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.

It's Good to be a Cheesehead

Wisconsin is known for a lot of great things, including cheese curds, Friday night fish fry, and Miller beer.  Based on the past few years, it should also be known as a state with great sports teams.  I'm talking about the Badgers in football and basketball, Packers in pro football and -- new to the list -- the Milwaukee Brewers in baseball.

2011 began with the Wisconsin Badgers going to the Rose Bowl to play TCU.  While we didn't win the game, (lost19-21) I still love celebrating New Year's Day with Bucky in Pasadena, CA.  After winning a share of the Big Ten conference title and hitting 70 points or more three times during the year, the Badgers are primed to win the conference again with an outstanding offense featuring Russell Wilson, Monte Ball and Nick Toon.  In addition to big games against Ohio State and Minnesota, the Badgers will play Nebraska this weekend in their first conference match up since the Cornhuskers joined the Big Ten Conference this year.  It's bound to be our biggest game of the year, and hopefully sets us up for an undefeated season and a possible National Championship

 

Apparently ESPN's Game Day feels the same way, since it is the featured game of the weekend.  The last time the "World Wide Leader in Sports"  came to Madison, our under-appreciated team beat number 1 ranked Ohio State, 31-18.  I'm hoping for the same result from the Badgers, which currently lead the Big Ten in scoring offense (48.5 points per game) and scoring defense (8.5 points per game).  I realize it's only the non conference schedule, but regardless, that IS impressive.  And everyone else in the conference is playing similar opponents.  What it shows is that the Badgers are taking care of business and showing the rest of the country how good they can be.

I'm excited for the Badgers this year, and the years to come as recruiting is getting better and the Wilson-effect (at quarterback) is changing us from a team that runs the ball to one that can throw the ball, as well.

There's not much room for improvement when it comes to the Packers, who won it all last year with a victory in the Super Bowl, defeating Pittsburgh, Chicago, Atlanta and Philadelphia along the way.

This year, they are out to a 3-0 start, behind excellent play of Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Jermichael Finley, Clay Matthews and Charles Woodson.  Currently leading the NFC North Division with the Detroit Lions, the Packers are trying to become the latest NFL team to win back-to-back Super Bowl titles.  It's a difficult challenge, but it shows how far we've come.  No longer are we satisfied with winning more than just our division.  Now we're disappointed if we don't get back to -- and win -- the Super Bowl.

This team is fun to watch with their explosive offense and no huddle attack, which reminds me of the St Louis Rams when they were know as the Greatest Show on Earth.  And our defense, which is led by defensive coordinator Dom Capers, seems to be flying all over the field.  Sometimes it's an all out blitz, other times they will fall back into a zone.  Either way, the opposing teams are left wondering where we will be attacking from next.  And we have the personnel to get better, as draft after draft brings in younger and better players.

Who are the Packers going to have to worry the most about?  I would say the Detroit Lions in our division and probably New Orleans in the conference.  We've already beat them once, but it was by the slimmest of margins, when the Packers stopped them on the one yard line with no time remaining.  What an awesome game!  As for who we will play in the Super Bowl.... well, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.  The NFL is as tough as ever, and there's a reason why so few teams make it much less repeat back-to-back.

What can you say about the Milwaukee Brewers?  Few gave us a chance to win 90 games this year, much less win the NL Central Division over St Louis and Cincinnati.  Despite having a tough time with the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays during league interplay, the Brewers currently hold a 94-66 record which includes a 55-24 record at home.  This is the best home-away record in the majors, and a big reason why the Brewers are hoping to finish ahead of the Arizona Diamondbacks, who are likely to be their first round playoff opponent.

 

So how did the Brewers, who finished last year with a losing record, turn things around this year?  Primarily with better pitching, in particular pitching from their top three -- Yovanni Galardo, Zack Greinke, and Shaun Marcum -- and an excellent closer in John "Axe Man" Axford, who finished with 46 saves in 48 attempts.  The Brewers have also gotten All Star performances from Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder who have hit 78 homers, 230 RBIs and somewhere around a composite .300 average.  The combination has been one of the best in baseball for the past two years, and has been great to see, with both drafted by the Brewers and coming up through their minor league farm system.   It's easy to say that they have turned into a modern day version of Robin Yount and Paul Molitor, who won so many games as part of Bambi's Bombers in the early 1980's.

Now if they can just get us to the World Series.  Which will mean beating Arizona and probably the Philadelphia Phillies, who have owned the Brewers in 2011.  Either way, it has been a fabulous year.  I remember taking my son and wife to a game this year against the Chicago Cubs during a stretch when the Brewers won something like 23 out of 28 games.  Miller Park is fun no matter what, but it was especially rewarding to see the Brewers take down one of their most hated rivals.  This has been a magical year, one that may be hard to duplicate next year without Fielder in the line-up.

As I have sung so many times at a Badger event, the song "On Wisconsin!" remains the same.   And while it was written for the college game, it still applies in spirit to the Packers and Brewers this year, as well.

On Wisconsin!  On Wisconsin!
Plunge right through that line!
Run the ball clear 'round Chicago
A touchdown sure this time.
On Wisconsin!  On Wisconsin!
Fight on for her fame
Fight!  Fellows! - fight, fight, fight!
We'll win this game.

On Wisconsin!  On Wisconsin!
Stand up, Badgers, sing!
"Forward" is our driving spirit,
Loyal voices ring.
On Wisconsin!  On Wisconsin!
Raise her glowing flame
Stand, fellows, let us now
Salute her name.

At the Super Bowl last year, Greg Jennings said "It's a great day to be great!"  For me -- now in my fifth decade as a sports fan -- it's a good time to be from Wisconsin where the Packers, Brewers and Badgers are on their way to being great.

Good Movies and Music, But Bad Politics 1.2

Last June, I wrote a blog called "Good Movies and Music, But Bad Politics," which chronicled the stupid things musicians and movie stars say when it comes to politics.  Well, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to add two more stars to the list.

Unfortunately, they are two of my favorites:  actor Morgan Freeman and singer Tony Bennett.  Let's take a look at Morgan Freeman, who was on CNN tonight talking to Piers Morgan about President Obama.

Piers Morgan -- "Has Obama helped the process of eradicating racism, or has he... made it worse?"
Morgan Freeman -- "Made it worse.  Look at, look, the Tea Partiers, who are controlling the Republican Party, stated (that their policy) is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term.  What's what does that, what underlines that?  Screw the country.  We're going to do whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we're going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here."
Morgan -- "But its that necessarily a racist thing?"
Freeman -- "It is a racist thing."
Morgan -- Does it unnerve you that the Tea Party are gaining such traction?"
Freeman -- "Yes.  It just shows the weak, dark, underside of America.  We're supposed to be better than that.  We really are.  That's why all those people were in tears when Obama was elected President.  Ah, look at what we are.  Look at how, this is America."

For someone like Morgan Freeman, who is such a good actor, and comes across as such an intelligent man, to say something like that just blows my mind.  Wanting President Obama to lose the next election is no different than any other Democrat who's ever been in office.  One term is more than enough.

Freeman's reaction is like most liberals who think we need to apologize for our standing in the world, and who think America is where they are today because they threw the poor, homeless and unfortunate aside.  Rather than being a country of opportunity, dreams and hope, America is weak, dark and unforgiving.

As I've mentioned before, Obama is destroying this country with his socialistic policies, his hatred for America's rise to the top, and his wish to tax the rich.  And did I mention we're over 15% in real unemployment, and almost $14 trillion in debt?

Mr. Freeman, are you kidding me?  Not once have I mentioned Obama's race.  I've always believed that the people who look at someone's color are those who are so obsessed with race that they are constantly bringing it up.  And that's the Democrats, not Republicans.  White, black, red or green -- it doesn't matter.  Anyone who is causing this much damage to America and our future needs to go.

And go now.

It really hurts me to bring up Tony Bennett, because the guy is one of my favorite singers, in fact I was just about to download some of his "Duets 2" album from ITunes.  "Steppin' Out With My Baby,""Body and Soul," "The Lady is a Tramp," and "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" are some of my favorite songs from his era.  On a show with Howard Sterns (what's a classy guy like Bennett doing on Sterns' show anyway?) he had the following conversation:

Stern -- "You gotta eliminate war, but what do you do with these terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center?"

Bennett -- "Who are the terrorists?  Are we the terrorists, or are they the terrorists?  Two wrongs don't make a right."  He continued that we didn't agree with the common knowledge that those who attacked started the conflict.  "They flew the plane into the building, but we caused it.  We were bombing them, and they told us to stop."

Later, Bennett added -- To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally."

Bennett has said that he is a pacifist, and believes that violence begets more violence.  I can appreciate his sentiments about war, and having never been to war myself, maybe I'm in no position to argue -- but his views on avoiding conflict has nothing to do with blaming the United States for causing the terrorists to fly into the World Trade Center buildings.

Who are the real terrorists?  Don't ask Tony Bennett.

Our foreign policy with the Middle East -- supporting the apostate regimes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan and the Gulf States -- surely made enemies with al Qaeda.  As did our support of Israel, a military presence in Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq.

But taking the jump from opposition to our foreign policy to condoning the death of almost 3,000 innocent lives is a distinction that is lost on Mr. Bennett.  I can disagree with someone without killing him or her.  Apparently Osama bin Laden and his holy jihadist cannot, because prior to the attacks on 9/11 numerous bombing attempts were made including:

1993 bombing of World Trade Center
1995 attempts to take over Bosnia
1996 Khobar Towers are bombed
1996 marines are sent to guard US embassy in Albania
1997 bombing of Holland and Lincoln tunnels thwarted
1998 embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Kenya are bombed
2000 USS Cole is attacked in Yemeni port of Aden

Pacifists seem to think that if we can avoid conflict the world will be utopian and wonderful.  "Just don't make them mad," "Give them what they want," and "Turn the other cheek," have been uttered as ways of appeasing the terrorists.  Until the more aggressive side takes more and more, at which point singers like Bennett and actors like Freeman will be the first to be denied their freedoms, rights and eventually their very lives.

And the jump in logic from Bennett is truly stupefying.  Disagreements never justify violence, but it does happen.  Blaming us for the death of 3,000 people on 9/11 is like justifying the actions of every madman throughout history who was eventually stopped by someone (or country) who got in their way.

Since his original comments, Tony Bennett has since posted a statement on Facebook to clarify the comments he made on Stern's show, and to apologize if they were misconstrued.

I wonder if his apology has anything to do with trying to sell his new album.

Turning Green (and Feeling Sick)

This week will be remembered for President Obama's stump speech where he said, "If you love me, you will pass this bill!"  Considering his popularity is in a free fall, it's safe to say this "jobs bill" won't be passing anytime soon.

Also making the news is the announcement that Solyndra, a California-based solar panel manufacturer, will file for bankruptcy and lay off more than 1,000 people.  This despite being promoted by President Obama as the poster child for his administration's push into green technology (to the tune of a $535 million federal loan guarantee). This news might actually be shocking if it had produced the level of electricity originally claimed.  As it is, the only jolt coming from this discovery is the continued belief by the Obama administration (and its supporters in the media) that think heavily subsidized technologies like ethanol and solar/wind will ever be successful alternatives to oil and coal.

Solyndra:  Not so hot

(Alright to be fair, solar and wind energy may someday be a viable alternative, but to what extent?  And why must Team Obama use our money to promote alternatives few people want or can afford today?)

But now the Solyndra news is getting worse.  Uncovered emails indicate that the loan was made after pressure coming from the company itself and the White House.  U.S. Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, suggests that Solyndra's situation represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  He said, "There are billions more of this exact kind of spending that came out of the stimulus that will produce these results we fear.  This is misguided policy and crony capitalism at its worst.  (The U.S. Government) shouldn't be picking winners or losers... we should be setting the conditions for economic growth so that the private sector can create jobs."  Ryan concluded, "Washington is not good at picking winners and losers."

It was just 3 months ago, that Time magazine's Michael Grunwald was saying "As for Solyndra, I can report to the Republicans who seemed so concerned about the company's viability that it no longer seems to be on the verge of a humiliating collapse.  I'm sure they will be relieved."  Yeah.  That's how I'm feeling today.  Relieved of more than $500 million dollars that was pissed down the drain leaving me -- and other American taxpayers -- holding the bill.

And now we're being told that the taxpayer is second in line to get their investment out of this failed experiment, thanks to Obama who worked with private investors to put them first.

Isn't it frustrating to think that Obama is enjoying our misery?

Some of you are thinking that I'm being too harsh.  But think about it -- his environmental policies kick us once by adding to our debt by spending taxpayer money on green technologies, then kick us again by restricting the availability of currently viable resources like oil and natural gas.

No more drilling
AP photo/ The Washington Post

Millions of acres of untapped oil and gas are subject to environmental laws and restrictions that make drilling prohibitive.  Much offshore oil recovery is limited or off-limits to U.S. producers, while foreign countries like Cuba, Brazil, Mexico and Russia are aggressively drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.   Where laws don't prohibit oil drilling, regulations and overly complicated environmental studies make oil production very difficult and unprofitable.  And if producers don't engage in these costly studies, they end up in court being sued by environmental groups like the Sierra Club, a big buddy of the Obama Administration.

The result?  The cost of natural gas and oil is driving the cost of heating our homes, filling up the car and buying groceries through the roof.  The cost of a gallon of gas is more than a dollar more today than it was just last year (about $3.75 here in Wisconsin).  No wonder supporters of alternative energy say solar and wind energy is dropping in price while oil and gas continue to go higher.  Not to be conspiratorial, but Obama did say that he wanted the price of gas to go up, he just wasn't happy with how quickly is got there.

Oh, and our taxes are going up too.  And our kids' taxes, and their kids' taxes....

Another exasperating example is the Volt car, being produced by General Motors.  We all know that the Obama Administration -- sorry, the American taxpayer -- bailed out General Motors at a cost of more than $58 billion dollars.  As a result, Obama has placed himself into the middle of the development of an electric car called the Volt, available to anyone willing (or able) to pay $41,000.  For that amount of money here's what you get:

.  No return on investment in gas savings
.  Very limited production and availability (no one wants it)
.  Not appealing to people with long commutes
.  Big, expensive li-ion battery
.  Can you plug in?
.  Very expensive.  Did I mention $41,000?


Once again, our government is providing subsidies to help American consumers buy these vehicles.  The Volt, like solar energy, wind power and ethanol cannot compete on its own merits.  Without a $7,500 rebate, who could afford to buy it?  For someone in the Obama Administration, affordability isn't a deciding factor.  Is it good for the environment?  Does it encourage conservation?  And does it free us from our dependency of foreign energy?  That's what Washington wants.

Government Motors at work

All good ideas, but is it commercially viable, practical and something that the average consumer can afford?  Not likely.  Once again, I have to ask, why is Washington involved in running an automobile company?  They can't balance their own check book, much less General Motors'.

I can hear my older son saying, "But Dad, these are good ideas.  Someday we will need some kind of alternative.  Our current resources are limited and we need to do something before it's too late."

While I may agree that our resources are limited, I don't agree on how quickly, and I don't understand the reasoning behind a government that forces consumers to abandon perfectly GOOD, AFFORDABLE and WORKABLE solutions to our energy needs.    Are people really ready  to buy mercury-filled light bulbs, solar panels that work only half the time and cars that cost far more than they save?  I don't think so.

Our current energy situation reminds me of a book I'm reading called "The Forever War" by Joe Halderman.  The book won numerous science fiction awards for its futuristic depictions of  fighting and war's effect on the military / bureaucracy involved.   In "The Forever War," Halderman envisions a world dramatically different for his main character, William Mandella, who returns to Earth after years of inter-stellar fighting.    Due to various governments' attempts to control society -- population growth, food production, and energy availability -- home is nothing like the place he left.  Instead, there is high unemployment, dangerous mob attacks and violence, and a hyper-inflated cost for food, habitation and weapons.

I'm not suggesting that Washington is trying to give us the equivalence of "The Forever War," but I am saying that by pushing their environmental agenda, Obama and others in Congress are slowly, but surely taking away our freedoms and liberties. Using words like "eco-friendly," "sustainability" and "organic" doesn't change the fact that our lives are being impacted by these authoritarian and restrictive policies.

Unintentional consequences, perhaps.  But undesired consequences, nonetheless.