The Colts and Irish are both great Indiana stories this fall. Both had great games over the weekend that entertained me far better than some new blockbuster movie or concert.
I left the Notre Dame game for supper late in the 4th quarter and set the DVR for an extra 30 minutes, thinking that should be enough time to return and catch the end. But when I returned to my La-Z-Boy recliner expecting to play back that last 30 minutes, I turned on the TV to find the game still underway in the second overtime.
Seeing Cierre Wood fumble away his touchdown run, I thought the game was over. But astoundingly, Pitt missed the Field Goal that should have given them the victory. My chin was still laying on the floor when the Irish took their victory in the third overtime. They stole one for sure, but it still counts in the win column.
I'll happily stay for the ride with Notre Dame through their Bowl Game. If that happens to be against Alabama for the National Championship, something I think is a long shot, I can't imagine the Irish winning that game. But I'll be happy to be astounded once again.
I feel very good for Andrew Luck and the Colts. The inspirational story of coach Pagano and the un-rookie-like performance of Luck against the Dolphins combined for a Sunday that was not just entertaining, but inspiring.
My own preseason prediction for the Colts was that if they somehow managed to end the year 8-8, it would be an impressive overachievement. I still feel that way. But looking at the Colts' remaining schedule, I think 9-7 or maybe even 10-6 is realistic. Which would probably mean the playoffs. Talk about overachieving with a team full of rookies.
But I'm not building my hopes too high. The Colts still might end up 8-8, which can still be called overachieving. But wouldn't it be cool if that record was 10-6 instead?
I'll just go along for the ride and have fun along the way.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, November 05, 2012
Final Election Thoughts
Democrats think they're going to win tomorrow. Republicans believe they'll win. Both sides predict the election will be very close, and could go either way.
Democrats think the popular vote will be razor-thin, and could end up favoring Romney, but they believe the key swing states - especially Ohio - will push Obama over the finish line for an electoral college victory. It's sort of interesting that the party that's pushed hard to eliminate the electoral college since Bush beat Gore is suddenly silent on that issue.
Averaging of polls show a tie or slight edge for Obama. But the Republicans believe the left-leaning pollsters have skewed the average to make the race look much more favorable for Obama than reality might indicate. The Republican argument is that liberal pollsters are expecting the same turnout in swing states as 2008, therefore they filter their respondents by party affiliation to oversample Democrats by 9 percentage points more than Republicans.
So if the Republicans are right about the oversampling, it looks like a Romney victory or maybe a Romney blowout. Democrats understand their success hinges on their constituents showing up and voting in the same or very similar numbers to 2008.
There are little indicators being ignored by the media that aren't guarantees, but suggestive of a Romney advantage. Romney rallies in the last couple of weeks are drawing tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters, while Obama events are drawing from a few hundred to a couple of thousand people only, and those crowds are much less enthusiastic.
As would be obvious to anyone who has read my blog, my hope is for a Romney blowout. The key factor I'm using is mostly ignored by the media and pundits - I believe in the resurgence of the Christian Conservative base. Obama has stirred up the Christian base with the HHS mandate, his radically pro-abortion policies and rhetoric, cancelling Don't Ask - Don't Tell, and supporting Gay Marriage. Catholics who actually go to Mass and Evangelicals have joined together in common cause to fire Obama, and I tend to believe they'll make the difference.
If you have an energized Moral Majority and a super-majority of Independents behind you in addition to the rest of the core Conservative base, there aren't enough Democrats in the population to overcome that wave. That's why I think Romney might win decisively.
What puzzles me is the conflicting reporting on early voting. USA Today this morning claims that Democrats have an edge among the early voters, but other outlets like Fox News are reporting the oppposite - that Republicans have a significant turnout advantage. The best explanation I can find for that discrepancy may be that the Fox News turnout advantage refers to nationwide turnout, while USA Today is claiming the Democrat edge for swing states only. I guess we'll see.
Will the Unions, Trial Lawyers, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Illegal Immigrants, College Students & Professors, Welfare Dependents, Dead People, Convicted Felons, Fraudulent Voters and Socialist/Communists turn out in high enough numbers to overcome the energized Christians, Businesspeople, White Middle-to-Upper Classes, Coal Miners, Oil Workers, Intact Families, and Federalists/Capitalists?
Hopefully we will know when we wake up Wednesday morning. But wouldn't it be nice if we could hear this announcement by 11PM Tuesday?
"(ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox News/CNN) can now call the race for Mitt Romney in a landslide".
Democrats think the popular vote will be razor-thin, and could end up favoring Romney, but they believe the key swing states - especially Ohio - will push Obama over the finish line for an electoral college victory. It's sort of interesting that the party that's pushed hard to eliminate the electoral college since Bush beat Gore is suddenly silent on that issue.
Averaging of polls show a tie or slight edge for Obama. But the Republicans believe the left-leaning pollsters have skewed the average to make the race look much more favorable for Obama than reality might indicate. The Republican argument is that liberal pollsters are expecting the same turnout in swing states as 2008, therefore they filter their respondents by party affiliation to oversample Democrats by 9 percentage points more than Republicans.
So if the Republicans are right about the oversampling, it looks like a Romney victory or maybe a Romney blowout. Democrats understand their success hinges on their constituents showing up and voting in the same or very similar numbers to 2008.
There are little indicators being ignored by the media that aren't guarantees, but suggestive of a Romney advantage. Romney rallies in the last couple of weeks are drawing tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters, while Obama events are drawing from a few hundred to a couple of thousand people only, and those crowds are much less enthusiastic.
As would be obvious to anyone who has read my blog, my hope is for a Romney blowout. The key factor I'm using is mostly ignored by the media and pundits - I believe in the resurgence of the Christian Conservative base. Obama has stirred up the Christian base with the HHS mandate, his radically pro-abortion policies and rhetoric, cancelling Don't Ask - Don't Tell, and supporting Gay Marriage. Catholics who actually go to Mass and Evangelicals have joined together in common cause to fire Obama, and I tend to believe they'll make the difference.
If you have an energized Moral Majority and a super-majority of Independents behind you in addition to the rest of the core Conservative base, there aren't enough Democrats in the population to overcome that wave. That's why I think Romney might win decisively.
What puzzles me is the conflicting reporting on early voting. USA Today this morning claims that Democrats have an edge among the early voters, but other outlets like Fox News are reporting the oppposite - that Republicans have a significant turnout advantage. The best explanation I can find for that discrepancy may be that the Fox News turnout advantage refers to nationwide turnout, while USA Today is claiming the Democrat edge for swing states only. I guess we'll see.
Will the Unions, Trial Lawyers, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Illegal Immigrants, College Students & Professors, Welfare Dependents, Dead People, Convicted Felons, Fraudulent Voters and Socialist/Communists turn out in high enough numbers to overcome the energized Christians, Businesspeople, White Middle-to-Upper Classes, Coal Miners, Oil Workers, Intact Families, and Federalists/Capitalists?
Hopefully we will know when we wake up Wednesday morning. But wouldn't it be nice if we could hear this announcement by 11PM Tuesday?
"(ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox News/CNN) can now call the race for Mitt Romney in a landslide".
Saturday, November 03, 2012
High School Football
It got cold by the fourth quarter last night, so after Columbus East sent in the Junior Varsity after wrapping up their Sectional Championship with a 36-0 score against Franklin County, I trekked back to the parking lot and drove to the Circle K for a cup of hot chocolate before heading home. (The JV backups gave up 2 touchdowns to Franklin County to make the final score 36-14).
East and North both played in Sectional Championship games last night, and both outcomes were in line with expectations. North was blown out by Center Grove, which was just as much expected as East's easy victory.
East happens to be ranked #1 in their division (4A). But we know from past years that the ranking doesn't mean much in the state tournament. They could get surprised next week by Evansville Reitz. But looming in the bracket is the perennial powerhouse from Indianapolis, Cathedral High School.
Cathedral may have a pedestrian 7-5 record, but nobody, least of all East, will interpret that as the Catholic school being ripe for defeat. Cathedral wins the State Championship in 4A more often than not, and although I'm sure the Olympians may hope they fall to 11-1 Mount Vernon in the Regional, that might be a faint hope.
Columbus East was challenged this year only by their crosstown rival North early in the season. They closed out a very close match with the northsiders late in the fourth quarter to pull out the victory on their way to a so-far undefeated season.
Next week's Regional opponent from Indiana's toe is a bit of an unknown, since they had no opposing teams in common with the Olympians. I think Evansville Reitz is also unbeaten so far this year, so the only way to predict the outcome of next Friday's game is by looking at past history. I can't analyze the historical record thoroughly, but do know that North and East have both had pretty good success against the teams from Indiana's toe, in football and other sports. That means little in an individual season or game, though.
So if East can overcome the boys from Evansville, it seems highly likely they'll have to face Cathedral as their final obstacle to the state final in Lucas Oil Stadium. In Columbus, we can only hope the Olympians can repeat this year's breakthrough year by the North High School boy's soccer team, who finally earned for the 2012 state championship after knocking on the door but falling short in semistate for the last decade, then losing the state championship game on penalty kicks last year.
It's been so long since the Olympians were challenged this season, we can be a little concerned that they're not prepared for a worthy opponent that might force them to be at their best to win. If they can rise to the occasion over the next 2 games, it will be great to see them playing Thanksgiving weekend at Lucas Oil Stadium. I'd try to go see the game, except there is probably a family gathering that will take precedence.
Sports is my entertainment. Life would be terribly dull without the chance to follow teams from local high school to the professionals.
East and North both played in Sectional Championship games last night, and both outcomes were in line with expectations. North was blown out by Center Grove, which was just as much expected as East's easy victory.
East happens to be ranked #1 in their division (4A). But we know from past years that the ranking doesn't mean much in the state tournament. They could get surprised next week by Evansville Reitz. But looming in the bracket is the perennial powerhouse from Indianapolis, Cathedral High School.
Cathedral may have a pedestrian 7-5 record, but nobody, least of all East, will interpret that as the Catholic school being ripe for defeat. Cathedral wins the State Championship in 4A more often than not, and although I'm sure the Olympians may hope they fall to 11-1 Mount Vernon in the Regional, that might be a faint hope.
Columbus East was challenged this year only by their crosstown rival North early in the season. They closed out a very close match with the northsiders late in the fourth quarter to pull out the victory on their way to a so-far undefeated season.
Next week's Regional opponent from Indiana's toe is a bit of an unknown, since they had no opposing teams in common with the Olympians. I think Evansville Reitz is also unbeaten so far this year, so the only way to predict the outcome of next Friday's game is by looking at past history. I can't analyze the historical record thoroughly, but do know that North and East have both had pretty good success against the teams from Indiana's toe, in football and other sports. That means little in an individual season or game, though.
So if East can overcome the boys from Evansville, it seems highly likely they'll have to face Cathedral as their final obstacle to the state final in Lucas Oil Stadium. In Columbus, we can only hope the Olympians can repeat this year's breakthrough year by the North High School boy's soccer team, who finally earned for the 2012 state championship after knocking on the door but falling short in semistate for the last decade, then losing the state championship game on penalty kicks last year.
It's been so long since the Olympians were challenged this season, we can be a little concerned that they're not prepared for a worthy opponent that might force them to be at their best to win. If they can rise to the occasion over the next 2 games, it will be great to see them playing Thanksgiving weekend at Lucas Oil Stadium. I'd try to go see the game, except there is probably a family gathering that will take precedence.
Sports is my entertainment. Life would be terribly dull without the chance to follow teams from local high school to the professionals.
Friday, November 02, 2012
Just When There was a Glimmer of Hope
Comes this article. A Republican victory on Tuesday will only hold off the inevitable. The news about the lowest birth rate in history combined with the fact that over 40% of those births are to unwed mothers is proof positive that traditional American values have been successfully destroyed by the Left.
The bastards go to government-funded daycare and preschool, then to government-controlled public schools and Leftist-dominated Universities. They become narcissistic entitled brats who have been taught there is no God, they themselves are just evolved to be a little bit smarter than the ape, and government is God. The girls will have babies with boys they don't want to make a family with, and the boys will spread their seed around indiscriminately with no thought of their own responsibilities.
Both the girls and the boys will adopt the attitude that they're owed a living. They don't care where the housing assistance, food stamps, and medical care comes from, as long as it continues to come. They are natural Democrat constituents, and will hand over control of their very lives to those who promise to keep the welfare coming. To them, the most evil people in the world are those who dare suggest they should take responsibility for their own lives and get off the government dole.
A GOP victory this week won't fix this serious problem by itself. Many Republican politicians don't even recognize the problem, and won't help those who do pass anything that might reverse the trend. So hope is dim that we'll accomplish anything with this election except perhaps a temporary reprieve over the inexorable march to marxist atheist socialism.
Is the America I grew up in already lost to history?
The bastards go to government-funded daycare and preschool, then to government-controlled public schools and Leftist-dominated Universities. They become narcissistic entitled brats who have been taught there is no God, they themselves are just evolved to be a little bit smarter than the ape, and government is God. The girls will have babies with boys they don't want to make a family with, and the boys will spread their seed around indiscriminately with no thought of their own responsibilities.
Both the girls and the boys will adopt the attitude that they're owed a living. They don't care where the housing assistance, food stamps, and medical care comes from, as long as it continues to come. They are natural Democrat constituents, and will hand over control of their very lives to those who promise to keep the welfare coming. To them, the most evil people in the world are those who dare suggest they should take responsibility for their own lives and get off the government dole.
A GOP victory this week won't fix this serious problem by itself. Many Republican politicians don't even recognize the problem, and won't help those who do pass anything that might reverse the trend. So hope is dim that we'll accomplish anything with this election except perhaps a temporary reprieve over the inexorable march to marxist atheist socialism.
Is the America I grew up in already lost to history?
Thursday, November 01, 2012
What I've Learned About Democrats
Democrats are everywhere around us, and they can't consistently be picked out of a crowd based on their looks or clothing. I think there are two categories of Democrats; the ideological activists and the generational.
Ideological Democrats are fully versed on their Party's platform. They firmly believe in and support socialist government that takes as much as possible from the wealthier citizens to provide programs and benefits to the poorer folk. They believe in protecting abortion on demand and will fight hard to stop any laws that would attempt to restrict or delay what they believe is an inalienable right of women to destroy the baby in her womb at any time and for any reason. They truly believe that if America would just stop making war, there will be no more war. That rich white men are the bane of the universe and must be cut down to size. That corporations are evil faceless entities bent on mistreating their employees and gaining monopoly power that would permit them to mistreat their customers as well. That no rich person became rich by honest hard work. They want their government to control people for their own good. Dictates to citizens about what they may eat and drink, what sort of vehicles they may and may not drive, and bans on tobacco use (but ironically no bans on smoking of illegal substances) are all desirable functions of government. They hate Christianity and seek to ban it, or at least force it underground. They think Christians are ignorant superstitious fools who believe crazy stuff like God created us, not the random Evolutionary theory the ideological democrat considers sacrosanct. Their substitute religion is sort of a hybridized version of Paganism and Eastern Mysticism, which leads them to believe our modern lifestyle is destroying the planet and needs to be stopped.
Generational Democrats are a bit different. They are ambivalent about issues like abortion and redistribution, and aren't necessarily on board with the idea that government should restrict our personal choices about what we can eat or drive. They're Democrats because their families have always been Democrats, or they hold jobs in the public sector. Don't tell them that their salaries are too high and their pensions are overly generous, because they firmly believe they deserve every penny and more. They will never accept that their compensation is bankrupting the country - rather they believe corrupt government is wasting money elsewhere and can fix the budget if they really want to without touching their pay and benefits. They've never heard of Fast & Furious or the scandal behind the Benghazi terror attack. They've heard of Solyndra, but don't know any details and figure it's just a right-wing propaganda story. They like ObamaCare, even though they know nothing about it beyond that it forces insurers to take on folks with pre-existing conditions and cover adult children under their parents' policies. They think that the blame for the bad economy lies solely with the Bush Administration, but can't really explain exactly how.
It is disappointing to have discovered firsthand that Democrat voters are voting based on mostly false and misleading beliefs about the critical issues facing the country. It's sad to see that so many people are casting their vote based on these beliefs, which range from arguably to completely false:
Richard Mourdock believes rape is God's will
The rich aren't paying their fair share, and if they start paying their fair share our budget problems will be solved
Republicans want to outlaw contraception
Republicans will take us back into unnecessary wars in the middle east that bust the budget and kill our young men for no purpose
Oil, Gas, and Coal can be replaced by windmills and there will be no more pollution
Polar Bears are endangered by Global Warming
Republicans are against Education
Republicans want to deny healthcare to people who can't afford insurance
Republicans would have let the American Auto Industry die in bankruptcy
Republicans are bent on destroying labor unions
The only statement on the above list that has even a little bit of truth is the last one, but even that one can be debated. Who wouldn't vote for the Democrats if the above statements were true? If those were true, I don't imagine there would be anyone that would call themselves Republican.
This is what makes me sad, and unfortunately it means that several Democrats will be elected on false pretenses, quite possibly including the President.
Ideological Democrats are fully versed on their Party's platform. They firmly believe in and support socialist government that takes as much as possible from the wealthier citizens to provide programs and benefits to the poorer folk. They believe in protecting abortion on demand and will fight hard to stop any laws that would attempt to restrict or delay what they believe is an inalienable right of women to destroy the baby in her womb at any time and for any reason. They truly believe that if America would just stop making war, there will be no more war. That rich white men are the bane of the universe and must be cut down to size. That corporations are evil faceless entities bent on mistreating their employees and gaining monopoly power that would permit them to mistreat their customers as well. That no rich person became rich by honest hard work. They want their government to control people for their own good. Dictates to citizens about what they may eat and drink, what sort of vehicles they may and may not drive, and bans on tobacco use (but ironically no bans on smoking of illegal substances) are all desirable functions of government. They hate Christianity and seek to ban it, or at least force it underground. They think Christians are ignorant superstitious fools who believe crazy stuff like God created us, not the random Evolutionary theory the ideological democrat considers sacrosanct. Their substitute religion is sort of a hybridized version of Paganism and Eastern Mysticism, which leads them to believe our modern lifestyle is destroying the planet and needs to be stopped.
Generational Democrats are a bit different. They are ambivalent about issues like abortion and redistribution, and aren't necessarily on board with the idea that government should restrict our personal choices about what we can eat or drive. They're Democrats because their families have always been Democrats, or they hold jobs in the public sector. Don't tell them that their salaries are too high and their pensions are overly generous, because they firmly believe they deserve every penny and more. They will never accept that their compensation is bankrupting the country - rather they believe corrupt government is wasting money elsewhere and can fix the budget if they really want to without touching their pay and benefits. They've never heard of Fast & Furious or the scandal behind the Benghazi terror attack. They've heard of Solyndra, but don't know any details and figure it's just a right-wing propaganda story. They like ObamaCare, even though they know nothing about it beyond that it forces insurers to take on folks with pre-existing conditions and cover adult children under their parents' policies. They think that the blame for the bad economy lies solely with the Bush Administration, but can't really explain exactly how.
It is disappointing to have discovered firsthand that Democrat voters are voting based on mostly false and misleading beliefs about the critical issues facing the country. It's sad to see that so many people are casting their vote based on these beliefs, which range from arguably to completely false:
Richard Mourdock believes rape is God's will
The rich aren't paying their fair share, and if they start paying their fair share our budget problems will be solved
Republicans want to outlaw contraception
Republicans will take us back into unnecessary wars in the middle east that bust the budget and kill our young men for no purpose
Oil, Gas, and Coal can be replaced by windmills and there will be no more pollution
Polar Bears are endangered by Global Warming
Republicans are against Education
Republicans want to deny healthcare to people who can't afford insurance
Republicans would have let the American Auto Industry die in bankruptcy
Republicans are bent on destroying labor unions
The only statement on the above list that has even a little bit of truth is the last one, but even that one can be debated. Who wouldn't vote for the Democrats if the above statements were true? If those were true, I don't imagine there would be anyone that would call themselves Republican.
This is what makes me sad, and unfortunately it means that several Democrats will be elected on false pretenses, quite possibly including the President.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
How a Dishonest Media Influences Elections
There are two glaring examples of the left-wing Pravda-like American media influencing the upcoming election to favor their leftist candidates. Nationally it's their refusal to show any interest in a full-blown scandal regarding the President's response to the Libyan Consulate invasion and murder of the American ambassador with others. Locally it's their constant drumbeat aimed at mischaracterizing statements made by Indiana Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock.
If you are unaware of a scandal surrounding the Benghazi incident, I'll run down a quick synopsis to catch you up. While the terrorist attack was taking place there, the White House had real-time audio and video of what was happening. The former Navy Seals who were eventually murdered in the attack requested backup to help protect the ambassador from the al-Quaeda attackers and were denied. Then they notified their superiors that they were going to go in themselves to attempt a rescue, and were ordered to "stand down". Meantime, two unmanned drones flew over the site and sent video back to Washington as the raid unfolded. Unmanned and unarmed drones, by the way.
The incident unfolded over a period of 9 hours. Troops, planes, missiles, drones, etc. were all staged relatively nearby and stood ready to go take out the terrorists and rescue the cornered ambassador. But they were ordered to stay put.
When it was all over, everyone in the Administration from the President on down were publicly claiming the entire incident was a demonstration that sprang up because of outrage over some YouTube video. That narrative was disproven beyond doubt weeks ago, yet Obama and Hillary Clinton continued to push it, even though it's clear that both knew it was false.
Seen any investigative reports on the subject from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC? Not likely, since they've all chosen to ignore it completely. Because of Fox News, the networks have abandoned all pretense of honest reporting and now feel justified in airing only stories they can spin for a positive impression of the President. A story that reflects poorly on the President is buried - they think if only Fox News airs it, by ignoring the story they can isolate Fox News and paint them as somehow partisan and dishonest.
Then there's Richard Mourdock. He responded to a "gotcha" question from the liberal debate moderator about whether there should be exceptions to an abortion ban. He began discussing his personal views on abortion in the case of rape. His explanation mirrored the feelings of many committed Christians, that he can't find a justification for taking an innocent life because that life was created as a result of a violent crime. His inelegant comment siezed on out of context by Democrats and their compliant media partners was, "That was something God intended to happen".
The next day he gave a news conference to explain exactly what he meant by that sentence, but of course the media never reported it. Every day I see articles in the newspaper fostering the shrill message that Mourdock thinks God intends rape to happen. Christians understand he didn't mean that, but he meant that God has a way of bringing about good from bad. The good being an innocent human child who has nothing to do with the awful rape that led to his or her existence.
For every person influenced by the misleading reporting on this issue to vote for Joe Donnelly has cast a vote based on false and misleading information purposely imposed by a media complex that does not deserve to be trusted.
A similar but worse example is from Missouri, where Todd Aiken made a comment that seemed to suggest there would be no need to exempt abortions for rape because women who are raped somehow are able to shut down the process through the trauma they experience. He was stupid to say that without being able to point to a specific scientific study that might confirm his statement. I didn't find out until after the Aiken story broke, but it seems that's a popular belief among Evangelicals. He should have made the point that it's not a good choice to kill the innocent child to punish the crime committed by its father, then left it at that.
Without a free and independent press, our republic is lost.
If you are unaware of a scandal surrounding the Benghazi incident, I'll run down a quick synopsis to catch you up. While the terrorist attack was taking place there, the White House had real-time audio and video of what was happening. The former Navy Seals who were eventually murdered in the attack requested backup to help protect the ambassador from the al-Quaeda attackers and were denied. Then they notified their superiors that they were going to go in themselves to attempt a rescue, and were ordered to "stand down". Meantime, two unmanned drones flew over the site and sent video back to Washington as the raid unfolded. Unmanned and unarmed drones, by the way.
The incident unfolded over a period of 9 hours. Troops, planes, missiles, drones, etc. were all staged relatively nearby and stood ready to go take out the terrorists and rescue the cornered ambassador. But they were ordered to stay put.
When it was all over, everyone in the Administration from the President on down were publicly claiming the entire incident was a demonstration that sprang up because of outrage over some YouTube video. That narrative was disproven beyond doubt weeks ago, yet Obama and Hillary Clinton continued to push it, even though it's clear that both knew it was false.
Seen any investigative reports on the subject from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC? Not likely, since they've all chosen to ignore it completely. Because of Fox News, the networks have abandoned all pretense of honest reporting and now feel justified in airing only stories they can spin for a positive impression of the President. A story that reflects poorly on the President is buried - they think if only Fox News airs it, by ignoring the story they can isolate Fox News and paint them as somehow partisan and dishonest.
Then there's Richard Mourdock. He responded to a "gotcha" question from the liberal debate moderator about whether there should be exceptions to an abortion ban. He began discussing his personal views on abortion in the case of rape. His explanation mirrored the feelings of many committed Christians, that he can't find a justification for taking an innocent life because that life was created as a result of a violent crime. His inelegant comment siezed on out of context by Democrats and their compliant media partners was, "That was something God intended to happen".
The next day he gave a news conference to explain exactly what he meant by that sentence, but of course the media never reported it. Every day I see articles in the newspaper fostering the shrill message that Mourdock thinks God intends rape to happen. Christians understand he didn't mean that, but he meant that God has a way of bringing about good from bad. The good being an innocent human child who has nothing to do with the awful rape that led to his or her existence.
For every person influenced by the misleading reporting on this issue to vote for Joe Donnelly has cast a vote based on false and misleading information purposely imposed by a media complex that does not deserve to be trusted.
A similar but worse example is from Missouri, where Todd Aiken made a comment that seemed to suggest there would be no need to exempt abortions for rape because women who are raped somehow are able to shut down the process through the trauma they experience. He was stupid to say that without being able to point to a specific scientific study that might confirm his statement. I didn't find out until after the Aiken story broke, but it seems that's a popular belief among Evangelicals. He should have made the point that it's not a good choice to kill the innocent child to punish the crime committed by its father, then left it at that.
Without a free and independent press, our republic is lost.
Monday, October 29, 2012
History of the World in a Few Paragraphs
My part is done. I cast my vote on Friday. There's nothing left for me to do now but wait and see.
This is a turning point for perhaps the most unique society in the history of the world. The turning point relates to whether America remains the envy of the world for awhile longer, or becomes just another ordinary place.
From Adam and Eve, mankind has been in conflict. Brothers fight. Perhaps God made us that way from the beginning. Cain killed Abel out of envy. Story after story through the annals of known history, whether told in the Holy Bible or by ancient historians, tells of war. War is mostly about power and wealth. Somebody sees somebody else with something good. He wants that good thing. He's envious and thinks its not fair the other guy has whatever that good thing is.
So he starts a fight. History seems to suggest that the aggressor is usually victorious, at least eventually. As long as the envious aggressor is committed to achieving that good thing for himself.
Today in America, the battle is not yet violent, except for the smaller individual cases of fights over political yard signs, keying "Obama" into cars owned by conservatives, throwing eggs or otherwise vandalizing property. All the same it's about a group of people envious of another group and determined to take that wealth they so much desire.
Obama represents the envious invaders. He achieved power through deception, promising "hope" and "change" and an end to war. Nobody quite knew what he meant by "hope" and "change", but it sounded good, so they granted him power. But now everyone knows what "hope" and "change" means.
It means raiding the property of the prosperous and promising to transfer that property to the non-prosperous. The prosperous and those who strive to be prosperous know that he doesn't really intend to transfer that property to the poor, but will keep most of that property for himself and his friends, tossing some leftover crumbs to the poor to keep their loyalty. He wants to be King.
The productive and prosperous are trying to protect themselves and their property against the envious horde. They may succeed in the short run, replacing the would-be King with a less rapacious leader. But the King and his friends remain in control of the country's institutions, most prominently that institution which educates nearly all of the country's children. There the children are taught every day of the unfairness of the place where some people are allowed to have more than others, and how vital it is for the children to rise up against their parents to effect a fair distribution of their parents' possessions to people who don't have as much.
The would-be King and his minions are committed and determined, and will never give up their desire for power. So America has a chance for perhaps one more generation of greatness, but then it's most likely that the castle walls will be breached and the productive will be overrun and destroyed. My grandchildren will likely grow up in a country pretty much the same as every other country as they were throughout the history of the world. Ruled by Kings who hoard all the wealth while keeping all of the citizenry in poverty and hopelessness.
Only God can save us now.
This is a turning point for perhaps the most unique society in the history of the world. The turning point relates to whether America remains the envy of the world for awhile longer, or becomes just another ordinary place.
From Adam and Eve, mankind has been in conflict. Brothers fight. Perhaps God made us that way from the beginning. Cain killed Abel out of envy. Story after story through the annals of known history, whether told in the Holy Bible or by ancient historians, tells of war. War is mostly about power and wealth. Somebody sees somebody else with something good. He wants that good thing. He's envious and thinks its not fair the other guy has whatever that good thing is.
So he starts a fight. History seems to suggest that the aggressor is usually victorious, at least eventually. As long as the envious aggressor is committed to achieving that good thing for himself.
Today in America, the battle is not yet violent, except for the smaller individual cases of fights over political yard signs, keying "Obama" into cars owned by conservatives, throwing eggs or otherwise vandalizing property. All the same it's about a group of people envious of another group and determined to take that wealth they so much desire.
Obama represents the envious invaders. He achieved power through deception, promising "hope" and "change" and an end to war. Nobody quite knew what he meant by "hope" and "change", but it sounded good, so they granted him power. But now everyone knows what "hope" and "change" means.
It means raiding the property of the prosperous and promising to transfer that property to the non-prosperous. The prosperous and those who strive to be prosperous know that he doesn't really intend to transfer that property to the poor, but will keep most of that property for himself and his friends, tossing some leftover crumbs to the poor to keep their loyalty. He wants to be King.
The productive and prosperous are trying to protect themselves and their property against the envious horde. They may succeed in the short run, replacing the would-be King with a less rapacious leader. But the King and his friends remain in control of the country's institutions, most prominently that institution which educates nearly all of the country's children. There the children are taught every day of the unfairness of the place where some people are allowed to have more than others, and how vital it is for the children to rise up against their parents to effect a fair distribution of their parents' possessions to people who don't have as much.
The would-be King and his minions are committed and determined, and will never give up their desire for power. So America has a chance for perhaps one more generation of greatness, but then it's most likely that the castle walls will be breached and the productive will be overrun and destroyed. My grandchildren will likely grow up in a country pretty much the same as every other country as they were throughout the history of the world. Ruled by Kings who hoard all the wealth while keeping all of the citizenry in poverty and hopelessness.
Only God can save us now.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Under Reported Stories
I'm finding lots of stories that most people have never heard.
Of course there's the Benghazi scandal that the traditional media is scrambling to squelch, proving they're the most corrupt and coordinated media in American history.
This week I heard a story about Claire McCaskill. Her husband reportedly was cutting business deals in the Senate dining room back when Obama's stimulus bill was moving toward passage. Her husband somehow received somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million dollars from stimulus for his business, which he was parlaying for more profit in the Senate dining room.
The rest of that story is that the New York Times had that story months ago and buried it at the request of McCaskill's office. And the story was given to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who likewise decided it wasn't worth pursuing.
There was story posted online this week about the guy who had a Romney/Ryan yard sign. One night he heard some noises in his yard and went outside to find somebody pulling up his sign. He yelled at the guy to leave his sign alone, but instead of running away, the guy and his buddy who happened to be lurking nearby assaulted the homeowner and beat him so severely he required hospitalization.
On the other hand, I'm seeing stories of Obama supporters making claims against prominent conservative bloggers, accusing them falsely of assault crimes. The Gateway Pundit experienced one of those, when an Obama supporter accused him of attacking him in a grocery store parking lot. The "victim" exhibited a scratch on his neck, which he claimed was the proof of the assault. Of course, the Gateway Pundit was nowhere near that grocery store on the night in question. But he was still hauled into the police station and questioned for 2 hours before being released.
I've been running across other stories of prominent conservatives being targeted by law enforcement, even a Swat Team in one case, based on false accusations by crazy liberal activists.
Oh, and the person who produced that video that Obama and Clinton falsely blamed on the Benghazi attack? He's still sitting in jail and his records are sealed, so nobody can independently evaluate the supposed identity theft charges for which he was on probation. Sound a bit fishy?
Never has a political party been more deserving of a crushing electoral loss. I think it might happen, but can't guarantee it. It's the only thing that would make me feel hopeful for the future.
Of course there's the Benghazi scandal that the traditional media is scrambling to squelch, proving they're the most corrupt and coordinated media in American history.
This week I heard a story about Claire McCaskill. Her husband reportedly was cutting business deals in the Senate dining room back when Obama's stimulus bill was moving toward passage. Her husband somehow received somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million dollars from stimulus for his business, which he was parlaying for more profit in the Senate dining room.
The rest of that story is that the New York Times had that story months ago and buried it at the request of McCaskill's office. And the story was given to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who likewise decided it wasn't worth pursuing.
There was story posted online this week about the guy who had a Romney/Ryan yard sign. One night he heard some noises in his yard and went outside to find somebody pulling up his sign. He yelled at the guy to leave his sign alone, but instead of running away, the guy and his buddy who happened to be lurking nearby assaulted the homeowner and beat him so severely he required hospitalization.
On the other hand, I'm seeing stories of Obama supporters making claims against prominent conservative bloggers, accusing them falsely of assault crimes. The Gateway Pundit experienced one of those, when an Obama supporter accused him of attacking him in a grocery store parking lot. The "victim" exhibited a scratch on his neck, which he claimed was the proof of the assault. Of course, the Gateway Pundit was nowhere near that grocery store on the night in question. But he was still hauled into the police station and questioned for 2 hours before being released.
I've been running across other stories of prominent conservatives being targeted by law enforcement, even a Swat Team in one case, based on false accusations by crazy liberal activists.
Oh, and the person who produced that video that Obama and Clinton falsely blamed on the Benghazi attack? He's still sitting in jail and his records are sealed, so nobody can independently evaluate the supposed identity theft charges for which he was on probation. Sound a bit fishy?
Never has a political party been more deserving of a crushing electoral loss. I think it might happen, but can't guarantee it. It's the only thing that would make me feel hopeful for the future.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Random Stuff
There are a couple of common phrases that have always puzzled me.
"It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings" - is a common sports phrase used by announcers as an appeal to the audience to stick with the game even though the home team is behind. It seems to come from and origin where somebody said, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady sings".
It brings to mind the Wagerian operas where the fat lady with horns on her helmet arrives on stage to belt out the aria. But what puzzles me is that doesn't necessarily mean the opera's over - the fat lady sings throughout the performance.
What would be more accurate might be to say, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady dies". From the operas I've seen (or performed in), that would be a much more sensible statement.
"I/He/She could care less" - is interesting, because it's meant as a strong statement about how little someone cares about some event or topic. But "could care less" suggests that the level of caring is at least a little bit above zero.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "She couldn't care less"?
I've noticed that beauty pageants involve heavily made-up contestants. Isn't that cheating? It seems to me that judging beauty should be based on actual beauty, not professionally painted changes to a young lady's appearance. The heavy makeup gives an unfair advantage to ugly, acne-scarred women to disguise those flaws, over the natural flawless beauty who needs no artificial enhancement.
Wouldn't pageants be better and fairer if there were rules against all makeup, sugical enhancements, and any other artificial cosmetic improvements? They'd certainly be more entertaining, at least from my perspective.
"It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings" - is a common sports phrase used by announcers as an appeal to the audience to stick with the game even though the home team is behind. It seems to come from and origin where somebody said, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady sings".
It brings to mind the Wagerian operas where the fat lady with horns on her helmet arrives on stage to belt out the aria. But what puzzles me is that doesn't necessarily mean the opera's over - the fat lady sings throughout the performance.
What would be more accurate might be to say, "The opera ain't over 'till the fat lady dies". From the operas I've seen (or performed in), that would be a much more sensible statement.
"I/He/She could care less" - is interesting, because it's meant as a strong statement about how little someone cares about some event or topic. But "could care less" suggests that the level of caring is at least a little bit above zero.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "She couldn't care less"?
I've noticed that beauty pageants involve heavily made-up contestants. Isn't that cheating? It seems to me that judging beauty should be based on actual beauty, not professionally painted changes to a young lady's appearance. The heavy makeup gives an unfair advantage to ugly, acne-scarred women to disguise those flaws, over the natural flawless beauty who needs no artificial enhancement.
Wouldn't pageants be better and fairer if there were rules against all makeup, sugical enhancements, and any other artificial cosmetic improvements? They'd certainly be more entertaining, at least from my perspective.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Stunning
Has anyone ever done anything more narcissistic than The Donald did this week?
He teased everyone on Monday about some earthshattering announcement coming about Obama due Wednesday. People everywhere breathlessly awaited some sort of expose: Was it some sort of evidence on the Birther thing? Was it the court filings for divorce rumored to have been created by Michele at some point? Was it about Obama's drug use and possible drug dealing with cocaine and marijuana in his college days? Could it have been some bombshell information about Obama's behavior in College or during his Community Organizer days?
Nope, none of that. The attention-seeking Trump announced he would give Obama's favorite charity 5 million dollars if he released his hidden records - Occidental, Columbia, Harvard. Applications, writings, scholarships, etc. Plus his Passport application. Obama can clear up once and for all the rumors that he applied to college claiming to be from Kenya, supposedly to get special consideration and maybe scholarship money. Plus what seems the even more likely proof that he was a poor student.
But Obama will simply laugh it off, make fun of Trump in a couple of speeches, and ignore the offer. Trump can of course suggest that Obama's ignoring the offer represents some sort of proof that Obama has something to hide. Yeah, probably.
Obama might try to finesse the deal by agreeing to release the records, then making sure the release gets delayed somehow until November 7th. Oops. Pay up, Donald!
How much more crazy can things get? The Richard Murdock flap is pretty crazy - Murdock didn't say anything outrageous, but the media's doing their best to spin it to make him out to be another version of Missouri's Todd Aiken. It's a desperation ploy executed by the media on behalf of the Democrats to try to destroy another GOP candidate. Sad thing is, it will probably work.
Then there's Gloria Allred, somewhere out there trying to dig up court records that she hopes will embarrass Mitt Romney. She's done it before and will do it again, and people will fall for it.
As the Chinese might say, we're living in interesting times.
He teased everyone on Monday about some earthshattering announcement coming about Obama due Wednesday. People everywhere breathlessly awaited some sort of expose: Was it some sort of evidence on the Birther thing? Was it the court filings for divorce rumored to have been created by Michele at some point? Was it about Obama's drug use and possible drug dealing with cocaine and marijuana in his college days? Could it have been some bombshell information about Obama's behavior in College or during his Community Organizer days?
Nope, none of that. The attention-seeking Trump announced he would give Obama's favorite charity 5 million dollars if he released his hidden records - Occidental, Columbia, Harvard. Applications, writings, scholarships, etc. Plus his Passport application. Obama can clear up once and for all the rumors that he applied to college claiming to be from Kenya, supposedly to get special consideration and maybe scholarship money. Plus what seems the even more likely proof that he was a poor student.
But Obama will simply laugh it off, make fun of Trump in a couple of speeches, and ignore the offer. Trump can of course suggest that Obama's ignoring the offer represents some sort of proof that Obama has something to hide. Yeah, probably.
Obama might try to finesse the deal by agreeing to release the records, then making sure the release gets delayed somehow until November 7th. Oops. Pay up, Donald!
How much more crazy can things get? The Richard Murdock flap is pretty crazy - Murdock didn't say anything outrageous, but the media's doing their best to spin it to make him out to be another version of Missouri's Todd Aiken. It's a desperation ploy executed by the media on behalf of the Democrats to try to destroy another GOP candidate. Sad thing is, it will probably work.
Then there's Gloria Allred, somewhere out there trying to dig up court records that she hopes will embarrass Mitt Romney. She's done it before and will do it again, and people will fall for it.
As the Chinese might say, we're living in interesting times.
Disqualified
The facts are out and it's over. The Obama White House made up a cover story to try to fool the American people over what happened in the Benghazi consulate. They tried to hide the truth to mitigate the harm they believed the truth would do to the Obama re-election campaign. Now that this has come to light and cannot be disputed, it disqualifies Barack Obama from the office of President of the United States. It's an impeachable offense.
As an opponent of the president based on my almost complete disagreement with him on nearly every policy issue, I am not celebrating today. I'm mourning the destruction of the credibility of the office of President. These things only happen in places like Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. They aren't supposed to happen in the United States of America.
Every American should be told what happened and made to understand why such behavior by our government leaders is so terribly destructive to a free society. I know that many Democrats do not care that the President engaged in such egregious behavior, because their worldview includes the ends justifying the means.
But had something equivalent to this happened 2 weeks before election day between George W Bush and John Kerry, I would have withheld my vote. I would not have voted for Kerry, but neither would I have voted for Bush. I would have limited my votes to the state and local races and abstained from voting for president. I would have wished that the GOP could remove Bush from the ballot and replaced him with another Republican, but of course it would have been too late.
America cannot afford to passively stand by when their leaders are caught cravenly lying about tragic acts of war against our own people, especially on sovereign American territory. I hope Democrats everywhere come to realize that they cannot support a president who would act as this one has, and choose to either replace him with Mitt Romney or withhold their vote.
As an opponent of the president based on my almost complete disagreement with him on nearly every policy issue, I am not celebrating today. I'm mourning the destruction of the credibility of the office of President. These things only happen in places like Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela. They aren't supposed to happen in the United States of America.
Every American should be told what happened and made to understand why such behavior by our government leaders is so terribly destructive to a free society. I know that many Democrats do not care that the President engaged in such egregious behavior, because their worldview includes the ends justifying the means.
But had something equivalent to this happened 2 weeks before election day between George W Bush and John Kerry, I would have withheld my vote. I would not have voted for Kerry, but neither would I have voted for Bush. I would have limited my votes to the state and local races and abstained from voting for president. I would have wished that the GOP could remove Bush from the ballot and replaced him with another Republican, but of course it would have been too late.
America cannot afford to passively stand by when their leaders are caught cravenly lying about tragic acts of war against our own people, especially on sovereign American territory. I hope Democrats everywhere come to realize that they cannot support a president who would act as this one has, and choose to either replace him with Mitt Romney or withhold their vote.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Sports Psychology
Since I decided to skip the presidential debate last night, I was flipping between the NFL game and Game 7 of the National League Series. The collapse of the Cardinals, who squandered their 3-1 lead against the Giants and watched their World Series hopes trickle through their fingers, was a stark lesson in the importance of psychology in sports.
Looking at the players on both sides last night, I imagined the Giants had a sort of strut in their step. They smiled and joked with each other in the dugout. They confidently strode to the plate as if they knew they could hit that Cardinals pitcher.
On the other side, the Cardinal players seemed grim. Their faces belied the pressure they were feeling to deliver something positive for the team. I almost felt the tension in their bodies as they dug in at the plate, and thought I could hear them saying to themselves, "Don't screw up!".
It's called pressing. Losing confidence. Doubting yourself. A star player can follow an amazing performance with a horrible performance in the space of consecutive games. The positive and negative psychology that leads to victory and defeat was on display with both teams through the series.
The confident Cardinal team seemed arrogant as they strutted to their 3-1 series lead. But the Giants suddenly had a few breaks go their way to stave off elimination and close the gap to 3-2. That might have been when the Cards began to doubt themselves just as the Giants began to believe. Suddenly the loose Giants, who realized they had nothing to lose, suddenly dominated and ran away with Game 6 and forced the decisive Game 7.
Maybe the series was effectively over before Game 7 ever began. The Cards were doubting themselves, perhaps dwelling on how badly they'd blown a lead in the series they thought guaranteed them a ticket to Detroit. Their mentality going into Game 7 was to try to save the series. But they had no confidence that they would be able to save themselves from themselves.
Conversely, the Giants' mentality was, hey, we came back and forced a 7th game and get to play it in our home ballpark. We've got this!
So last night the contest was between a confident team feeling the momentum against a reeling team just trying to plug the dam. The Cardinals' only hope was in getting a break early in Game 7. A San Francisco error, a seeing-eye single just at the right time, or their own version of the Giant's broken bat RBI that broke the game open. Professionals can turn their mentality around quickly if they can catch a break. The Giants made sure there would be no breaks last night that would let the Cards off the mat.
The best teams often have a leader that helps bring out the best in every team member. It was often said of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Peyton Manning, and other top-level athletes were not just good themselves, but made their teammates better. Average basketball players looked like stars when they played next to Bird or Johnson. Marginal wide receivers and tight ends looked like pro bowlers (and became pro bowlers) when they caught passes from Manning. Players at the level of Bird, Johnson, and Manning never lost that spark of confidence, but always believed they could overcome the worst circumstances and find a way to win.
If a coach could someday find the secret to keeping an optimal mental state for every one of his players, he would never lose. Professional athletes already have the physical skills to be great; they just need the mental component to be truly great.
The Cardinals couldn't find a catalyst to turn around their lost confidence. Not a coach, not a player, not a favorable bounce of the ball. So they never rediscovered that confidence, and were defeated.
Looking at the players on both sides last night, I imagined the Giants had a sort of strut in their step. They smiled and joked with each other in the dugout. They confidently strode to the plate as if they knew they could hit that Cardinals pitcher.
On the other side, the Cardinal players seemed grim. Their faces belied the pressure they were feeling to deliver something positive for the team. I almost felt the tension in their bodies as they dug in at the plate, and thought I could hear them saying to themselves, "Don't screw up!".
It's called pressing. Losing confidence. Doubting yourself. A star player can follow an amazing performance with a horrible performance in the space of consecutive games. The positive and negative psychology that leads to victory and defeat was on display with both teams through the series.
The confident Cardinal team seemed arrogant as they strutted to their 3-1 series lead. But the Giants suddenly had a few breaks go their way to stave off elimination and close the gap to 3-2. That might have been when the Cards began to doubt themselves just as the Giants began to believe. Suddenly the loose Giants, who realized they had nothing to lose, suddenly dominated and ran away with Game 6 and forced the decisive Game 7.
Maybe the series was effectively over before Game 7 ever began. The Cards were doubting themselves, perhaps dwelling on how badly they'd blown a lead in the series they thought guaranteed them a ticket to Detroit. Their mentality going into Game 7 was to try to save the series. But they had no confidence that they would be able to save themselves from themselves.
Conversely, the Giants' mentality was, hey, we came back and forced a 7th game and get to play it in our home ballpark. We've got this!
So last night the contest was between a confident team feeling the momentum against a reeling team just trying to plug the dam. The Cardinals' only hope was in getting a break early in Game 7. A San Francisco error, a seeing-eye single just at the right time, or their own version of the Giant's broken bat RBI that broke the game open. Professionals can turn their mentality around quickly if they can catch a break. The Giants made sure there would be no breaks last night that would let the Cards off the mat.
The best teams often have a leader that helps bring out the best in every team member. It was often said of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Peyton Manning, and other top-level athletes were not just good themselves, but made their teammates better. Average basketball players looked like stars when they played next to Bird or Johnson. Marginal wide receivers and tight ends looked like pro bowlers (and became pro bowlers) when they caught passes from Manning. Players at the level of Bird, Johnson, and Manning never lost that spark of confidence, but always believed they could overcome the worst circumstances and find a way to win.
If a coach could someday find the secret to keeping an optimal mental state for every one of his players, he would never lose. Professional athletes already have the physical skills to be great; they just need the mental component to be truly great.
The Cardinals couldn't find a catalyst to turn around their lost confidence. Not a coach, not a player, not a favorable bounce of the ball. So they never rediscovered that confidence, and were defeated.
Monday, October 22, 2012
No Worries
My new resolution is to relax and stop worrying. I've been following the campaigns pretty closely because I've been worried about the ill effects of Socialist government that we will all suffer if Obama and his Democrat Senate retain power.
Now that the election is in sight, it's time to relax and put such worries aside. What's the worst they can do to us? Take all our money, take away our ability to travel, take away our ability to earn a living. Brand us as radicals dangerous to the new, radically transformed America and throw us in prison. Execute us.
Whatever happens, bring it on. I'm pretty sure the worst fears won't be realized, but I'm also pretty sure many of the other fears have already come to pass and will continue to build in the next 4 years under a continued Obama/Reid/Leftist Supreme Court. Some folks I've met or heard talk think Romney will prove to be no better, but I have hopes he has the potential to be this generation's Reagan.
So I'm skipping tonight's debate. There's nothing I expect to learn from watching, and think I could predict the general direction of the debate anyway. Obama will atempt to paint Romney as some sort of Bush clone who will rush into foreign wars that will further deplete our young peoples' lives and piles of money we don't have. Romney will hit Obama as unserious about security, hostile to America's friends and obsequious and weak in front of our enemies.
If tonight's debate tips the election one way or the other, I'd be very surprised. It seems more likely to me that Romney will allay fears of folks who lean toward Obama because they fear war. But I doubt either candidate will swing the tiny undecided vote in their favor.
Congratulations to the Indiana Fever, finally the WNBA champs!
Notre Dame is still undefeated. Will Oklahoma bring that string to an end?
My South Carolina Gamecocks are on a steep slide, losing their second in a row by a big margin to Florida. Too bad they've lost their offense and their defense has stumbled.
The Colts got an ugly victory against Cleveland this weekend to go 3-3. They'll need to get a lot better if they have any hope of making the playoffs this year.
I hear the Columbus North soccer team's going to the Indiana State Final. Maybe this is finally their year to break through, after so many trips that ended at Semi-State.
Finally, let's wait to see if Columbus East can get all the way through to the State Football Final in Lucas Oil Stadium.
Now that the election is in sight, it's time to relax and put such worries aside. What's the worst they can do to us? Take all our money, take away our ability to travel, take away our ability to earn a living. Brand us as radicals dangerous to the new, radically transformed America and throw us in prison. Execute us.
Whatever happens, bring it on. I'm pretty sure the worst fears won't be realized, but I'm also pretty sure many of the other fears have already come to pass and will continue to build in the next 4 years under a continued Obama/Reid/Leftist Supreme Court. Some folks I've met or heard talk think Romney will prove to be no better, but I have hopes he has the potential to be this generation's Reagan.
So I'm skipping tonight's debate. There's nothing I expect to learn from watching, and think I could predict the general direction of the debate anyway. Obama will atempt to paint Romney as some sort of Bush clone who will rush into foreign wars that will further deplete our young peoples' lives and piles of money we don't have. Romney will hit Obama as unserious about security, hostile to America's friends and obsequious and weak in front of our enemies.
If tonight's debate tips the election one way or the other, I'd be very surprised. It seems more likely to me that Romney will allay fears of folks who lean toward Obama because they fear war. But I doubt either candidate will swing the tiny undecided vote in their favor.
Congratulations to the Indiana Fever, finally the WNBA champs!
Notre Dame is still undefeated. Will Oklahoma bring that string to an end?
My South Carolina Gamecocks are on a steep slide, losing their second in a row by a big margin to Florida. Too bad they've lost their offense and their defense has stumbled.
The Colts got an ugly victory against Cleveland this weekend to go 3-3. They'll need to get a lot better if they have any hope of making the playoffs this year.
I hear the Columbus North soccer team's going to the Indiana State Final. Maybe this is finally their year to break through, after so many trips that ended at Semi-State.
Finally, let's wait to see if Columbus East can get all the way through to the State Football Final in Lucas Oil Stadium.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
WNBA Observations
Since the Indiana Fever happen to be in the WNBA Finals this year, I caught the first two games of the series against Minnesota.
From the standpoint of pure basketball, I'm fairly impressed with the generally good display of fundamentals in the WNBA. Almost no women can dunk a basketball, so the members of the NBA's ladies league have to rely on basketball skills and teamwork to succeed. Indiana and Minnesota both display very good passing, ball handling, shooting, and defense.
But the WNBA still has limited appeal. I admit if it weren't for the appeal of the home team, I wouldn't be watching. Good thing I'm not in public office or running for one, because the truth I'm about to express here is decidedly politically incorrect.
That truth is that there's just not much in the WNBA product beyond pure basketball to draw the interest of sports fans.
Sorry, but how compelling can it be to watch a 6'5", 250lb woman play basketball? Granted, there are a few attractive ladies in the WNBA. But very few.
Then there's the current story of the Minnesota all-star player who's an activist against the gay marriage ban on the ballot in that state this fall. Sure, NBA players like Steve Nash are also advocating for the gay marriage issue, but as far as I know Nash isn't planning to marry Ron Artest (or is is Metta World Peace?). The Lynx player is planning to marry her girlfriend, and seems a bit over-the-top in her advocacy on the subject.
The Fever coach, Lin Dunn, was abruptly terminated from Purdue a few years back, even though that Purdue team was one of the elite college women's teams in the country. Reasons weren't provided in the official news releases, but the whispers from folks connected with Purdue were that Dunn was either engaging in sexual relationships with her players or may have been making unwelcome advances toward certain players (or maybe other students). Rumors can be destructive, but I can't help it if they contribute to a larger perception.
The gay rights crowd might scream over my pointing out such things, but there's no denying that these stories are not helpful to efforts being made to market the WNBA to a larger audience. They seem to be developing the same image the LPGA would like to quash.
Hopefully Indiana will be able to get their injured players back on the court and get two more wins for their first championship. I'll be happy for them, especially Tamika Catchings, who seems to be a great person for the community who probably deserves at least one championship before her playing days end.
From the standpoint of pure basketball, I'm fairly impressed with the generally good display of fundamentals in the WNBA. Almost no women can dunk a basketball, so the members of the NBA's ladies league have to rely on basketball skills and teamwork to succeed. Indiana and Minnesota both display very good passing, ball handling, shooting, and defense.
But the WNBA still has limited appeal. I admit if it weren't for the appeal of the home team, I wouldn't be watching. Good thing I'm not in public office or running for one, because the truth I'm about to express here is decidedly politically incorrect.
That truth is that there's just not much in the WNBA product beyond pure basketball to draw the interest of sports fans.
Sorry, but how compelling can it be to watch a 6'5", 250lb woman play basketball? Granted, there are a few attractive ladies in the WNBA. But very few.
Then there's the current story of the Minnesota all-star player who's an activist against the gay marriage ban on the ballot in that state this fall. Sure, NBA players like Steve Nash are also advocating for the gay marriage issue, but as far as I know Nash isn't planning to marry Ron Artest (or is is Metta World Peace?). The Lynx player is planning to marry her girlfriend, and seems a bit over-the-top in her advocacy on the subject.
The Fever coach, Lin Dunn, was abruptly terminated from Purdue a few years back, even though that Purdue team was one of the elite college women's teams in the country. Reasons weren't provided in the official news releases, but the whispers from folks connected with Purdue were that Dunn was either engaging in sexual relationships with her players or may have been making unwelcome advances toward certain players (or maybe other students). Rumors can be destructive, but I can't help it if they contribute to a larger perception.
The gay rights crowd might scream over my pointing out such things, but there's no denying that these stories are not helpful to efforts being made to market the WNBA to a larger audience. They seem to be developing the same image the LPGA would like to quash.
Hopefully Indiana will be able to get their injured players back on the court and get two more wins for their first championship. I'll be happy for them, especially Tamika Catchings, who seems to be a great person for the community who probably deserves at least one championship before her playing days end.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Destroying Lance Armstrong
Some things are beyond my ability to comprehend. One of those is the movement to destroy Lance Armstrong. He's been banned from the sport of professional cycling. He's just stepped down from the cancer charity he founded, "Livestrong". As far as I can tell, the only sanctions they haven't imposed yet are imprisonment and torture.
They claim he cheated. Used performance-enhancing drugs. They never actually caught him. He reportedly had a positive result once, but it's unclear what happened - it seemed to just go away. The case was built on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, the most convincing of which was Armstrong's supposed relationship with a known enabler of athletes who doped. There seem to be lots of related stories that doping was rampant among nearly all of the top riders in the Tour de France.
Anyway, based on all that hearsay and rumors and stories told by other riders who may have been envious of Armstrong's success, the organization that's supposed to be the enforcer against performance-enhancing drugs decided to persecute him fully.
I thought athletes were subjected to lots of rigorous testing, and if one is caught with a positive sample, the sanctions will kick in. That's not what happened to Armstrong. They instead spent years gathering the gossip from other riders and everyone they could find who was willing to say they thought Armstrong was a doper. Then they sprung it all on the public as justification for rescinding all of his cycling victories, even those in years they didn't find anybody suggesting he had doped.
What's confusing to me is this: Doesn't this mean that when an athlete wins an event, all it takes for the award to be rescinded is a sour-grapes runner-up coming forward to suggest he was a doper? What happened to standards of evidence? If Lance was doping all those years, isn't it more appropriate to blame the enforcement organization for missing it, and focusing on tightening the testing protocols?
Guilty or not, it just seems to me Armstrong's been railroaded.
They claim he cheated. Used performance-enhancing drugs. They never actually caught him. He reportedly had a positive result once, but it's unclear what happened - it seemed to just go away. The case was built on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, the most convincing of which was Armstrong's supposed relationship with a known enabler of athletes who doped. There seem to be lots of related stories that doping was rampant among nearly all of the top riders in the Tour de France.
Anyway, based on all that hearsay and rumors and stories told by other riders who may have been envious of Armstrong's success, the organization that's supposed to be the enforcer against performance-enhancing drugs decided to persecute him fully.
I thought athletes were subjected to lots of rigorous testing, and if one is caught with a positive sample, the sanctions will kick in. That's not what happened to Armstrong. They instead spent years gathering the gossip from other riders and everyone they could find who was willing to say they thought Armstrong was a doper. Then they sprung it all on the public as justification for rescinding all of his cycling victories, even those in years they didn't find anybody suggesting he had doped.
What's confusing to me is this: Doesn't this mean that when an athlete wins an event, all it takes for the award to be rescinded is a sour-grapes runner-up coming forward to suggest he was a doper? What happened to standards of evidence? If Lance was doping all those years, isn't it more appropriate to blame the enforcement organization for missing it, and focusing on tightening the testing protocols?
Guilty or not, it just seems to me Armstrong's been railroaded.
The Obligatory Debate Post
Just because I've posted after the previous debates, it almost feels like an obligation to post something about last night. The media script was written well before the debate started last night, the headline being "Obama Recovers to Win Debate Number Two".
So let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Candy Crowley was the homer referee who went out of her way to help Obama. Obama lied and spun and pandered as expected. Romney was fairly solid, but I think he moderated his message too much and left lots of stuff on the table. My biggest disappointment was that he passed up the opening Obama gave him to hammer the HHS Mandate after Obama bragged about it.
What I hope people start to come away from these debates with isn't who scored more points or who won the rhetorical battle, but what's the actual substance of each candidate's promises for the next 4 years?
Romney's given us plenty of policy initiatives to consider, and Obama's vociferously objected to every one of them. But what policy initiatives is Obama promising for the next 4 years?
The only one we all know for sure is his obsessive focus on increasing taxes on the rich. Even though he keeps talking about "millionaires and billionaires", his actual proposal is to tax everybody that earns over $200K ($250 for couples).
What else does he propose? If you listen closely, you might come up with this list, which interestingly enough involves only spending increases, except for the military.
More money for:
Planned Parenthood
Green Energy (more Solyndras, O boy!)
Education
Cut money for the military.
Perhaps Romney's best point of the night was his comment that if we re-elect Obama, we have the past 4 years of experience to tell us what we'll get the next 4. More of the same. I think not only more of the same, but exponentially more government control and dictatorial policies.
Suddenly it's become clear that the only hope for the nation is that enough citizens have just enough brains to figure out just how bad Obama policies have been and will be for the nation and everyone's well-being and vote for the other guy. They may not be excited about Mitt, but must begin to realize that he's our only way out of this terrible mess.
So let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Candy Crowley was the homer referee who went out of her way to help Obama. Obama lied and spun and pandered as expected. Romney was fairly solid, but I think he moderated his message too much and left lots of stuff on the table. My biggest disappointment was that he passed up the opening Obama gave him to hammer the HHS Mandate after Obama bragged about it.
What I hope people start to come away from these debates with isn't who scored more points or who won the rhetorical battle, but what's the actual substance of each candidate's promises for the next 4 years?
Romney's given us plenty of policy initiatives to consider, and Obama's vociferously objected to every one of them. But what policy initiatives is Obama promising for the next 4 years?
The only one we all know for sure is his obsessive focus on increasing taxes on the rich. Even though he keeps talking about "millionaires and billionaires", his actual proposal is to tax everybody that earns over $200K ($250 for couples).
What else does he propose? If you listen closely, you might come up with this list, which interestingly enough involves only spending increases, except for the military.
More money for:
Planned Parenthood
Green Energy (more Solyndras, O boy!)
Education
Cut money for the military.
Perhaps Romney's best point of the night was his comment that if we re-elect Obama, we have the past 4 years of experience to tell us what we'll get the next 4. More of the same. I think not only more of the same, but exponentially more government control and dictatorial policies.
Suddenly it's become clear that the only hope for the nation is that enough citizens have just enough brains to figure out just how bad Obama policies have been and will be for the nation and everyone's well-being and vote for the other guy. They may not be excited about Mitt, but must begin to realize that he's our only way out of this terrible mess.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Simple Questions
The Romney campaign isn't likely to read my humble blog, but if they did, I'd like to offer just a few simple questions that Mitt might consider posing to the president during tonight's or the last debate.
Energy question: "Mr. President, given your past public statements and the regulatory policies you've actually implemented through the EPA and DOE, it's pretty clear why we Americans are paying $4 and $5 a gallon at the pump these days to get to work, at least those of us who still have a job to get to. Your administration has aggressively implemented pro-green and anti-carbon energy, so has led to America importing more than half of our oil over the last 4 years because you've cut oil permits on federal lands by half. In addition, you're moving aggressively forward on your promise to bankrupt the coal industry. And you still refuse to allow the oil pipeline from Canada that have been predicted by experts across the country to generate millions of new jobs".
"Meanwhile, you've funnelled 90 billion dollars to investments in wind and solar energy, electric cars, and biofuel production, which have not proven cost-effective replacements for oil, gas, and coal. So people continue to suffer to try to scrape money from their shrinking budgets to pay their heating bill and get gas in their cars while your political cronies benefit from your generous handouts while their unsustainable businesses ship jobs overseas and still are failing spectacularly. Not to mention haven't done a thing to help clean up our water and air quality."
"Do you want to explain to the American people whether those policies remain your priorities, and if so, how much longer do families have to suffer before they begin to see the benefits of your clean energy programs in their pocketbooks?"
Response when Obama strikes out with some variation of the 47% comment:
"You know, Mr. President, that's a statement I wish I knew was being recorded, or I would have been more careful about how I phrased it. It sounded like I was accusing 47 percent of the country of being government dependents who had no interest in self-sufficiency. In reality, all I was trying to say was that, at that point in time, there were about 47 percent of Americans who were going to support you regardless of anything I could do or say. Therefore, it wouldn't be prudent to spend a great deal of time and effort in my campaign trying to win them over. Separate that from the idea I expressed that referred to a sub-fraction of that 47 percent group only; folks that will be guaranteed to vote for you because they somehow mistakenly believe that monthly checks they already receive and rely upon from the Federal Government are guaranteed to keep coming only if they work to keep you in the White House."
"I'd like to convince those Americans who are of working age and sound mind and body that their lives will be much better, more prosperous, and more fulfilling if they get out of the house and get to work in a good-paying job. Then they'll be able to provide housing, food, insurance, transportation, and even some luxuries and entertainment for their families without any reliance on the government. Which is good for everyone. And my campaign is all about bringing those kinds of opportunities back to America."
"I seem to recall a quote attributed to you from awhile back, Mr. President, where you suggested that there were too many Americans in the heartland who 'cling to their guns and their religion' because they have some kind of antipathy toward anybody who is different from them. Can we make a deal tonight, Mr. President, that I promise not to bring up your embarrasing quote again if you promise to stop running ads about the 47 percent?"
Energy question: "Mr. President, given your past public statements and the regulatory policies you've actually implemented through the EPA and DOE, it's pretty clear why we Americans are paying $4 and $5 a gallon at the pump these days to get to work, at least those of us who still have a job to get to. Your administration has aggressively implemented pro-green and anti-carbon energy, so has led to America importing more than half of our oil over the last 4 years because you've cut oil permits on federal lands by half. In addition, you're moving aggressively forward on your promise to bankrupt the coal industry. And you still refuse to allow the oil pipeline from Canada that have been predicted by experts across the country to generate millions of new jobs".
"Meanwhile, you've funnelled 90 billion dollars to investments in wind and solar energy, electric cars, and biofuel production, which have not proven cost-effective replacements for oil, gas, and coal. So people continue to suffer to try to scrape money from their shrinking budgets to pay their heating bill and get gas in their cars while your political cronies benefit from your generous handouts while their unsustainable businesses ship jobs overseas and still are failing spectacularly. Not to mention haven't done a thing to help clean up our water and air quality."
"Do you want to explain to the American people whether those policies remain your priorities, and if so, how much longer do families have to suffer before they begin to see the benefits of your clean energy programs in their pocketbooks?"
Response when Obama strikes out with some variation of the 47% comment:
"You know, Mr. President, that's a statement I wish I knew was being recorded, or I would have been more careful about how I phrased it. It sounded like I was accusing 47 percent of the country of being government dependents who had no interest in self-sufficiency. In reality, all I was trying to say was that, at that point in time, there were about 47 percent of Americans who were going to support you regardless of anything I could do or say. Therefore, it wouldn't be prudent to spend a great deal of time and effort in my campaign trying to win them over. Separate that from the idea I expressed that referred to a sub-fraction of that 47 percent group only; folks that will be guaranteed to vote for you because they somehow mistakenly believe that monthly checks they already receive and rely upon from the Federal Government are guaranteed to keep coming only if they work to keep you in the White House."
"I'd like to convince those Americans who are of working age and sound mind and body that their lives will be much better, more prosperous, and more fulfilling if they get out of the house and get to work in a good-paying job. Then they'll be able to provide housing, food, insurance, transportation, and even some luxuries and entertainment for their families without any reliance on the government. Which is good for everyone. And my campaign is all about bringing those kinds of opportunities back to America."
"I seem to recall a quote attributed to you from awhile back, Mr. President, where you suggested that there were too many Americans in the heartland who 'cling to their guns and their religion' because they have some kind of antipathy toward anybody who is different from them. Can we make a deal tonight, Mr. President, that I promise not to bring up your embarrasing quote again if you promise to stop running ads about the 47 percent?"
Monday, October 15, 2012
Debates and Sports Analogy
There's not much left for me to learn about the candidates. Certainly nothing that can possibly change my vote. So why bother watching the second Obama/Romney debate?
As a Colts fan, I think I'll use them as the analogy. Suppose the debates are the playoffs, and November 6th is the Super Bowl. But in this case, the 3 playoff games (4 if you count the VP debate) are more like the NBA Finals, where the same two teams square off against each other.
Going back to the Colts' Super Bowl era with Peyton Manning, I'll have them represent Romney. The New England Patriots, who were the Colts' nemesis in those days, represent Obama.
Going into the playoffs, the Colts were the underdog. They have a suspect defense, but still have hope because of the skills of Manning. But they've got lots of other factors working against them. The "cool" people (Northeastern urban folks) love the Pats, as do all the Television commentators. The playoff game pulls Vegas odds something like Pats +3.
Also, it's well known that the referee is a "homer" for the Patriots, and nobody expects the game to be called fairly for the Colts.
So the debate itself is analogous to the second playoff game. The first game was a blowout for the Colts, and the talking heads are still expressing shock that Peyton was able to hit Reggie Wayne for 4 touchdowns. But they don't credit Peyton for the great game; instead they've been piling on Tom Brady for a sub-par performance. No matter that Brady had a very good game himself, throwing for over 300 yards - he's been squarely blamed by the big media pundits for the loss. They cite his 2 late-game interceptions and an impression that he just gave up in the last five minutes.
So everybody says game 2 is going to be different. Brady's promising to be more aggressive against the below-average Colts defense this time. And Manning's surely not going to get so lucky as to have two stellar games in a row, right?
The referee has also been warned. There had better be more flags thrown against the Colts this time! Patriots fans don't believe it's possible for a team to score as much as the Colts did without cheating; therefore, there have to be lots of penalties the referee missed the first time!
Patriot fans are hoping for a drubbing of the Colts in game 2. They firmly believe the game 1 outcome was a fluke. Colts fans from the heartland and the countryside believe their team is better, and will tune into game 2 hoping to see that faith justified.
A victory by the Colts will give them momentum that could mean almost certain victory in the Super Bowl. But a Patriots victory will mean the outcome of the Super Bowl is much less certain, and of course the "experts" will immediately jump in to tell all the fans their favorite team from the big market is a sure thing.
So will the Colts' quarterback (Romney) have another great game, or will the Patriots' quarterback (Obama) return to his expected form and shred the weak Colts' defense (GOP Establishment) to set the Patriots up for a strong Super Bowl?
Will the referee (Candy Crowley) succeed in managing the game with timely Colts penalties and ignoring Pats penalties to help guarantee a Patriot victory?
That's why folks like me might still watch.
As a Colts fan, I think I'll use them as the analogy. Suppose the debates are the playoffs, and November 6th is the Super Bowl. But in this case, the 3 playoff games (4 if you count the VP debate) are more like the NBA Finals, where the same two teams square off against each other.
Going back to the Colts' Super Bowl era with Peyton Manning, I'll have them represent Romney. The New England Patriots, who were the Colts' nemesis in those days, represent Obama.
Going into the playoffs, the Colts were the underdog. They have a suspect defense, but still have hope because of the skills of Manning. But they've got lots of other factors working against them. The "cool" people (Northeastern urban folks) love the Pats, as do all the Television commentators. The playoff game pulls Vegas odds something like Pats +3.
Also, it's well known that the referee is a "homer" for the Patriots, and nobody expects the game to be called fairly for the Colts.
So the debate itself is analogous to the second playoff game. The first game was a blowout for the Colts, and the talking heads are still expressing shock that Peyton was able to hit Reggie Wayne for 4 touchdowns. But they don't credit Peyton for the great game; instead they've been piling on Tom Brady for a sub-par performance. No matter that Brady had a very good game himself, throwing for over 300 yards - he's been squarely blamed by the big media pundits for the loss. They cite his 2 late-game interceptions and an impression that he just gave up in the last five minutes.
So everybody says game 2 is going to be different. Brady's promising to be more aggressive against the below-average Colts defense this time. And Manning's surely not going to get so lucky as to have two stellar games in a row, right?
The referee has also been warned. There had better be more flags thrown against the Colts this time! Patriots fans don't believe it's possible for a team to score as much as the Colts did without cheating; therefore, there have to be lots of penalties the referee missed the first time!
Patriot fans are hoping for a drubbing of the Colts in game 2. They firmly believe the game 1 outcome was a fluke. Colts fans from the heartland and the countryside believe their team is better, and will tune into game 2 hoping to see that faith justified.
A victory by the Colts will give them momentum that could mean almost certain victory in the Super Bowl. But a Patriots victory will mean the outcome of the Super Bowl is much less certain, and of course the "experts" will immediately jump in to tell all the fans their favorite team from the big market is a sure thing.
So will the Colts' quarterback (Romney) have another great game, or will the Patriots' quarterback (Obama) return to his expected form and shred the weak Colts' defense (GOP Establishment) to set the Patriots up for a strong Super Bowl?
Will the referee (Candy Crowley) succeed in managing the game with timely Colts penalties and ignoring Pats penalties to help guarantee a Patriot victory?
That's why folks like me might still watch.
Friday, October 12, 2012
VP Debate (Update)
Well, I misjudged Joe Biden. I held his intelligence in low esteem, and thought Paul Ryan would use his superior intellect to roll over the VP even more decisively than Mitt Romney did Obama.
This post is being created before I have a chance to hear any of the pundits or talking heads tell me what I should think about the debate. I was sitting in a traffic jam on I70, not moving an inch for most of the debate. So I only heard it - I didn't see it. I know that body language and facial expression can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of debaters, so I can only comment on what I heard.
Everybody knew that Biden was going to hammer his campaign's theme that Mitt is a liar, and boy did he ever. He continuously sniped, snickered, and interruped Ryan, which was a stark contrast to the much more polite Republican who stayed silent while Joe had the floor. The strategy was obvious - keep interuppting Ryan to try to throw him and knock him off balance, while challenging every single Ryan statement as untrue.
It got almost ridiculous, as Biden would pretend to be trying his hardest to suppress the word "Liar!". He also delivered his own talking points passionately, making the audience understand that he really is a true believer in his party's platforms and philosophies.
When the Catholic values question came up and Ryan talked about the First Amendment violation the President has perpetrated through his ObamaCare Contraceptive Regulation, you would have believed from Biden's response that Ryan was lying about that too. But no, if you just follow what he said and think about it for a couple of minutes, you realize he just changed the subject! He gave a litany of examples of things ObamaCare does NOT force Catholics to do, as if that excuses the mandate.
Biden's soft tone while he explained his view on abortion (pro) must have been a terrific acting job, as he sounded compassionate while pretending he cares about the health and well-being of women. Gay Marriage never came up.
I came away from the debate disappointed. My expectation that Ryan would embarass the VP was thoroughly destroyed. If I had to vote on who "won", I'd have to give the nod to Joe by just a few points. Based on his passion, his success in using interruption and feigned outrage to knock Ryan off balance, and his ability to lie extremely convincingly.
Ryan should have realized that Biden had turned the tables on him, instead of being forced to try defending his administration, he was forcing Ryan to defend his team's proposals. Biden almost made it sound as if it was Romney and Ryan that had been in charge the last 4 years, not he and Obama.
I generally think of myself as fairly knowledgeable, but Biden kept bringing up obscure "facts" I'd never heard anywhere to defend his president. I was amazed as his brazenness in continually asserting outright lies passionately and turning them back on Ryan, at one point actually trying to suggest the debacle in Benghazi was Ryan's fault because he cut the security funding!
All that's left is to hope that those who asserted pre-debate that the VP debate normally has no bearing on the election outcome are correct.
Update: What I missed first time around was the visual. Biden was outrageous for the entire debate, going well beyond the audible interruptions I heard over the radio. He used exaggerated expressions and gestures along with verbal assaults to try to convey the impression of Ryan as either grossly ignorant or an outrageous liar. You would have thought that Biden considered every single Ryan sentence (even "Nice to see you, Mr. Vice President") a horrible lie.
The visuals definitely changed my perception on who may have won the debate; now I wouldn't say Ryan won, but would say that Biden lost.
This post is being created before I have a chance to hear any of the pundits or talking heads tell me what I should think about the debate. I was sitting in a traffic jam on I70, not moving an inch for most of the debate. So I only heard it - I didn't see it. I know that body language and facial expression can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of debaters, so I can only comment on what I heard.
Everybody knew that Biden was going to hammer his campaign's theme that Mitt is a liar, and boy did he ever. He continuously sniped, snickered, and interruped Ryan, which was a stark contrast to the much more polite Republican who stayed silent while Joe had the floor. The strategy was obvious - keep interuppting Ryan to try to throw him and knock him off balance, while challenging every single Ryan statement as untrue.
It got almost ridiculous, as Biden would pretend to be trying his hardest to suppress the word "Liar!". He also delivered his own talking points passionately, making the audience understand that he really is a true believer in his party's platforms and philosophies.
When the Catholic values question came up and Ryan talked about the First Amendment violation the President has perpetrated through his ObamaCare Contraceptive Regulation, you would have believed from Biden's response that Ryan was lying about that too. But no, if you just follow what he said and think about it for a couple of minutes, you realize he just changed the subject! He gave a litany of examples of things ObamaCare does NOT force Catholics to do, as if that excuses the mandate.
Biden's soft tone while he explained his view on abortion (pro) must have been a terrific acting job, as he sounded compassionate while pretending he cares about the health and well-being of women. Gay Marriage never came up.
I came away from the debate disappointed. My expectation that Ryan would embarass the VP was thoroughly destroyed. If I had to vote on who "won", I'd have to give the nod to Joe by just a few points. Based on his passion, his success in using interruption and feigned outrage to knock Ryan off balance, and his ability to lie extremely convincingly.
Ryan should have realized that Biden had turned the tables on him, instead of being forced to try defending his administration, he was forcing Ryan to defend his team's proposals. Biden almost made it sound as if it was Romney and Ryan that had been in charge the last 4 years, not he and Obama.
I generally think of myself as fairly knowledgeable, but Biden kept bringing up obscure "facts" I'd never heard anywhere to defend his president. I was amazed as his brazenness in continually asserting outright lies passionately and turning them back on Ryan, at one point actually trying to suggest the debacle in Benghazi was Ryan's fault because he cut the security funding!
All that's left is to hope that those who asserted pre-debate that the VP debate normally has no bearing on the election outcome are correct.
Update: What I missed first time around was the visual. Biden was outrageous for the entire debate, going well beyond the audible interruptions I heard over the radio. He used exaggerated expressions and gestures along with verbal assaults to try to convey the impression of Ryan as either grossly ignorant or an outrageous liar. You would have thought that Biden considered every single Ryan sentence (even "Nice to see you, Mr. Vice President") a horrible lie.
The visuals definitely changed my perception on who may have won the debate; now I wouldn't say Ryan won, but would say that Biden lost.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Movie Review
Just to get out for awhile, I saw Trouble with the Curve last night. The Clint Eastwood baseball movie was a very nicely done story that seems like it might be Eastwood's argument against Brad Pitt's Moneyball.
Eastwood's pretty good at playing the crochety old geezer, almost the same character he played in Gran Torino a couple years ago. Yet his subtle performance grants the audience a peek at his inner guilt and regret over his neglect of his daughter, played by the gorgeous Amy Adams.
Even though Adams made the film for me, as the competent yet emotionally fragile attorney daughter, her performance in the more dramatic scenes of confrontation with Eastwood was too over-the-top. It's not believable to me that the adult 30-something daughter would use such melodrama when she tried to talk with her father about the pain of her childhood abandonment.
She was called "emotionally unavailable" by Justin Timberlake, which should have meant her character dealt with her emotional conflicts with her father in much a more subtle and stoic manner. She would have been much more effective if her approach had been more like Eatwood's. Great drama doesn't always require tears and a raised voice ending with her stalking out of the room.
Timberlake wasn't bad as the love interest for Adams' character, but he's far from believable as an ex-major league pitcher. He doesn't look like a guy who could get a baseball all the way to the plate, let alone one who had a 100MPH fastball.
John Goodman was terrific and believable as Eastwood's beleagered boss, who's trying to hang on to his job against the younger, aggressively ambitious Matthew Lillard, who I mostly remember as Shaggy from the Scooby-Do movies.
The ending was especially contrived, but for some reason I didn't mind much. In the real world it would have taken at least a year or two for the Atlanta Braves to figure out Eastwood's scouting was right and Lillard's computer models were wrong, and that first draft pick was a bust. It also seems nearly impossible that the young pitching phenom Adams' character brought to the organization off the street would actually be given a chance to throw against the draft pick in front of the entire Braves management team. But I understand the story needed a quick resolution.
The movie makes a pretty good case for the human touch in scouting talent versus reliance on computer models and statistics. I'm pretty sure both have a place, just like everything else in the modern world. Computers are tools that help get work done faster, not magic boxes that can make all our decisions for us without the interjection of human judgement.
Eastwood's pretty good at playing the crochety old geezer, almost the same character he played in Gran Torino a couple years ago. Yet his subtle performance grants the audience a peek at his inner guilt and regret over his neglect of his daughter, played by the gorgeous Amy Adams.
Even though Adams made the film for me, as the competent yet emotionally fragile attorney daughter, her performance in the more dramatic scenes of confrontation with Eastwood was too over-the-top. It's not believable to me that the adult 30-something daughter would use such melodrama when she tried to talk with her father about the pain of her childhood abandonment.
She was called "emotionally unavailable" by Justin Timberlake, which should have meant her character dealt with her emotional conflicts with her father in much a more subtle and stoic manner. She would have been much more effective if her approach had been more like Eatwood's. Great drama doesn't always require tears and a raised voice ending with her stalking out of the room.
Timberlake wasn't bad as the love interest for Adams' character, but he's far from believable as an ex-major league pitcher. He doesn't look like a guy who could get a baseball all the way to the plate, let alone one who had a 100MPH fastball.
John Goodman was terrific and believable as Eastwood's beleagered boss, who's trying to hang on to his job against the younger, aggressively ambitious Matthew Lillard, who I mostly remember as Shaggy from the Scooby-Do movies.
The ending was especially contrived, but for some reason I didn't mind much. In the real world it would have taken at least a year or two for the Atlanta Braves to figure out Eastwood's scouting was right and Lillard's computer models were wrong, and that first draft pick was a bust. It also seems nearly impossible that the young pitching phenom Adams' character brought to the organization off the street would actually be given a chance to throw against the draft pick in front of the entire Braves management team. But I understand the story needed a quick resolution.
The movie makes a pretty good case for the human touch in scouting talent versus reliance on computer models and statistics. I'm pretty sure both have a place, just like everything else in the modern world. Computers are tools that help get work done faster, not magic boxes that can make all our decisions for us without the interjection of human judgement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)