservatives, and either appoints his own sycophants to the House and Senate or simply dissolves congress?
Most people would call that last theory crazy, that can't happen in America! Why not? If it can happen in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, El Salvador, Korea, etc., why couldn't it happen here?
Personally I think the pollsters are purposely over-sampling Democrats to give the Obama campaign the results they are demanding (based on a story about Gallup, it seems to lend credence to that last theory). But I actually think there's a decent chance that Romney will win in a landslide, as long as the Obama campaign can be stopped from cheating.
So to put the conspiracists to rest, these things need to happen:
1. Romney has to win in a clear landslide
2. Obama leaves office quietly and graciously
3. Romney actually implements positive policy changes as promised
I hold out hope for number 1 and 2, but can't be sure whether we'll see #3.
The presidential election is meaningless. The battle between Obama and Romney's all for show. The fix is in. Some folks think the election's already been fixed for Obama; that no matter what the voters do, the Obama administration will cheat on the vote counts and claim victory. With what knowledge I have of the voting process, that theory's hard for me to swallow, since I've not seen any feds around the process that's mostly controlled at the precinct level and the president is elected by the electoral college.
Another theory is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney. All the arguments about Obama's socialist policies versus Romney's free market policies are window dressing - if Obama gets elected, we'll get more of the same of what we have had the last 4 years. If Romney gets elected, he won't change anything. Because the invisible big shots that pull the strings have rigged things to make sure no matter which guy gets elected, he'll be sure to do their bidding. I'm not sure who exactly the big shots are that are pulling the strings, but there's a sort of chilling plausibility to this theory.
Some think the string-pullers behind the scenes are from places like Goldman Sachs. They note that despite all the angry accusations against Wall Street for destroying the economy with those real estate derivitaves, not a single person responsible for that destruction has been named or prosecuted. The only name I've heard who misappropriated investor funds is John Corzine, who is apparently just as bad as Bernie Madoff but doesn't go to jail because he is being protected by the Democrats. He actually is a financier for Obama, so that theory is pretty true, but I can't say with any certainty that he has a great deal of influence on US policy.
I hear lots from Ron Pauliacs about the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke and the Fed Reserve board are the string-pullers. The Fed definitely needs a lot more transparency, but I worry about giving control over their policies over to politicians. But sometimes I wonder if we've already done so by allowing Obama to seat Bernanke and Geithner, who seem beholden to him.
A theory that worries me the most is the one where Obama has a plan to transform America into a Communist Dictatorship under the same tactics used by Chavez in Venezuela. All he has to do is get his own supreme court judges seated, then issue more unilateral laws like he has with immigration, energy regulation, and the HHS mandate. Once he has no court to stop him, who could stop him if in his second term he outlaws conservative talk radio and Fox News, jails prominent conservatives, and either appoints his own sycophants to the House and Senate or simply dissolves congress?
Most people would call that last theory crazy, that can't happen in America! Why not? If it can happen in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, El Salvador, Korea, etc., why couldn't it happen here?
Personally I think the pollsters are purposely over-sampling Democrats to give the Obama campaign the results they are demanding (based on a story about Gallup, it seems to lend credence to that last theory). But I actually think there's a decent chance that Romney will win in a landslide, as long as the Obama campaign can be stopped from cheating.
So to put the conspiracists to rest, these things need to happen:
1. Romney has to win in a clear landslide
2. Obama leaves office quietly and graciously
3. Romney actually implements positive policy changes as promised
I hold out hope for number 1 and 2, but can't be sure whether we'll see #3.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Our Choice is For or Against God
The disgusting DNC spectacle that took place when they decided to push through the re-insertion of God and Jerusalem into their platform hit me with the realization that this year our country decides whether we're for or against God.
Republicans represent the "pro" side.
Democrats represent the "anti" side.
There's really no need to get into platforms, because both party platforms are mere details that affirm their attitudes toward God.
Pro-God means fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, freedom of religion, less oppressive government, honoring and encouraging the family, and honoring work.
Anti-God means abortion and gay marriage, mandates that churches to abandon the core principles of thier faith, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don't, rewarding irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, and encouragement to those who openly and even proudly violate all of God's commandments.
The choice has never been more stark. Certainly in my lifetime. Most likely in the history of this republic.
And the media is crowing today that the polls show Obama's going to win. If so, is there anyplace left on earth to which we pro-God folks can escape to live in peace and safety from persecution?
Republicans represent the "pro" side.
Democrats represent the "anti" side.
There's really no need to get into platforms, because both party platforms are mere details that affirm their attitudes toward God.
Pro-God means fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, freedom of religion, less oppressive government, honoring and encouraging the family, and honoring work.
Anti-God means abortion and gay marriage, mandates that churches to abandon the core principles of thier faith, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who don't, rewarding irresponsible behavior at all levels of society, and encouragement to those who openly and even proudly violate all of God's commandments.
The choice has never been more stark. Certainly in my lifetime. Most likely in the history of this republic.
And the media is crowing today that the polls show Obama's going to win. If so, is there anyplace left on earth to which we pro-God folks can escape to live in peace and safety from persecution?
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Brilliant
This brilliant comment about Sandra Fluke at the Democrat Convention comes from Mark Steyn:
"But what's strange is that so many people don't find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."
The emperor has no clothes.
"But what's strange is that so many people don't find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."
The emperor has no clothes.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Here's to Ignoring the DNC
I haven't heard a single speech. I haven't watched any network or cable convention coverage. So how did I still manage to pick up on these little tidbits?
The Dems eliminated all mention of God from their platform. They also removed a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Apparently they took a lot of heat on those decisions, so they put them back in - by having their chairman lie about the voice vote results when they asked the delegates to vote on putting those items back into the platform. This could be the most telling story of the convention about who Democrats really are.
Sandra Fluke is back as a primetime speaker at the convention. The law student who hates Catholics yet attends the Catholic University at Georgetown thinks all employers must be forced by government decree to pay for contraception and abortion for their female employees and their 26-year-old dependents. But she can't come out and say that, so she has to invent a fantasy world where evil Republicans who hate women won't let them see a doctor or get a mammogram. Republicans somehow want to force women to have dozens of children against their will. If American women are buying that fiction, we really are in serious decline.
The single largest block of DNC delegates appears to be Teachers. I wonder who's teaching their classes back home? Maybe instead of the DNC we should refer to it as the NEA National Convention. I wonder if there is a single private small business owner there as a delegate? Wouldn't that person make for an interesting interview: "So you support the major expansion in your healthcare expenses brought on by Obamacare? How is your business going to adapt to that and the rest of the federal regulatory costs?"
Democrats everywhere are swooning over Michelle Obama's "wonderful" speech. Apparently it was so moving they cried. This might be the confirmation of my consistent theory about Democrats - they're driven by emotion. All heart and no brains.
Wow, how did I pick up all this stuff while ignoring the convention?
The Dems eliminated all mention of God from their platform. They also removed a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Apparently they took a lot of heat on those decisions, so they put them back in - by having their chairman lie about the voice vote results when they asked the delegates to vote on putting those items back into the platform. This could be the most telling story of the convention about who Democrats really are.
Sandra Fluke is back as a primetime speaker at the convention. The law student who hates Catholics yet attends the Catholic University at Georgetown thinks all employers must be forced by government decree to pay for contraception and abortion for their female employees and their 26-year-old dependents. But she can't come out and say that, so she has to invent a fantasy world where evil Republicans who hate women won't let them see a doctor or get a mammogram. Republicans somehow want to force women to have dozens of children against their will. If American women are buying that fiction, we really are in serious decline.
The single largest block of DNC delegates appears to be Teachers. I wonder who's teaching their classes back home? Maybe instead of the DNC we should refer to it as the NEA National Convention. I wonder if there is a single private small business owner there as a delegate? Wouldn't that person make for an interesting interview: "So you support the major expansion in your healthcare expenses brought on by Obamacare? How is your business going to adapt to that and the rest of the federal regulatory costs?"
Democrats everywhere are swooning over Michelle Obama's "wonderful" speech. Apparently it was so moving they cried. This might be the confirmation of my consistent theory about Democrats - they're driven by emotion. All heart and no brains.
Wow, how did I pick up all this stuff while ignoring the convention?
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Hiding from the News this Week
For the sake of my blood pressure, I'm going to avoid the news this week. The DNC agenda appears to be packed with speakers who will extol modern Democrat party values, which nearly all inspire only nausea for this Christian Conservative.
It's more than I can bear to hear or watch Democrats extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, gay marriage and gay adoption, "free" contraception and abortion on demand, green energy and envy of the wealthy.
I've become weary of seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Ms. Cutter and Mr. Axelrod appearing every day on the networks spinning nasty lies about their political opponents. I'm even more weary of those network pundits suggesting that the lies are equally distributed between the campaigns, which is itself a lie. I can't bear any more of a President who operates under the philosophy that the ends justify the means.
Instead of "Vote for Me", we have a sitting President running a campaign based on the message, "Hey, at least I'm not George W. Bush". Or "Don't vote for the other guy, you'll lose your government check!".
For the last 3 and a half years I've been watching as my country circles the drain, barely hanging onto the rim of the toilet with my fingernails. Down below, I see the rest of the people riding the whirlpool as if it's an amusement park ride. I keep trying to get their attention to warn them of impending doom, but they just ignore me. Soon there will be no safe place left to go.
It's more than I can bear to hear or watch Democrats extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, gay marriage and gay adoption, "free" contraception and abortion on demand, green energy and envy of the wealthy.
I've become weary of seeing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Ms. Cutter and Mr. Axelrod appearing every day on the networks spinning nasty lies about their political opponents. I'm even more weary of those network pundits suggesting that the lies are equally distributed between the campaigns, which is itself a lie. I can't bear any more of a President who operates under the philosophy that the ends justify the means.
Instead of "Vote for Me", we have a sitting President running a campaign based on the message, "Hey, at least I'm not George W. Bush". Or "Don't vote for the other guy, you'll lose your government check!".
For the last 3 and a half years I've been watching as my country circles the drain, barely hanging onto the rim of the toilet with my fingernails. Down below, I see the rest of the people riding the whirlpool as if it's an amusement park ride. I keep trying to get their attention to warn them of impending doom, but they just ignore me. Soon there will be no safe place left to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)