Naughty and Nice

The cold winds of December remind me that 2011 is finally winding down. In about a week, we will raise wine glasses to honor the passing year, and make proclamations for the next.  Good health, job security, success on the football field and good friends are reasons to give thanks.  But while such wishes are quick to leave our lips, no one really knows what is in store for 2012.

As proof of such folly, I bring you the good and bad of 2011.

Unpredictable to say the least -- in politics, we've endured Republican debates, a Washington deep freeze and state recall mania;  in sports, we've had historic athletic achievements, sexual perversions in the shower and a pursuit of baseball's coveted MVP; on the home front, we're finding that there is life after kids leave for college, the exciting world of the blogging and aging (not so) gracefully.

As much as I would like to think I have some control of the events that occurred in 2011 (in particular in my life and by default my kids and wife), I've begun to realize my input ends the minute I get out of bed in the morning.  The rest of the day is often spent in a three point stance, waiting for the hard count, then finishing in a cloud of dust.

As a result, I take great pride in handing out my observations of who's made the news this year.  So sit by the fire, warm your hands while you sip hot cocoa and read who's made the list of naughty and nice.


Those receiving something good in 2011

• The Green Bay Packers regain the "America's Team" moniker after overcoming a season full of injuries to key defensive and offensive players, beating the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-25 in Super Bowl XVI.
• Packer's quarterback, Aaron Rogers, stakes his case for 2011 MVP season with a passer rating over 120.00, more than 40 touchdowns, and an impressive 13-1 record though mid-December.
• Monte Ball's election as a Heisman finalist comes as a pleasant surprise.  After a mediocre 2010, Ball re-dedicated himself to Wisconsin football by losing weight and gaining strength.  For his efforts in 2011, he has scored 39 touchdowns, second most in NCAA history.
• I am able to finish the 51st running of the Maple Leaf 5 mile race in 45 minutes 23 seconds, beating an aging contingent of wannabe runners (and senior citizens in wheel chairs).
• Russell Wilson's transfer to Wisconsin gives the Badgers a legitimate shot at National Championship game.  Despite being derailed in losses to Michigan State and Ohio State, Wilson leads Badgers to crucial win in the inaugural BIG TEN Championship Game.
• Scott Walker takes on collective bargaining after becoming state's 45th Governor of Wisconsin.  Despite opposition from President Obama, national labor unions and frenzied protestors, Walker and Republican legislators pass law which limits collection bargaining rights of public unions.
• Looking for a new challenge, my wife accepts the job of starting up an anti coagulation service at Franciscan Skemp.  
• The Milwaukee Brewers win NL Central Division with 96-66 record, clinching their first division title in 28 years.  In playoffs, Brewers beat the Arizona Diamondbacks before losing to eventual World Series champs, St Louis Cardinals.
• Squirrel Factory begins in early January to rousing applause, despite Facebook opposition from liberal family members who remove me from their "friends" list.
• The end of the Iraq War.   Coalition deaths totaled 4,803 -- of which 4,484 (93%) were American.  The number of Americans wounded was 32,200.  The Congressional Research Service puts the dollar cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom at $806 billion.
• The return of Tim Allen to television in "Last Man Standing" on ABC.  It's good to see him struggling as the only man in a household full of women. 
• The race between 12-year incumbent David Prosser, Jr. and challenger Assistance Attorney general JoAnee Kloppenburg gains significant publicity as it is widely seen as a referendum on Gov. Walker's budget reforms.  Justice Prosser wins the seat after Kloppenburg mistakenly claims victory on election night.
• Tebowing becomes an overnight sensation after Denver quarterback Tim Tebow turns the Broncos into a playoff contender.  His public praise to God causes ESPN and national media outlets to wonder, "Does God decide who wins games in the NFL?"
• My son, Sean, graduates from Central High School and heads to Eau Claire to "bring new meaning to our exisitence through Biology."
• Mayor Matt Harter stands up to La Crosse's City Council, fighting back attempts to raise property taxes, increase the size of local government (including Fire and Police departments), and the hire of a City Administrator.
• Seventy-year-old North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-il dies of a heart attack, allowing his son, Kim Jong-eun to step in as "The Great Successor."  Citizens, upon hearing the news, cry in despair as they wonder if Jong-eun will be able to lead them out of the 1900's.
• Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden is captured and killed.  bin Laden was shot and killed inside his private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan by U.S. Navy Seals and CIA operatives.  The "Jihadist Sheik" was the founder of Al-Qaeda, the jihadist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks on the U.S.

Those receiving a lump of coal in 2011

• In a setback for black conservatives, Herman Cain rises to the top of the Republican ticket before suspending his campaign due to unconfirmed sexual harassment charges and a decade-long affair.  Media rushes to judgement by publishing more than 90 negative stories within the first 5 days.
• The "Hebrew Hammer," Ryan Braun, is accused of testing positive for elevated testosterone, leading to a possible 50 game suspension for 2012.  The Milwaukee Brewer LF claims it was not a performance enhancing drug but a medication he was taking for an undisclosed illness.
• The Freedom From Religion Foundation claims a nativity scene isn't appropriate for a state building.  Annie Laurie Gaylor says her group is seeking a permit for its own display, one that's "slightly blasphemous" and an "irreverent tweak" on the nativity scene.  For years, the FFRF has maintained a sign in the State Capitol during the Christmas season which reads:  "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.  There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.  There is only our natural world.  Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
• Waivers from Washington D.C. for health care.  As a sign of the implausibility of Obama's health plan, the Department of Health and Human Services issued more than 1,000 waivers for plans that could not meet the new federal requirements.  Many of them union controlled.
• Dan Kapanke loses his State Senate seat to Democrat Jennifer Shilling.  Despite claiming "tonight is the beginning of balance and accountability" in Madison, the Democrats fail to win the three seats needed to take back control of the Senate and block Gov. walker's conservative agenda.  A good man goes down to teacher self interest and union greed.
• The Penn State sex abuse scandal brings down head football coach Joe Paterno and school president Graham Spanier after fellow coach Jerry Sandusky is accused of sexually assaulting eight underaged boys.
• Solyndra becomes the third solar company to belly-up when it lost more than half a million dollars in taxpayer money.  After endorsing a loan of $535 million, President Obama said, "Companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future."
• Anything related to Washington politics.  The Senate and House of Representatives are full of career politicians who write their own rules, push for favorable positions with  the media, and enjoy gold-plated benefits (including automatic pay raises, full pensions and Cadillac health care).  2011 uncovered their favorable position with insider trading. leading many to get even richer.
• Occupy Wall Street protesters, claiming to represent the 99% (poor and middle class) camp out to complain about high unemployment, greed, corruption and undue influence of corporations.  Miraculously, President Obama and corrupt politicians escape their misguided wrath.
• Switching internet, television and phone service.  Whether it's Charter, CenturyLink or Direct TV -- it doesn't matter.  Never has something so simple been so complicated as switching from one provider to another.  If I never have to speak to customer service again, it'll be too soon.
• The 2011 Men's NCAA Basketball Championship game is a real stinker when #3 seed Connecticut defeats #8 seed Butler, 53-41.  A combined total of 41 points are scored in the first half, causing many sports fans to ask "I paid $300 a ticket for this trash?"
• Washington passes the buck on dealing with tough economic issues facing our nation.  The current national debt is over $15 trillion dollars, and social security and medicare will have a budget shortfall between $80-$120 trillion dollars within the decade. 
• Reality television sinks to new lows with Bad Girls Club, Battle of the Bods, Ashley Page:  Bikini or Bust, 16 and Pregnant, Hole in the Wall, Hunky Handyman, Losing it With Jillian, Paris Hilton's My New BFF and my favorite, Snoop Dogg's Father Hood.
• Testing viewers tolerance for the bizarre, Dancing with the Stars selects Chaz Bono, J. R. Martinez, Nancy Grace, Ricki Lake, Rob Kardashian and Ron Artest.
• The punishing recession of 2011 puts Eastman Kodak, Blackberry-maker Research in Motion, Office Max,Netflix, Hewlett-Packard, Sears and Best Buy on the edge of irrelevance and bankruptcy.
• Real unemployment numbers remain near 16% as the recession continues into its 3rd year.

To a better year in 2012 (and another Super Bowl).

Out of Bounds

I have a friend who can't stand college football.

He doesn't thinks the talent is there and with so many different teams (from vastly different conferences) flooding the television, he doesn't think it rises to the level of legitimate competition.

Typically I'd have to disagree, since there are plenty of exciting games to be watched, whether it's football, basketball or hockey.  (I draw the line on almost every other sport -- including baseball, gymnastics, wrestling, volleyball and soccer, which just don't draw the fans or money needed to make it worth watching).

So while I find watching college sports a terrific experience (who didn't enjoy the two Michigan State / Wisconsin football games this year?) there are three things that drive me crazy about college sports.  In particular, football.

 

Number one, the media's love affair with the SEC and traditional powers like Texas, Oklahoma and any team from Florida.  As an example, in an early pre-season poll, ESPN had eight SEC teams listed in the top 25, including Alabama and LSU.  When you start high in any poll, it makes it much easier to climb to the top (and stay there), attract better recruits, and garner attention that leads to winning individual awards.

Look at the comparison between Wisconsin and Alabama and what happened after each lost their first game:  Wisconsin started the season as #10, worked their way to #7, then lost to Michigan State.  They dropped seven spots (all the way to #14), despite losing on the road via a hail mail pass.  Alabama was ranked #2 when they lost to the LSU Tigers at home.  Instead of dropping like the Badgers, they drop two places to #4.

As further proof of this bias, the 2011 Heisman Trophy, awarded to the best college athlete,  attracted two candidates from the SEC in Trent Richardson (Alabama) and Tyrann Mathieu (LSU).  While they did not win the top award -- Robert Griffin III of Baylor took that honor -- some questioned why Mathieu was selected over other candidates like USC's Matt Barkley or Boise State's Kellen Moore.

If you need further proof, Trent Richardson of the SEC finished ahead of the BIG TEN's Monte Ball even though a quick look at the stats of both running backs shows Ball's superiority.

Ball 2,014 yards from scrimmage, Richardson 1,910 yards from scrimmage
Ball 38 touchdowns, Richardson 23 touchdowns
Ball 6.4 yards per carry, Richardson 6.0 yards per carry
Ball scored a touchdown every 7.8 touches, Richardson every 12.6 touches
Ball got 20% of his yards against non-conference, Richardson got 30% of his yards
Ball rushed for 1,759 yards, Richardson 1,583 yards

Plus, Monte Ball had 60 passing yards and a passing touchdown for Wisconsin (with a quarterback rating of 504.4).  Richardson did not even finish in the top 5 for rushing yards of all running backs for 2011.

So why did Richardson finish third in voting and Ball in fourth?  And why did Richardson win the 2011 Doak Walker award for best running back?  One reason:  SEC bias.  If you are the best running back in the best conference, you have to be the best running back in the country.  What a bunch of crap!  Monte Ball has had one of the greatest years as a running back and he gets invited to the Heisman at the last moment.  Richardson was pegged to be a Heisman candidate before the season even began, again showing the east coast's love affair with traditional power teams from east and southeastern conferences.

The media will say that Wisconsin's mammoth offensive line gave Monte Ball an unfair advantage, or that Russell Wilson (as quarterback) meant that defenses couldn't focus just on Ball.  What the hell?  Sounds like Wisconsin football should be rated higher than Alabama's if they have such "unfair" advantages.  This east coast bias will also point out that Wisconsin lost two games, which takes some of the luster off of Ball's accomplishments.  If that's the case, then why did Robert Griffin III win the Heisman award?  His team had a total of three losses this year.

Wisconsin is heading back to the Rose Bowl

My second complaint concerns the college bowl system.  When I checked last, there were 35 bowls this year.  Some of them are so obscure that I had to look twice to see if I read it right.

Take the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl (please) for example.  Or the Beef O' Brady's Bowl in St. Petersburg, Fl in which the Thundering Herd of Marshall takes on the mighty Panthers of Florida International University.  (Set the DVR for that one).

How's this for a brief rundown of the lesser known bowls --  San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl, MAACO Bowl, Sheraton Hawaii Bowl, AdvoCare V100 Independence Bowl, Belk Bowl, Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl, Franklin American Mortgage Mortgage Musci City Bowl, New Era Pinstripe Bowl and Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl.  And let's not forget to watch the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl and Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl.  I'm pretty knowledgeable about college football, and I've never heard of ANY of those.

Of the 35 bowls played between December 17th and January 9th, I have interest in maybe five.  This year's championship game, between Alabama and LSU isn't even intriguing because the two teams played a few weeks ago, with LSU winning 9-6.  Remember how boring that was?  Sports experts gushed over how outstanding the defense was in that game.  I'd like to think if you're going to gush about something, it should be offense.  Like the 42 - 39 win in the Big Ten Championship game.  Now that was exciting!

There should be a rule against two teams from the same conference playing each other in any bowl game.  Even the national championship game.  Bowls should be for match-ups of two teams that would never play each other during the regular season.  One of the reasons I will watch Oklahoma State and Stanford is to see the matchup between two contrasting teams -- the spread offense of OSU versuses the pro style of Andrew Luck and Coby Fleener.  For the most part, each team dominated their respective conferences which will lead to an interesting match-up.

The same with Oregon and Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.  A decided underdog, Wisconsin will have to find a way to stop the spread, slow down Oregon's quickness and score enough points to make it a close game.  Both bring exciting marquee players to the game, and the spotlight will be on them to perform.  If they do, it will be exciting to watch.

But let's be serious about the lesser bowls, and perhaps the biggest elephant in the college football game room -- lack of a playoff system.  The NCAA needs to find a way to scrap the bowl system for an equitable system that matches up the best teams (winners) of each conference.   That would include the ACC, PAC 12, BIG EAST, BIG TEN, SEC and BIG 12 battling it out, with the best two teams getting a bye the first week.  From there it's winner moves on until you get to the championship game.  It'll guarantee 1) more interest (fill the stadiums that are half empty), 2) more money (television deals in prime time) and 3) better results (there would be no disputing which team is better -- it's decided on the field).

Finally, college football -- contrary to what my friend thinks -- could be exciting and worth watching if teams scheduled tough games in the pre-season.  The poor quality of non-conference foes has made it difficult to watch some of these games.  Despite a Big Ten Conference title, an11-win season and a record-setting offense, the football team drew fewer than 80,000 fans for three of its seven home games.  And it happened twice each in 2009 and 2010.  Too many Woffords and Austin Peays in football have caused fans to be apathetic at games, avoid certain games, or even stop buying season tickets all together.  So while it may help Wisconsin win nine games a year, it isn't doing much to help my friend enjoy the sometimes-exciting game of college football.

It's time to change that.

Night Lights

For a photography class I took in November, we needed to take pictures at night.  Here are a few of the lights on the Mississippi River.

High Anxiety

I have a good friend who called me this weekend (twice) to talk about two big football games -- the Wisconsin/Michigan State BIG TEN championship game in Indianapolis, and the Giants/Packers game in New York.

 

In both instances, he had called to sound alarms about the condition of his heart and the sanity of his mind, as both games literally went down to the last minute of play.  "I had to get out of the house and go to the grocery store," he said, as a way to get away from the anxiety of the game.  Not surprising, I thought.  Paul is quick to switch channels in the second quarter if the game is not going well, only to tune in later to see if things have improved.  And he usually needs something in his hands during the game just for something to do.  Come on, I thought, it's just a game.  


Yeah, right.

Fortunately -- for him, and his blood pressure -- both the Badgers and Packers won.

Why is it that we get so worked up about something that's supposed to be entertaining, enjoyable and exciting?  I swear, the older I get the more difficult it is to watch sometimes.

To be fair, the better we are in football, the harder it is to enjoy.  In other words, our expectations are higher and the stakes are higher if we lose.  I won't even read the paper or watch sports highlights on ESPN until a week later if we lose.

Last winter, during the Packers incredible journey to the Super Bowl, we had a bunch of friends over for the game.  It was during the Chicago Bears game in Chicago, that things got too intense for one of them, who had to go upstairs and read the newspaper.  Anything to take her mind off the game -- the closer we got to winning the game, the more intense and worried she got.  For Peggy, it was the possibility of taking on the Pittsburgh Steelers for a chance to win the Super Bowl for the second time in 15 years.  Even if we were ahead by two touchdowns, I don't know if she'd feel any better.

I have another friend who can't bear to watch a game live.  So Tom will set the recorder, leave the house, and come back later.  If the Packers he'll rewind and watch it, knowing that we won't lose.  Somehow taking all the risk out of a game just doesn't seem like the right thing to do.  But in this case, it's probably the best thing he can do, because he get's so worked up that you don't know what he'll do.  They way I figure it, a walk through Hixon Forest is probably doing his family more good than harm.  It's just so funny to know that he'll do anything to avoid watching it live.

And then there's my brother-in-law, who lives in Chicago.  He gets so stressed out about the game that he can't even watch the game.   It doesn't matter who the Packers are playing, or even what the score is.  He's convinced that if he tunes in to the game that things will go badly.  I can usually expect a phone call after the game that goes something like this --

"So what happened?  When I checked last" -- he's already checked the score on the internet -- "the Packers were up by eight, 35 to 27 with 2 minutes left.  The next thing I know, we've won 38 to 35.  What the hell happened?"  That's actually a sanitized version (maybe his kids were in the room).

It's a lot of fun to call him when we're up by 21 points -- pleading with him to watch the game.  "What can happen?" I say.  "There's no way we can lose this game.  You should turn it on and enjoy it while you can."  But no way.  He's convinced that bad things are going to happen now that I've told him that we're going to win.  Sure enough, I'll hang up the phone and stare in disbelief as the Packers fumble the ball, the other team recovers and scores a touchdown.  On the ensuing kickoff, the other team will recover the ball and start moving again to score a second touchdown.  Maybe he DOES know something, I'll think before the Packers stop the drive and go on to win.

He's also quick to expect bad things will happen before the game is even played.  He'll find something to complain about (like our defense) and automatically assume that it will lead to our downfall.  He loves to assign blame to coaches, whom he routinely fires throughout the game.  "Bielema's the worst coach in the Big Ten -- they should fire his ass right now!"  I think his problem is that he lives in Chicago, where losing has become a way of life.  Now if he was up in Wisconsin....

The Piece' de Resistance' was when a business associate asked him to go to the Bears/Packers NFC Championship game last January.  I loved it!  Not only was he going to have to watch the Packers, but if they actually lost to the Bears, he'd have to endure all the crap that would be hurdled his way by Chicago's finest fans.  Luckily for him, the Packers knocked Jay Cutler out of the game and hung on to win a great conference championship game.

I must admit that even I have suffered from high anxiety while watching Wisconsin sports.  There was a Monday Night Football Viking / Packers game years ago that went down to the wire.  Back in those days, the Vikings were actually good, and they beat the Packers with a field goal in the closing seconds.  I was so stressed out that I went out at  eleven o'clock at night and started raking leaves.  I had so much energy flowing through my body that I couldn't contain it anymore.  I could have run 5 miles or shoveled my way through 12 inches of snow if it had been falling.

 

I mentioned earlier that the Wisconsin Badgers were playing in the inaugural  BIG TEN Championship game in Indianapolis for a chance to go to the Rose Bowl.  Well, as luck would have it, I wound up missing the game because of an event called the Senate Dance, which my wife and I had been invited to weeks before.  At the time, I had no idea that the Badgers would be playing, since they had yet to beat Illinois and Penn State.

At the start of the dance, and prior to the game, I had mentioned to everyone in our group that I didn't want to know anything about the game -- no scores or indications of who was winning.  Or losing...

While sitting at our table eating dinner, the couple next to me had checked the score of the game on their Blackberry.  Honoring my request, they didn't say a word, but the looks on their faces were driving me nuts.  Did those smiles on their faces mean we were winning?  I thought.

"Well, all I'll say," Kim said, "is that a Big Ten team is winning."


Good God!  How can she say that?  What does that mean? I stabbed my steak, cut off a piece of meat and shoved it into my mouth.  Later, I heard a group of doctors sitting at a table behind us checking on the same game, and moaning "Oh no!!"


THAT doesn't sound good!  I can't believe the Badgers can't beat Michigan State!  Not again!  This is driving me nuts, and depressing me,  I thought, trying to put the game out of my mind.  Grabbing my wife, we hit the dance floor and started to Rumba across the floor.  Within minutes my mind was off the game and concentrating on my struggles to do half moons and the Cuban shuffle.

Around 10:30 p.m., Liz and I decided to head home.  On the way, all I could think was the game is over.  I wonder who won?  It HAS to be the Badgers, there's just no way they aren't the better team.  Great quarterback, great running game and a great defense.  I had made sure the radio wasn't tuned into the game before the dance, so there was no way of knowing the score until I walked into the house.

Once we got home, I turned on the TV and discovered the game was STILL going -- with the Badgers leading 42 to 39.  With less than two minutes remaining, I watched in horror as the Badgers punted to the Spartans' Keshawn Martin, who promptly ran around, through and away from every Badger defender before leaping into the end zone for an apparent touchdown.  "Noooooooo!"  I yelled.  This can't be happening!  I just walked into the house and now I see this?  I can't believe it!  Eric is right.  The Badgers are the worst team ever!

Seconds later, with my heart beating madly in my chest, I listened to a voice (a referee) from the TV say, "Personal foul on Number 32.  Roughing the kicker.  Five yard penalty.  Wisconsin ball. Automatic first down!"  What?  Could this be happing?  Oh my God, we did it!  We are going to win the game!

And with that, the Badgers got the ball back and ran out the clock.  Piece of cake.  Nothing to worry about.  I knew it all along. 


Yeah, right.

Intelligence: Missing In Action

My last blog talked about a World Public Opinion poll showing those who watched FOX NEWS were misinformed.

Far be it from me -- even during the holiday season -- to miss an opportunity to show the other side of the argument.  Conservatives aren't the only ones that make mistakes.  Here is a sampling of stupid gaffes made by the smartest president ever, President Obama.  And in true fashion, the mainstream media didn't report most of them.  Surprised?

English Embassy.
President Obama recently said in response to Iran storming the British Embassy in Tehran -- "All of us, I think are deeply disturbed by the crashing of the English Embassy,"  Obama said.  Someone needs to tell the president that there isn't an English Embassy, it's called the British Embassy.  While they're at it, they may also let him know that England forms part of Great Britain which includes Wales and Scotland (and Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom).  There isn't an English Embassy anywhere in the world.

State of Confusion.
While campaigning for President in 2008, Obama said at a rally in Oregon "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States.  I've now been in 57 states.  I think I have one left to go."  Huh?  The last time I checked, there were 50 states, plus Washington D.C.  It didn't take long for Obama's staff to make the excuse that he was just tired from the constant campaigning.

What Year Is It?
Earlier this year, President Obama was on a trip to Westminster Abbey in London.  During his stop, he signed the guest book and dated it 24May2008.  The problem was that it was the year 2011.  No explanation was given to cover up this blooper.

Dead on Arrival.
During a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. on February 5, 2010 Obama said, "One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard." -- mispronouncing "Corpsman" (the "ps" is silent).  In addition, the name was Christopher, not Christian...

Discovers New Language.
During a 2009 speech in Strasbourg, France, President Obama said, "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate.  There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing."  Someone forgot to tell Obama that "Austrian," as a language, does not exist.  He should have said German.

Land of Confusion.
President Obama apparently forgot where he was during a press conference held on the outskirts of Honolulu, despite being born there.  While answering a question about budget cuts, he said, "When I meet with world leaders, what's striking -- whether it's in Europe or here in Asia -- the kinds of fundamental reforms and changes... that other countries are having to make are so much more significant that what we need to do."  When did Hawaii leave the United States?

And since I'm in the holiday mood, where would we be without Vice-President Joe Biden, who is often referred to as a gaffe machine.  Here are a couple of his quotes:

Biden-ism #1
During an interview with Katie Couric in 2008, Biden said, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.  he said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"  Apparently Joe was unaware that FDR wasn't president when the stock market crashed in 1929, and that only experimental TV sets were in use at the time.

Biden-ism #2
"Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya."  -- spoken by Biden to Missouri state Senator Chuck Graham, who is in a wheel chair.

Biden-ism #3
"His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so.  God rest her soul.  And --although, she's -- wait -- your mom's still alive?  Your dad passed.  God bless her soul!"  uttered by Biden in 2010 about the mother of Irish Minister Brian Cowen, who is very much alive.

Now I realize that I'm picking on guys who give a lot of speeches, but it proves my point that if you try hard enough, you're going to make mistakes or say something stupid.  And it wouldn't even bother me if it wasn't for the double standard the left uses when using examples from Bush via Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live!  It's the constant abuse by our media to make the conservative right look at stupid as possible.  And that applies to the elite left who think polls determine intelligence and knowledge.

Give it a break -- an education (as evidenced by Obama and Biden, to name a few) doesn't guarantee anything.  And calling someone stupid only makes you look worse when it applies to both sides of the aisle.

Dumb and Dumber

Liberals have been making a big deal about a study last year by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland called "Misinformation and the 2010 Election:  A Study of the U.S. Electorate."  In the study, consisting of 848 New Jersey voters, it was reported that watchers of FOX News were less informed on a number of election issues --  including stimulus, health reform law, climate change, income taxes and TARP.

The left hasn't been this elated since Chaz Bono completed gender reassignment surgery, which means they're having orgasms telling their friends and family on social websites.  Headlines scream:  "Watching FOX NEWS makes you stupid!"  Comments on Face book snicker:  "See I told you so. Sarah Palin really was an idiot and people's decision to vote against Barrack Obama was based on blatant lies and racism."

Rest assured, like all things in partisan politics, the left is only giving you the part that justifies their beliefs.

To start, the study was based on questions asked during an election year, when political ads fill the air waves like mosquitoes  drawn to the scent of blood.  If anyone can find the truth in these ads they deserve a week's vacation in Hawaii.   The possibility that  hot election issues like health care, taxes and the economy could be compromised isn't beyond believing.  Voters should know better than to believe most things coming out of mouths of politicians; perhaps it needs to apply to commentary news channels like FOX, MSNBC, CNN and NPR, as well.

After further review, the study didn't say viewers of FOX NEWS were dumb, just less informed than others.  In other words, the information coming from FOX NEWS was partial, incomplete or less comprehensive.  This suggests that the results are not based on a conservative tilt, as people who voted Democratic and watched FOX NEWS were also more likely to be misinformed.

The study also showed that viewers of MSNBC and CNN news fared only slightly better in many cases.  The second worse source was MSNBC, which was worse than FOX viewers on one of three questions and second worse on another.  Viewers of NPR, the love child of many an informed liberal, were deemed no better or worse than someone who watched no news at all.


World Public Opinion's interpretation of the answers is also interesting.  Take these three sample questions for example:

Will the health reform law increase the deficit?  The correct answer is no, based on President Obama's "assurance " that savings coming from the existing health care plan will offset the cost of the overhaul health bill.  Huh?  Just because the president says savings will offset costs, makes it true?  When was the last time any bill from Washington SAVED money?  Give me a break.

Is the economy getting worse?  Again, the correct answer is no, but since when is 9% unemployment, a looming deficit, increasing inflation and regulatory attacks on small business an indication of a growing economy?  And if you lost your job or know someone who did -- do you feel like things are getting better?

Is climate change occurring?  the study's answer is yes.  But who's to know if the changes occurring now didn't occur 10,000 years ago?  And the real question should be "Is man responsible for climate change?"  There is serious doubt about who's to blame, as recent emails continue to raise questions about global warming.

So this study may raise questions about what we are watching on FOX NEWS, but it doesn't prove anything about the intelligence of the people watching.  And while FOX NEWS does have some work to do, the rest of the mainstream media is not blameless.

So why is it that liberals think they're smarter than everyone else?  Or, why are they so quick to think conservatives are stupid?

Can you think of a recent Republican candidate who wasn't classified as some kind of bumbling fool?  Remember how President Reagan was just an actor, and President Bush couldn't put two coherent sentences together?  How about Sarah Pail, who was relentlessly attacked by the elite news media and comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, David Letterman and Comedy Central.

I can still see ABC's Charlie Gibson (looking over his reading spectacles) condescendingly asking Palin, "When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia.  Are those sufficient credentials?"  Did he ever ask Obama that question?  What were his qualifications?

Or how about CBS's Katie Couric, acting so nice, then stabbing her in the back by asking, "And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this -- to stay informed and to understand the world? ... which ones specifically.  I'm curious.  ... can you name any of them?"  I'm curious, Katie, did you drive CBS' broadcast ratings into the toilet all by yourself or did you have help? 


"Serious" news anchors like Gibson and Couric (both gone), and NBC's Williams and ABC's Sawyer must just pull their hair out when they see the ratings of FOX NEWS.  How is it possible for its viewership to increase, while the three major network news telecasts continue to shrink?  The only answer must be that the viewers are stupid.  A box of bricks.  A teabag short of a pot.  Bright as Alaska in winter.

For the left, the contrast between viewer's intelligence must be attributed to the following:

Broad-mindedness.   Liberals think conservatives are close minded, not open to new ideas and lifestyles, etc.  It's so bad that Dictionary.Com lists three definitions for "narrow-minded":  1) having or showing a prejudiced mind; biased, 2) not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind, and 3) extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.  It also features a list of synonyms, specifically "bigoted, partial, intolerant and illiberal."  No wonder conservatives are viewed as ignorant and stupid.

Ego.  Liberals control education -- many probably wish they were still in college.  This morning I listened to a guest on NPR who was talking about the need to tax the rich.  This guest was 1) liberal, 2) an educator and 3) an expert on economics.  To my way of thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to try talking to an actual business owner who has to find the means to pay his employees, provide health insurance and pay taxes?

This academic background, while making liberals educated, doesn't make them smart.  But it does boost their egos.  For axample, look at a potential match up of Newt Gingrich versus Barrack Obama.   West Georgia College teacher vs graduate of Columbia, Harvard Law, and editor of the Law Review Journal.  Which one would you expect to use a tele prompter for help?

Empathy.  Liberals think they are sympathetic and "in tune" to people in need.  That makes them smarter.  The political left looks to validate their "feelings"by appealing to the needs of those who can't take care of themselves without the intervention of big government.  "I'm smart, so I need to help those less fortunate.  For them, our ignorance -- represented by greed, hatred and bigotry-- is a by-product of conservatism because it isn't sympathetic to the problems of minorities, gays, immigrants and the poor.

Conservative certainty.   Many on the right have confidence in things like religion, family values and our military.  Liberals struggle with the concept of believing in God.  Faith without proof conforms to their idea that conservatives are blind to fact or science.  Liberals also have trouble with our positions on abortion, gays and marriage (certainty about life, love and commitment is further proof of our ignorance).  And fighting a necessary war requires honor, dedication and heroism -- foreign concepts to a liberal's gray (not black and white) thinking.

The left hates FOX NEWS because it is popular.  Number one in ratings for cable television, easily beating CNN, MSNBC and considered a rising threat to CBS, NBC and ABC.  Anything they can do to discredit the organization must be done.  The monopoly that these news organizations have had for the last forty years has come to an end.  They can't understand why FOX NEWS continues to succeed.

In conclusion, the left are an intolerant bunch --contrary to being open minded-- who fall back to calling people who disagree with them (especially if they watch FOX NEWS) stupid.

Conflicting Signals

By now, we are all familiar with the alleged sexual harassment charges against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.  If you're not, what planet have you been vacationing on?

In my last post, I made a point to not address the truthfulness of the various claims being brought forth.  I have never been, and never will defend someone who is found guilty of sexual harassment, much less sodomy, rape or other forms of sexual assault on another human being. 

But the Cain accusations has me wondering how a man and woman today are supposed to act around work and at home?  And what role has today's media and the feminist movement had in my state of confusion?

Before upsetting many of you, let me be specific about the nature of feminism.   As I see it, the women's "lib" movement has been centered on giving women equal rights -- be it at home, at work, in athletics, in school, or in the voting booth.  I'm all for treating people equally, regardless of sex (or race for that matter).  I was raised to help around the home, was eager to help raise my two sons, and didn't feel like it was my job to be the only one bringing home a paycheck.

I'm also fortunate to have a wife who expects me to be a man about certain things, whether it means cleaning out the gutters, killing the occasional bug or cleaning up after the dog.  But it also includes admiring how she looks, smells, dances and makes love .  For more than 25 years we've worked successfully on family, marriage and our jobs.

So I don't see myself as someone who has a problem with treating women equally.  Where it gets tricky is when the rules are changed to make women something radically different.  I'm speaking about behavior that falls into one of the following :

. affirmative action feminist
. equity feminist
. femicommie
. gender feminist
. lesbian
. liberal feminist
. PC feminist
. post-modernist feminist
. radical feminist
. socialist feminist
. victim feminist.

I confess that I have no idea what a gender feminist is, but it's safe to say that I want nothing to do with them.  It's also safe to say that much of the confusion men face today has something to do with the constantly changing rules that govern the relationship we have with women -- is she into political correctness, socialism, affirmative action or equality?  Can't we just be men and women?

It is especially difficult (and dangerous) around the workplace, given the sometimes harsh realities of hiring practices, differences in management styles, and gender stereotypes.  What risks are you taking by asking a co-worker out to lunch, or closing an office door to preserve privacy?  Will you get in trouble by staying late at the office with a female co-worker present?

We shouldn't have to worry about passing a good joke around the office without someone being offended.  Or discussing a scene from last night's Sex and the City or True Blood over lunch.  Or wonder if what we are wearing on a sales call is sending the wrong message.  And yet all the employment experts tell you "if in doubt, don't do it."

Are we supposed to keep to ourselves, show no personality, then doubt someone's accolades as unwanted harassment?  No wonder everyone is stressed at work.  If it's not job worries, it's questioning someone's ulterior motives.

Compounding the problem, and adding a huge dose of hypocrisy to the debate about how men and women relate, is how the media -- magazines, television, internet and songs -- portrays this relationship between men and women.  My son, who has started his first year of college, often comments on his apprehension to go to parties, dances and campus activities that involve alcohol, drugs and sex.  How much of his reluctance is borne out of confusion over what he sees on television or songs he listens to on his IPOD?   If I was in the market to start a new relationship, would I know how to act, what to say or expect?

Take television -- its motto should be have sex, behave badly and embrace alternative lifestyles.  One the most popular shows is Two and A Half Men with episodes like "Thanks for the Intercourse" and "Twanging Your Magic Clanger" and "Hookers, Hookers and Hookers."  There's the bilge known as reality TV with shows like Sixteen and Pregnant, The Bad Girls Club, Jersey Shore and Wife Swap.  Flip the channel to MTV, FX and A&E and you can be entertained all day and night by repeated bad behavior and sexual liaisons that has nothing to do with real world expectations at work or home.

Magazines have banned smoking ads since the early 1970's, but have no problem with something selling sex.  In fact, it's common knowledge that "sex sells."  Ads depict women as something to be acquired, typically through the allure of breasts, cleavage, legs, butts or midriffs.   Selling beer in Sports Illustrated?  Better have a couple of young girls in bikinis.  Open a page in Cosmopolitan or Glamour magazines and you'll find thin, young and happy women displaying their charms to some clueless, unshaven guy laying in bed.  And it goes beyond just giving out the wrong image of women, as many of the articles involve body image and relationships.  For example:  "Get the Body You Really Want," "How to Get Your Husband to Listen," "Stay Skinny" and "What Men Really Want."

These stereotypes are disturbing given how unrealistic they are.  Lying about sex and relationships perpetuates the idea the women are primarily there to satisfy men.  In a study of Cosmopolitan and Playboy magazines, studies have found the both men and women's magazines contain a single vision of female sexuality -- that women should primarily concern themselves with attracting and sexually satisfying men.

This misinformation is also harmful for two other reasons.  1) young people often turn to media for information about sex and sexuality.  In 2003, a study reported that two-thirds of young people turn to media when they want to learn about sex -- the same percentage of kids who ask their mother for information and advice.  And 2) romance can often have a darker side.  An ad for Fetish perfume implies that women don't really mean 'no' when they say it, that women are only teasing when they resist men's advances.  The ad copy reads, "Apply generously to your neck so he can smell the scent as you shake your head 'no'."  Does this vulnerability contribute to being a potential victim of violence or sexual harassment as displayed in today's news?  Of course it does.

So while the alleged behavior of politicians and athletes/coaches today raises disturbing images (some real), I'm led to ask the proverbial question of which came first -- the chicken or the egg?  A look at today's feminist agenda and media's misrepresentation of expected sexual relations doesn't provide an answer.

Attack on Cain Shows Media's True Color

In political tomes, the first week of November 2011 will be remembered for the allegations against GOP front runner, Herman Cain.

As leaked by Politico, Cain is accused of the sexual harassment of three women while he was head of the National Restaurant Association during the 1990s.  I'm not going to debate the truth of these allegations, because there's not enough factual information available to determine who's telling the truth and who's not.  Rather, I'd like to present a history of the mainstream media's behavior to these types of attacks, at a time when Cain -- who is black and conservative -- is leading the GOP field for president.

Is Cain being treated in a similar manner as Democrats -- including President Clinton and presidential candidate John Edwards (to name just two) -- who were also accused of sexual allegations over the past decade?  And what, if any, does Cain's color and strong, conservative leanings have to do with the national media's attack?

Herman Cain.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Over a period of just three and one-half days, national news organizations ABC, NBC and CBS reported an incredible 50 stories on the allegations against Cain.  Politico, the web site that broke the story, has published 90 stories in five days.  The fevered pitch, despite the unsubstantiated and anonymous nature of the allegations and the women surrounding them, can be summarized by the following reports:

ABC's Brian Ross, on Good Morning America, described Cain's time as head of the National Restaurant Association without offering any facts, by saying,  "It fits with the kind of culture we were told that existed there, with young women who had been, sort of, lobbyists for the restaurant association, working with various states.  They were the new ones, the young ones.  And they say that's where Cain often socialized."

GMA's George Stephanopoulos gleefully stated the latest,  "Another woman.  Herman Cain facing new allegations that he was aggressive and inappropriate to a third employee, inviting her back to his corporate apartment.  Is the pressure finally getting to the front-runner?"

And finally on Today, Lisa Myers, adding to her own chaos, declared the story "a feeding frenzy."  She trumpeted, "Herman Cain, this story is quickly going from bad to worse."


Compounding the Cain problem are the payments that were allegedly made to these women.  As part of the settlements made back in the 1990s, no one can talk about what really happened, including Cain himself.  Never one to let facts get in the way of biased reporting, the media and political talking heads on cable are quick to attack Cain's "no comment" responses when in fact there is little he can legally say.

Legal experts always say that it's cheaper to settle in court than to fight false accusations for years just to prove your innocence.  Sad, but true.

Finally, the allegations are for something nobody can agree on, but certainly not rape or lying under oath.  Not that I condone sexual harassment of any kind, but the media is treating this like Cain raped and murdered his accusers.  As the editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, said "I think he's got it coming to him, don't you think?  Got WHAT coming to him, Mr. Bradlee?  Would you be referring to your politically-motivated, high tech lynching?  In Washington, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Unless you're a Democrat.

Bill Clinton.

Can you feel his pain?

We all know the facts about Bill Clinton.  But do you remember who it was that broke the story and when?

First the facts:   Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, allegedly would look for women, using state troopers as his procurers.  As President of the United States, Clinton engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.  He went to court and lied about it under oath and was impeached.  Other sexual accusations followed Clinton, including one that he raped Juanita Broaddrick.  Or that he sexually abused Paula Jones.

But you wouldn't know it based on the way the media treated any of those facts.  After burying the story of Clinton's sexual abuse of Paula Jones and his affair with Lewinsky for months, Newsweek finally published its findings after The Drudge Report leaked their cover-up.  Had it not been for this conservative, internet gossip site, who knows how long (if at all) it would have taken to attach Clinton's despicable behavior to Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky.

Equally important, was the media's reaction once the story broke.  Instead of questioning and attacking President Clinton for inappropriate behavior, the mainstream media instead attacked his accusers, reminding us that Clinton's poor judgement shouldn't overshadow his good deeds.

For example, Susan Estrich in Slate Magazine had this to say, "Are we (the liberal press) inconsistent in supporting Anita Hill and not Paula Jones?  Consistent with what?  With the goal of protecting women from sexual abuse?  I think that goal is served by supporting Bill Clinton.  I think that it is important for us, feminists in particular, to acknowledge that taking sexual harassment seriously doesn't mean that every time a woman complains, the man should be damned."

She continues, "Here's my bottom line.  I don't want a sex police in this country, and I certainly don't want to be a member of it.  I'll take care of my like, and let others take care of theirs.  There's plenty of very serious abuse out there, if the press is interested.  I'll give you a dozen people with worse stories to tell than Paula's, who don't have ideologues eager to help them."


I'm willing to bet that more people remember the attacks on Paula Jones, than her allegations against Clinton.  I vividly remember Clinton adviser, James Carville discrediting her by saying you never know what you will find "when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park."?  I seem to remember Saturday Night Live! doing a skit on Jones -- and it didn't make her look very good, either.

I wonder how long we will have to wait before the media discredit Cain's accusers?  I, for one, am not holding my breath.

John Edwards.

What were you thinking?

In 2006, John Edwards, a one time presidential candidate, had a romantic relationship with a former campaign worker, Rielle Hunter.  However, he refused to admit to it, claiming that there was nothing to the rumors -- including that he had fathered a child with Ms Hunter, even though he was married at the time.

The fact that Edwards was having a relationship with Ms Hunter -- while married to his wife of many years --was not the whole story.  The bigger story was that ABC, NBC and CBS refused to report on the story for more than 9 months.  Why?   Because Edwards was denying it.   The scandal was even covered by foreign newspapers and lampooned by Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien long before network news ever mentioned it.  Their excuses were as follows:

. the National Enquirer was tabloid trash, certainly not a reputable newspaper

. the national newspapers were afraid to step up on the story because, "Sex may sell, but it can really hurt your relationship with readers."  This according to David Carr, a columnist for the New York Times.

. they were waiting for verifiable proof.  ABC correspondent Kate Snow had this to say, "We at ABC were working on this story, and if we had had any proof and any verifiable facts, we certainly would have gone with the story.  It was just a matter of, we're not going to put something on the air until we know that it's true."

. most major news networks took the stance that the rumors of an affair were just not newsworthy.

Can you believe it?  These are the most laughable excuses I've ever heard, especially in light of how they are currently treating Herman Cain.  Without question, the media was trying to protect one of their own.  And not only one of their own, but truly one of the darlings of the Democrat Party -- young, good looking, and a liberal in his approach to helping the poor, minorities and women.  They saw so much potential in Edwards and refused to admit that their prized pupil was just another sleazy politician caught with his pants down.

There are many other Democrats who have received favorable treatment by the mainstream media, including Anthony Weiner, Barney Frank, Daniel Inouye, Gary Hart and of course, Teddy Kennedy.  Politicians have been having -- and getting caught -- in sexual affairs for as long as there have been politicians.  Both Republicans and Democrats.  The difference I am trying to make is that the media treats those affairs tied to Republicans in a much different way than those connected to Democrats.  Cain's treatment by the national media is a prime example.

Why?  A simple answer is that they want their candidates to succeed, and Republican candidates to fail.  A more troubling answer lies in the threat Republican politicians like Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas present to their liberal ideologies and public manipulations.  Conservative blacks cannot be allowed to break the DAILY IMAGE being telecast and reported in newspapers.

For if black conservatives are able to defeat the media's misrepresentations, than how many other media mistruths will fall next?

On Being a Democrat: Donkey Hypocrisy

The Democratic Party, has for many years, touted itself as the party of tolerance and open-mindedness.  Look up democratic ideals in some Democrat Party manifesto and you find words like compassionate, progressive and fair.  Based on what I've seen over my lifetime, I'd have to add another word --  hypocritical.

Actually, if I could chose a few more word to describe a democrat, I'd include: parasitic, elitist and destructive.

I don't know if it's the delusional Occupy Wall Street crowd that has me riled up, but I just can't take anything the donkey party says anymore as being truthful. President Obama wants to tax the rich and then takes millions from Wall Street donors, Senator Reed lies about private sector job growth and the media doesn't challenge his assertions, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson gets on the air to talk about black economic injustice, then retires to a thirty-seven thousand square foot mansion worth $15 million.

So it's time we look at these hypocrites for what they really are, social engineers who manipulate our taxes, religion, race and the environment to shape a world of their dreams, while ignoring their own reality.

Courtesy of www.sodahead.com

Taxes.
Always a hot issue, but because of Obama's feverish attack on the rich, it's especially interesting to study the actions (reality) of democrats when it comes to paying higher taxes.  Recently some big time Democrats were saying that "paying taxes is patriotic" or "what you do to be an American."  In donkey speak that means poor children are starving to death and schools are going broke because the rich aren't paying their fair share.

Meanwhile, then-Senator Tom Daschle failed to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes, Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner also failed to pay taxes he owed, Senator John Kerry tried to avoid taxes on his million dollar yacht by building it in a low-tax state, and Representative Chuck Rangel  (the chairman of the House Ways & Means committee which spends our tax dollars!) was convicted for dodging taxes.  Not surprising, all of them said they had forgotten to pay their taxes until it became public knowledge.  And instead of being in jail like normal tax cheats, they continue to represent their constituents in Congress and the Obama Administration.

Outside of Washington D.C., super rich Democrats like rap producer Russell Simmons, rapper Kayne West and Hollywood millionaires like Bette Midler and Alec Baldwin called for fairness, saying that they would be happy to pay more in taxes.  That is, until someone asks them to send a check to Washington if they want to pay more.  At which point , these boneheads immediately pucker-up and say, "I WON'T SEND THEM A CHECK, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY MONEY TO GO THE THE BIG WAR MACHINE AND OTHER THINGS."  Uh, sorry, guys but you don't get to say where you're money goes and what it gets spent on.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be great if we could decide that our tax money wasn't going to pay for abortions, transgender sex operations and expensive oversea trips by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her entourage?

Hypocrites!

Religion.
Nothing separates dream from reality like the tolerance Democrats plead for when it comes to arts, literature, sexual preferences ... and religion.  You can't throw a brick in Wisconsin without hitting someone who will remind you about separation of church and state, before handing out a democrat registration card.   It's alright to put a crucifix in a glass of urine and call it art, but don't try to include a silent prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.  Every year there are lawsuits filed by atheist groups who say religious monuments can't be left on public land because it violates separation of church and state.

Why are liberals so afraid of religion?  And in particular, why do people who claim to be SO tolerant of things suddenly find it offensive to pray to God?  I'm still in amazement at the list of complaints filed in La Crosse court by members of a local food coop who wanted a monument of the ten commandments moved from a nearby public park.  "Even though I don't look at it, I still get ill thinking about that monument every time I ride my bike by the park," one atheist claimed.  Another moaned, "I can't sleep at night because of that monument.  I'm getting ill."

Is it because liberals refuse to acknowledge right and wrong, or a higher power that condemns their lies and misrepresentations?  I work with someone who said to me once that she was so appreciative of the things a pastor said for her mother's funeral.  I think it's one of the few times she had ever been in church, and it's probably the last time she's been there since.  So with her, religion is a necessity (and something beautiful) when someone dies, but every other day it's just another impediment to her way of life.

About the only time these hypocrites are comfortable with religion is when someone will say "But if Jesus was alive today, he would..."  As an example, I read recently that someone at CNN said that Jesus would be down at Occupy Wall Street because he was always on the side of the poor and disadvantaged.  It may be that Jesus often helped the disabled, needy and simple, but I doubt very much that he would appreciate the sinful lives many of these protesters lead.  In a Democrat's view, Jesus isn't someone to worship -- just someone to use as a roadblock to Republican efforts to promote self reliance.

More hypocrisy!

Cain -- not black enough?

Race.
The election of President Obama should have opened the door to better race relations between Democrats and Republicans, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.  Every time someone is critical of Obama, Democrats bring out the RACE card.  Ignore the failed policies, debt and socialist agenda -- people are just racists, who can't get past Obama's skin color.

I've said it many times before, but the only party that seems obsessed with skin color is the Democrat Party.  That applies to Hispanics, African-American or Muslims.  Some of the most over the top racial comments come from Democrats who are critical of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Juan Williams, Bill Cosby and most recently presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Liberal Harry Belafonte recently criticized Cain's comments about how racism isn't holding black people back:  Belafonte said, "It's very hard to comment on someone who is so denied intelligence.  Someone who has denied such a view of history."   This jackass continued, "Because he happened to have good fortune hit him, he had a moment where he broke through... does not make him the authority of the plight of people with color."

"The Republican party, the Tea Party, all those forces to the extreme right have consistently tried to come up with representations of what they call black, what they call the real Negroes," he said, citing Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell.  "Herman Cain is just the latest incarnation of what is totally false to the needs of our nation.  I think he's a bad apple, and people should look at his hole card, he's not what he says he is."

So a black Republican telling black minorities to pull themselves up and make something of their lives IS NOT what this county needs, huh?  I guess they would prefer to keep them dependent on government handouts and failed minority programs.  Democrats don't believe minority Hispanics and blacks are capable of taking care of themselves (think housing, education and marriage).  Therefore, someone with a positive message must be an impostor.

There is something seriously wrong with Democrats like Harry Belafonte.  And it isn't his skin color.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines hypocrisy as the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.  I can't think of better examples than the actions of Obama, 1/2 of Congress and most of Hollywood.  Democrats, every one.

Occupy Protesters Need a Clue

As I listen to the crowds that are part of Occupy Wall Street, an image comes to mind:   a clip from NFL Films where the legendary Green Bay Packers football coach Vince Lombardi stands on the sidelines shouting, "WHAT THE HELL'S GOIN' ON OUT THERE?"

Who's to blame?

After watching some of the most drug-induced, Woodstock-inspired videos and news reports,  I'm convinced that Occupy (fill in the blank) protesters are clueless to why they are there, much less what makes the working world work.  Statistics indicate that these protesters are mostly under the age of 29.  College drop outs, unemployed youth and students made up the majority of the first Occupy Wall Street sit downs, but it has since been co-oped by labor unions, 1960's Vietnam era protest organizers and celebrity millionaire activists who want to "get down with the people."  Democrats by a wide margin.  Government-dependent, spoiled, and easily controlled through socialist and fascist mind speak.  The Communist Party USA, millionaire film maker Michael Moore, the American Nazi Party, billionaire George Soros and Acorn have put their stamp of approval on these protests.  Of course, the mainstream media are doing their best to make these camp-outs a legitimate news story, unlike the treatment they gave last year's tea party protests.

It's hard to take these people seriously, but someone has to do it:  so what is really behind these protests?  

It seems to me that all of this came to a head after President Obama vilified the rich (1%) by saying that they were not paying their fair share.  Sounds like another attempt to take from someone who has something and give to someone else who doesn't -- be it a job, good benefits, an education, a home or a paycheck.

For those who know President Obama's background, this is part of his plan, advocating a classless society through the removal of economic differences.  As he says in his book, Dreams From My Father:  A Story of Race and Inheritance -- "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we.. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now... "

University-educated youth have been taught this same drivel by liberal professors and are now acting upon it.  Making matters worse,  these students are graduating from college with no job prospects and big debts, leading to cries of unfairness and economic injustice.  With no concept of how money is earned -- and the amount of hard work needed -- they are asking for their fair share.

The age-old concept of fairness has been a staple of democratic politics forever.  As long as it doesn't apply to them, Democrats love to be seen fighting for the poor, the minority and the helpless.  Obama's JOBS bus tour continues to stir this pot, even to the extent that he recently gave the protesters a shout out at a recent campaign stop.

Responding to President Obama's lead, and feeling unfairly treated by banks, schools and the rest of corporate America, the Occupy Wall Street crowd is doing what it does best:  pitch a tent and wait for a hand out.  "Stop corporate greed!  Stop zombie banks, make financiers pay for the depression!" shouts a young woman in lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park, site of the New York city protests.  Someone next to her holds a sign that reads:  "Democracy, not corporacracy."

Let's look at some of their more "rational" (I know they're hard to find) complaints and put them to the test:

The Wall Street bailout. 
It's interesting that the Occupy crowd has chosen to take their fight to Wall Street rather than the White House.  It was Congress who drafted and passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 that provided $700 billion to failing banks that contributed to the recession and cost an estimated $4,635 per working American.  Despite objections by over 100 cities throughout the United States and by a large margin of Americans, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate voted in favor of bailing out private banking companies with taxpayer's money.  And much to my disappointment, President Bush passed it into law.

I don't mean to pass all of the blame away from Wall Street, because they deserve plenty of it for selling these risky mortgages as safe investments.  But they dug themselves a deep hole by ceding to the demands of Washington to include lower lending standards for minorities.  In addition, it was Washington that proposed the eventual take over of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both central to the sub prime mortgage crisis.

Protesters are also conveniently forgetting that President Obama took more money from Wall Street fat cats than any other candidate in our last presidential election.  More than $15 million in contributions to his 2008 election from Wall Street paved the way to friendly bailouts and financial reforms.

Share and share alike.

Student loans amnesty.
Where to get started on this one?  I think one of the funniest videos I've seen from this Occupy Wall Street crowd was one from a student holding up a sign that said "Pay for my tuition!"  He started the video interview by saying that he was there to fight economic injustice, but when asked about his sign, he said that he really thought government should pay for his education.  When asked why, he could only say, "I don't know, it's what I want."  What he wants?  Why not pay for his apartment and car while you're at it?  When pressed by the interviewer, he concluded by saying, "Hey, I can ask for anything I want, so I'm asking for a free education.  Why not?"

Um, maybe because SOMEONE has to pay for it (chances are, his parents are paying for it anyway).

About the only legitimate argument being made on tuition is a 1% Wall Street tax on all financial transactions (including stocks, bonds and derivatives) that would help pay off these student loans.  Legitimate, but not realistic.  This typical socialist thinking is found in comments like this one from a student who told Reuters Television, "I am going to start my life as an adult in debt and that's not fair.  Millions of teenagers across the country are going to start their futures in debt, while all of these corporations are getting money fed all the time and none of us can get any."  Ergo, tax the corporations that are making money and use it to educate the youth of this country.

What are we teaching these people in school?  Obviously not economics.

Jobs, jobs and more jobs.
A final argument coming from Occupy Wall Street is one complaining about jobs.  And I'm not talking about Steve Jobs, who was as CEO of Apple was as big of a capitalist as there ever was (God rest his soul).  There are people in Zuccotti Park who think our financial system is gutting standards, living wages, and jobs in the interest of earning a buck.

Criticism of something called "neoliberalism" is a staple of Occupy Wall Street protests.  A organizer of Occupy Wall Street had this to say:  "Neoliberalism is everywhere, robbing us of decent labor standards, social contracts, living wages and jobs.  It is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."  I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I think he was saying that we have a system in America that allows the 1% to enrich themselves by impoverishing humanity.  By sacrificing jobs, our standard of living and destroying the environment.

A more realistic focus should be on Washington where Obama and Congress have stifled economic growth -- AND JOBS -- by creating harmful regulations that are making the business of making business impossible.  That's not to say that I am in favor of letting Wall Street and other business owners write their own rules (as President Obama would have you believe).  

For example, I read that a chain of restaurants is leaving California because it takes almost two years to open a new restaurant due to lengthy and restrictive regulations.  In the state of Florida, it only takes six months to start a new business.  Guess where the new jobs and construction are going?

And earlier this month, Elizabeth Milito, senior executive counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) had this to say, "America's small businesses, the backbone of our economy, are facing a huge challenge when it comes to understanding and complying with labor law.  Small business owners are left to contend with an increasingly punitive landscape of overlapping and sometimes conflicting regulations that even a labor lawyer would have trouble interpreting.  The result is a chilling effect on small business growth and hiring."  If we as a country are serious about creating jobs and boosting our economy, it is time for these Wall Street protesters -- and voters -- to start complaining to Washington about these harmful federal regulations.

These protesters need to put away their Guy Fawkes masks and get a clue about what this nation needs.  That means take a shower, get some decent clothes, get off the streets and get Obama out of Washington.

The Agony of da Feet

The weather is perfect for running -- low 50's, dry and no wind.  To warm up, Sean, Hanning and I run the short distance in Riverside Park from the Eagle to the Big Indian and back.   As I slow to a walk, my watch reads 6:45 a.m.  In half an hour I will be running the Maple Leaf  Five Mile race for the second time.  My primary goal, as always, is to finish without embarrassing myself.  My secondary goal is to run it faster than 47 minutes and 56 seconds.  That is my time from last year's race.  I tell myself that the last few months of practice will allow me to meet both goals, but self doubts won't let me relax.


My blogs occasionally endeavor to chronicle my attempts at running -- nothing major, just a 5K and most recently a 5 mile race during La Crosse's Oktoberfest.  At my age, now 52, my body doesn't always respond to what my experienced mind tells it to do.   My wife would probably tell you I don't respond to her comments either, but that's another story.

 

In basketball, I've suffered enough sprained ankles, broken noses and dislocated fingers to know better.  But I still drive the lane hoping to finger roll the ball into the basket, still box out a bigger player attempting to rebound a loose ball, or still set a rib-bruising pick to give a teammate an open shot.  Despite the pain, I still go back with the dream of making the winning shot and bragging rights for another day.

In running, I'm still learning the sport and its effect on my body.  To date, and through three races this year, I know this much:   it all starts with my feet.

Without good feet and proper footwear you won't enjoy running enough to stick with it.  I find it disconcerting that each foot has 26 bones, 33 joints, 107 ligaments, 19 muscles and 19 tendons.  Of the 26 bones, seven are in the ankle.  That has the potential for a lot of things to go bad when you think about it.


I decide that for this race I would listen to music.  Something that rocked -- like "Everybody Wants Some" by Van Halen, "Like a Stone" by Audioslave or "Banshee" by the Young Dubliners.  I have put together my Maple Leaf playlist and am determined to run harder than last year, using the tunes on my Ipod to keep my feet and body moving.

As the race begins, I give Sean and Hanning (his college roommate from China) high fives, and take off.  Having warmed up before, my legs feel better, my ankles loose and my feet light as I round the first turn and head up toward the causeway.  The runners are packed together, so I decide to sprint around a number of slower runners by staying to the right where I can see an clear path.

The route being taken is the same one that is used by the Maple Leaf Parade, arriving some 4 hours later.  Chairs, tarps and sleepy bodies occupy much the route, some of them having been there for more than 24 hours.  The smell of Oktoberfest hangs in the air like a long pass from Aaron Rogers to Greg Jennings.  Smoke from charcoal grills and the aroma of black coffee find my nose as I run toward the one mile marker.


Fortunately for me, my feet have been able to weather the daily beating they get when running, walking or dancing.  Which, given my feet and their high arches, is something of a miracle.  I've had occasional trouble with my knees and ankles, but never my feet.

I was reading an article the other day that discussed a new trend in running called barefoot running.  Actually it isn't new, since humans would walk and run without shoes long before shoes were invented and worn on the foot.  And in many poorer countries barefoot running is still common.  The concept of running barefoot looks at how the lateral edge of the forefoot strikes the ground.  Running in padded shoes typically alters this pattern, leading to repetitive stress injuries.

 

An alternative to running with no shoes is barefoot-inspired footwear like Vibram Five Fingers -- shoes which use minimal padding and separate the toes to give the appearance and sensations of running without shoes.  This new style of shoe, while not all that common at the Maple Leaf Race, did appear on a few runners that were participating in the half marathon.

Along with a man wearing a dress.


The song that plays in my ear buds is "Surfing With the Aliens" by Joe Satriani.  It is an image that hits home as I pass the half-way mark of the race and head back across the Black River bridge.  As I pass approaching runners on my left, I start looking for familiar faces.  Is my son behind me, or has he passed me by like the rest?  Where is Hilby, who I play basketball with?  I hadn't seen him pass me either, but with over 850 runners in the race, it wouldn't be hard.  

The stark looks I get from those on the sidelines make me wonder:  why am I here?  There are a lot of runners today, and I am finding myself getting passed by almost all of them.  Not that I'd ever think of myself as a good runner.  But getting passed by an overweight white guy wearing a knee brace is rubbing me the wrong way.

I decide not to stop and catch my breath, instead I push myself along the third and fourth miles of the race.  There's a bridge that spans the railroad tracks near Monitor Street that sucks the life out of you just as you're wearing down from 30 minutes of running.  Sweat continues to run into my eyes as I crest the bridge and start down the other side.  The drumming of my heart is loud, despite the music in my ears.  Even with the cool temperatures, my shirt is soaked with sweat and a side ache is starting to cause me some trouble.


Another aspect of running that must be dealt with is pain.  I think all exercise comes with some discomfort, depending on how hard you push it.  Sometimes the pain comes during the exercise -- other times it comes after you're done.  When I train in the morning, I can usually expect my feet and ankles to hurt the first twenty minutes.  I suppose that comes from basketball.  Stop.  Go.  Jump.  And go again. Stop, and run the other way.  The constant change of directions has taken its toll on those 204 bones, tendons, ligaments and muscles.  With  running, it's always one direction and -- depending on the traffic -- non-stop.

So by the time the sun is lighting up the sky, I'm beginning to feel loose enough to enjoy the morning's jog to it's ultimate finish.  The pain is forgotten and the joy of having accomplished a morning of practice fills me with hope for another day of work and family.  It's not until the following morning as I get out of bed that my ankles and feet feel the pain from the other day's run.

For me, physical pain and mental boredom is the challenge that comes with running.  I've mentioned the obstacles that keep many people from running a race like a 5K or 5 mile.  Like all challenges in life, however, you have to overcome pain to achieve things you never thought you could.  With me, it's running.  I'll never be very good at it, but I'll give it my best every time I try.


Eight minutes later I spot my wife and two friends who have decided to walk the 5K portion of the race.   I slice through the spot between my wife and Paul and curve back to the right.  As I start the race's last mile, I am determined not to let all my training during those dark and cold mornings go to waste.  I'll be damned if I am going to let my sore feet, tired legs and aching side slow me down.  Gasping for breathe, I push on.

Suddenly from out of nowhere, my son pulls up next to me and smiles.  I could be mistaken, but he doesn't look tired AT ALL, and all the sweat in the Carlson family seems to be on my body, not his.  It's almost like he's on coasters as he effortlessly runs past the Oktoberfest southside grounds. 

As we arrive together at the final turn of the race, I can see the finish line full of cheering faces, waiving arms and an occasional camera. Sean stretches his gait and pulls ahead of me, easily finishing his first Oktoberfest race.  Eight seconds later, I join him smiling from ear to ear.

I can't explain the reason why some people run.  But for me, it's overcoming another year on the calendar.  Nothing is as easy as it used to be, but running the Oktoberfest and Festival race in the spring are two more way to turn back time and reveal a new me.

Mission accomplished, and a new goal for next year:  45 minutes or better.