Black Leather and Fishnet

Their website calls their rock performances "a bombastic celebration of arena rock."

After standing 20 feet from the edge of last night's performance by HairBall, I'd have to agree.  It was one of the more declamatory exhibits of 80's and 90's glam rock that I've seen in many years.  Good thing no one on stage or in the audience was taking themselves too seriously.  Then again how can you when you're wearing fishnet stockings and black leather?

My wife and I, along with another couple, went to the WORLD'S LARGEST OFFICE PARTY 2012 at the La Crosse Center last night to enjoy some raucous music, rowdy bar-like behavior and a few adult beverages.

Having never been to WLOP before, I didn't really know what to expect.  But anytime you put radio station personnel in charge of a party you should expect something out of the ordinary.  Like a variety and drag show, and for those with a strong arm -- dunk a calendar girl.  Young girls with tight jeans and tattoos were having a good time, as was the guy wearing a tee shirt that proudly advertised "Poopies Grub n' Pub Bikers Bar" in Savannah, IL. (Doug and I will have to drive down some day and visit).

Radio stations and their sponsors are always crazy.  Every time I've been to one to work Kiwanis Radio Days I've encountered someone different - think crazy Bob "Bulldog" Briscoe and the pompous Gil Chesterton from the show "Frazier."

It's been a l-o-n-g time since Liz and I have been downtown to the bars, and despite enjoying the show last night, I can't say I miss any of it.  Too many drunks, sweaty bodies, bad breath and loud music that I don't like.  Fortunately, the music last night was from two bands that make the rounds in La Crosse during Oktoberfest -- Brat Pack Radio and HairBall.  It's a little weird to think that I still like the music from 30 years ago -- Journey, Van Halen, Kansas, Rush and Bon Jovi.  But it's even weirder that a lot of other people do too.

Maybe it's an indictment of what we hear today.  Rap and pop music suck.

I still don't get rappers like Kanye West, Snoop Dogg and Eminem.  They are super popular with teenagers, but do people really like what they have to say?  Or is it cool to hate women, be a bad ass/get shot by rival gang members and say f*ck and b*itch a lot?  And if they weren't singing about having sex in church or doing it with other women, would anybody really care about Madonna or Lady Gaga?  KISS did the makeup bit much better than Lady Gaga, so I don't see that attraction either.  But of course, I'm over 50, so I can't relate to today's kind of music, or the reasons why people like it.

Give me the simplicity of "Working Man" by Rush, "Anyway You Want It" by Journey or "Everybody Wants Some!" by Van Halen.  Too heavy?  How about "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "Stairway to Heaven?"  I don't even have to tell you who wrote/sang those songs -- everybody knows.  And I still like the occasional rock ballad from albums like Dog and Butterfly by Heart or Queen's A Night At The Opera.   Those were songs that made you sneak out to your parent's car so you could crank it up and rock.

Living in La Crosse, I never had much of a chance to see the big groups live.  My friends and I would drive to Madison or Minneapolis to watch the popular groups (and that wasn't until I was in college).  If we did get a band to La Crosse, it was before they became popular or had any big hit songs.

It was also a time before YouTube and DVDs, so there was no way of seeing your favorite rock stars in concert unless you went to their live performances.  And there was no way to listen to their music, unless you bought their records.  I remember staying up late on Friday nights to watch In Concert.  If you were lucky, you got to see a three minute performance by Ziggy Stardust or the Doobie Brothers singing "China Grove."

I used to go to a place called Metamorphosis to buy my records (one of my first purchases was REO Speedwagon's  Riding The Storm Out in 1973).  The place was full of concert posters, tee shirts, water bongs, roach clips, pipes and cigarette papers.  As a matter of fact, the place always smelled like pot when you walked into the place.  The store attendant was some long hair dude who sat behind the counter and played guitar or harmonica.  It was also a good place to screen print tee shirts with your favorite band or rock star.  My friends and I were dumb enough to walk around with shirts that had "Neil Pert" screen printed on it, until we figured out that he spelled his last name "Peart."

My first concert as a teenager was KISS (at the old Mary E Sawyer Auditorium) and I thought it was the greatest thing ever.  The next day, I couldn't stop talking about KISS's Gene Simmons  breathing fire and throwing up blood, surrounded by clouds of threatening smoke.  To a 16-year-old boy, seeing his first rock concert -- it was unlike anything I'd ever seen.  When his fingers pounded on his bass, it was so loud, the notes literally moved my clothes.  The fiery stage explosions were so powerful, I was worried the heat would set my hair on fire.  And the thunderous drum solo felt like being hit by a train roaring down the tracks behind my house.  It was pure, absolute rock and roll -- and in your face.

I think I kept their concert tour book for years after that show.  Tucked it away where no one could find it, because, at the time, KISS wasn't a popular band.  Actually they confused and worried some people, with their name often thought to mean something else, like Knights in Satan's Service.  It wasn't until their song  "Rock and Roll All Nite," from Dressed To Kill, that they had a song people started to listen to.  My friends still don't think they're very good musicians, but I don't care, because they were my first concert experience and you never forget your first time...

It's been downhill ever since.

That's not to say I haven't enjoyed concerts since.  There were a couple of shows in La Crosse that featured some of the biggest names in rock before they got popular.  Twin bills featuring Cheap Trick and Heart (sometime around 1980), another with Journey and Van Halen (1978), and one of my favorites, Kansas and Queen (1975).  And best of all, you could get up close to the stage if you stood for the whole concert.  I always wanted to get a guitar pick from Paul Stanley or a drum stick from Neil Peart, but never did.  And, of course, I never wanted the concert to end.  Two encores were the minimum -- I was disappointed if they came out for only one.  And is there a better sight than to see an auditorium lit up by 3,000 lighters?  Today they use cell phones, but somehow it just doesn't seem the same without a burning flame.

                                        *                                *                               *

So the WLOP concert with HairBall starts at 9:00 with all of the usual fun -- pitch blackness with the restless crowd anticipating a good time.  The small, colored lights from the amps and speakers on stage are the only things visible as a roadie leads the band on stage with a flash light.  Standing before their microphones, each band member is silhouetted against a backdrop of speakers stacked ten feet high.  As the curtain covering the drum set is slowly raised, the crowd begins to clap and raise their voices.

 

Suddenly, we're under way, with flames shooting from the floor and loud explosions erupting from both sides of the stage. As I watched, Peggy, who was standing  five feet in front of me, backed up a few steps.  Jumping from a riser and running to the front of the stage was David Lee Roth, singing the opening words from "Jump."  With his long blonde hair, a red bandanna, white spandex and over-sized sunglasses, the singer leaps into the air, kicking his legs out while punching the air.  His stage persona has you thinking "that really does look like the guy from Van Halen!"

After a few more songs, David Lee Roth is replaced by KISS's Gene Simmons who brings his demon ax guitar and fire breathing to center stage.  Then Axle Rose from Guns and Roses, Dee Snider from Twisted Sister, Prince and Bon Jovi.  Each lead singer is supported by the same terrific band -- a guitar player (wearing fish netting under black pants with holes in them), a bass player (clad in hip-hugging, laced-up black leather) and a drummer (encased behind cymbals, twin bass drums, snare drums and assorted toms).  The band plays to the audience, with screaming solos, flips, slides and chosen encounters with female audience members.

After an hour, the excitement continues as more people continue to squeeze to the front of the stage bumping bodies, beers and iPhones along the way...

For anyone who loves rock and roll, Hair Ball provides the perfect tonic for those who love the glory days of arena rock.  Loud, rebellious, and over the top.  How else would you describe a song like Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It?"

"We've got the right to choose and
there ain't no way we'll lose it
this is our life, this is our song
we'll fight the powers that be just
don't pick our destiny 'cause
you don't know us, you don't belong."

"Oh, we're not gonna take it
no, we're not gonna take it
oh, we're not gonna take it anymore!"

Surviving The Blue Danube

A drop of sweat began at my temple, slid down my cheek before curving under my chin and disappearing inside my collar.

"I am so hot..." I muttered as we sliced through the crowd, spun to the right and collided with a man who was whirling past a collection of suits and dresses bouncing in amused denial.  "Quick, let's head to the fan by the window."  

 

As the music progressed, I followed Liz to the side of the floor.  Bodies continued to dart past, with silky flashes of cardinal red, white, cobalt blue and plum.  Black fabric whipped to the left and then right.  Together they created a dizzying sight -- a revelry of sound, color and laughter.

The orchestra presented the final few bars of "The Beautiful Blue Danube," which had been playing for 10 minutes.  With a bright-sounding flourish and the familiar pounding of the final eighth notes, the audience erupted with applause and cheers.

 

This weekend marked the annual presentation of the renowned Viennese Ball, held on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.  Liz and I were in attendance, along with friends Ben and Heather from the Moonlight Dance Club in La Crosse.

After passing on the event last year, we were excited to spend the night and give it a try.

For the past thirty-eight years, the university has assembled an amazing collection of singers, musicians and dancers to celebrate the culture, history and music of 19th century Vienna.  It promised the opportunity to dance waltzes and polkas from the Strauss Era in Vienna (1800's and into the 1900's), known as a golden age of romance and elegance.

It was a chance to dress in a formal tuxedo (me) and ball gown (Liz), eat a few tortes, drink some Gewurztraminer Riesling, and dance the night away to the sounds of "The Beautiful Blue Danube,"  "Emperor Waltz," "Serenade in Blue," "Cotton Tail " and "Thunder and Lightning Polka."

As a dancing event, it's the second largest Viennese ball in the world, next to the original in Vienna, Austria.


                                                   

My mind was a jumble, as Kellen Burgos, our dance instructor continued.   

"The Viennese Waltz is a classic, with quick rotating steps done to fast 3/4 time waltz music.  The main difference between the American Waltz and Viennese Waltz is speed."  He added, "The Viennese Waltz can be up to four times faster than the slow version.  A true Viennese waltz consists only of turns..."

My mind started to panic as I tried to grasp the significance of doing something I was terrible at, only four times faster.  "Is it too late to back out of this?" I mumbled.

"What was that?" Kellen asked.

"I think I'm having trouble backing out of the second turn," I lied, and smiled.

"Ok, let's try it again.  Now watch."  He grabbed his wife, Kathy, and gracefully maneuvered her through the steps -- turning toward his right (1, 2, 3), then to the left (1, 2, 3), interspersed with non-rotating change steps between the direction of his rotation.  It looked beautiful, graceful, fun -- and next to impossible.

It was the Friday night before the Viennese Ball in Eau Claire, and Liz and I had decided to get a quick lesson in the waltz to prepare ourselves for the big event.  It was beginning to look like an impossible task.  Despite the odds, I placed my right hand behind her shoulders, arched back slightly and stepped to my left.  And...



                                                     

 

Modeled on the historic New Year's Eve Kaiser Ball, the Viennese Ball had transformed the Davies Center on the Eau Claire campus.  Included was the cabaret-style Blue Danube Inn, Bosendorfer Salon, the festive Zum Goldenen Lowel Festsaal room, the park-like Liedergarten and a club venue called the Rathskeller.

The ball showcased the University Symphony Orchestra, who would perform the evening's waltzes and polkas; Jazz Ensemble I, who would perform music from America's Big Band Era; and the Dorkf Kapelle (Village Band), which would play traditional ethnic music from the German-speaking countries.

As we arrived, the building was packed with young and old -- I saw a line of guys wearing black tailcoat tuxedos, a band member wearing German lederhosen, someone wearing a Scottish kilt, and in true Viennese tradition, someone wearing a Civil War uniform.  The ladies were beautiful in their formal floor-length gowns, some with wide hoops and elegant white gloves.  Jewelry sparkles, from simple earrings to expensive diamond tiaras.

Between dances we sampled tortes, kasekuchen, Bavarian pretzels, rindfleisch baguettes,  pork schnitzel.  Beverages included German and Austrian wines, as well as full bodied beers from Germany.   Capping the evening off was a katerfruhstuck -- a tom cat breakfast with omelets, smoked ham, eggs, potatoes and apple wood bacon.

 Ich wunsche Ihnen Gesundheit und Freude (to your health and happiness)!




                                                


The Dorf Kappelle leader's hoarse voice easily carried across the throng of bodies, despite the lateness of the hour.  Standing in front of the collection of brass and woodwind instruments on stage, he shouted, "Ein prosit!  Ein prosit der Gemutlichkeit!  Eins, zwei, drei, g'suffa!  Zicke, zacke, zicke, zacke!"


The crowd roared back, "Hoi, hoi, hoi!" and I grabbed Liz's hand and dashed to the center of the room.  As the music began, we leaned back and spun around the room, kicking our legs and feet in our best effort to polka.  We were miles from the bleachers of Michigan's football stadium, and months removed from our very own Oktoberfest in La Crosse -- but we danced away to the festive sounds of the tuba, button accordion and trombone.

 

Laughing, I thought to myself that this isn't that different from the waltz.  Yet it felt comfortable and relaxed.  Instead of the frenzied take-off and colliding bodies in the Grand Ballroom,  everyone seemed to sense each other here and managed to sing and dance in unison.  Tux jackets and shoes were removed without any sense of inappropriate behavior or traditional decorum.   

But the evening wasn't over.  

And Liz and I weren't finished with our waltz.  We headed back toward the ceremonial room to eat then try the Viennese waltz a few more times.

It was approaching 12:45 a.m. by the time we approached the dance floor again.  My jacket was back on, but Liz had blisters on her feet and decided to try the final few dances without her shoes. 

The dance floor was much cooler and less congested as we stood facing each other.  I smiled, despite the fatigue of dancing throughout the evening, knowing that it had been a fun night, one I would remember for a long time.  The lighting in the room was dim, providing cover for the few bodies that were darting back and forth to the second playing of "The Beautiful Blue Danube." 

As we started our right turn, followed by a left turn, Kellen's words from Friday night came back to me.  We continued around the floor, unexpectedly finding a rhythm that matched the swelling notes of Strauss' masterpiece.  Right turn, left turn, intermixed with the change steps in the direction of my leading foot.  Repeat performance, then a quick stop to collect our thoughts.  Before I knew it the song had reached its conclusion and I felt the faintest stirrings of what it must feel like to dance the Viennese waltz without the confusion I had felt earlier in the night.  

That's not to say that we made no mistakes.  Far from it, but I can honestly say that I felt that we were making progress.  And for us, that was success, and another reason to dance out the last song of the night.  

As we decided to switch to the American dance version of the waltz, we were surprised to find a mass of young students sprinting around the outer lane of the dance floor.  They were laughing, jumping and running to the sounds of "The Radetsky March," which unlike the seriousness of most of Strauss's waltzes, was jubilant, playful and hopeful.

Much like the feeling I had as I swept Liz up in my arms and spun into another cycle of alternating spins and steps.


                                              

"Donau so blau,  (Dabube so blue,)
so schön und blau,  (so bright and blue,)
durch Tal und Au  (through vale and field)
wogst ruhig du hin,  (you flow so calm,)
dich grüßt unser Wien,  (our Vienna greets you,)   
dein silbernes Band  (your silver stream)

knüpft Land an Land,  (through all the lands) 

und fröhliche Herzen schlagen  (you merry the heart)
an deinem schönen Strand."  (with your beautiful shores.)

A Teachable Moment

Rush Limbaugh is always talking about "teachable moments," where an event provides an opportunity to explain the ideology and philosophy of the left.  Such an event just happened when Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, was criticized for being just a homemaker and "never working a day in her life."

These words were uttered by Democratic strategist and Obama adviser, Hilary Rosen, who was being interviewed by CNN's Anderson Cooper:  "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well you know, my wife tells me what women really care about are economic issues; and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.'  Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life."

Rosen continued, "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future."  She added that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."

Ms. Rosen was on Cooper's program to continue the Democratic message that Republicans -- and by association, Mitt Romney -- are conducting a war on women.  Rosen said on CNN that Mitt Romney shouldn't use Ann as his "economic advisor" because she hadn't worked while raising her five children.  Therefore she couldn't possibly know anything of value as it relates to the economy.

June Cleaver -- supermom?

Now some of you are going to say, 'Oh, that's just some feminist who has an isolated gripe with Romney!'  Well, I disagree.  I think it's typical of what the Democrats really think about women who choose to stay home.  They are unsophisticated, uneducated and (as in the case of Ann Romney) married to someone with money.  It's a feminist point of view grounded in the battle cry 'I am woman, hear me roar!'

Democrats want you to believe they support women, when in fact, they only support women who are like them --liberal.  They have open arms for career women who don't need a man to bring home a paycheck, lesbians who want to adopt, single moms who struggle to make ends meet, or political allies who want to tear down mom-and-apple pie traditions.

If they were being honest, they would admit that raising a family is harder than going to the office.  There's no leaving work until tomorrow when your son is sick with the flu, or your daughter needs help with pre-calculus.

Finally, the democrats are caught saying what they really think about women, and it raises the question:  who's really waging the war on women?

Rosen, as a strategist for the DNC, has let it slip that if you are a conservative woman -- like Ann Romney, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman -- you can't win.  Whatever you do, you will not meet the feminist's idea of a "modern" woman.  And as a result you aren't worth squat.

As I've written before, liberals hate Sarah Palin.  Despite her strong character, college degree, successful family life, and a run as Alaska's governor she was attacked for leaving the home to work because she had a child with Downs Syndrome.  How could she put her own selfish interests before the needs of her child, they said.

And now, Ann Romney, who has survived cancer and is presently suffering from MS, is being criticized for staying at home with her children.  Isolated, ignorant and Republican.

What's a woman to do?  If you're a Democrat or an Independent, you're supposed to believe that Republicans hate you, want to take away your birth control and give more of your money to the rich.  Read the words from Ms. Rosen again and tell me if she makes ANY sense.

The left's attack on stay-at-home moms includes their belief that only working moms can understand how the real world works.  According to Ms. Rosen, Ann Romney isn't qualified to talk about the economy because she has never worked outside the home before.  By that definition, every news anchor that reports on tonight's news shouldn't be allowed to discuss abortion, education, Gov. Walker's recall, the war in Afghanistan, the price of oil or racial discrimination unless they've personally experienced it.  Or held a job in that specific field.  That's just plain stupid.

But that's what liberals think of stay-at-home moms.

Hilary Rosen

Earlier today, two anchors on CNN (both Democrats) were discussing Rosen's attack on Ann Romney.  Much of it centered on the work involved in raising a family of five children, despite her medical problems.  Only later did it come out that neither woman had any children.  It didn't stop them from being experts on the issue however, and giving their opinions.  I'm sure neither woman saw the irony.

The rebuttal of Rosen's harsh comments came quickly, with the Obama Administration making a quick defense of stay-at-home moms.  Hoping to keep their Republican war on women intact, the Democrats tried to paint Rosen as an outsider and someone who didn't speak for them.  Michelle Obama tweeted "Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected."  Unless you're Palin or Bachman.  Have you ever heard Democrats -- specifically feminists like Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland or Niami Wolf -- come to either woman's defense?  Obama strategist David Axelrod and Obama campaign manager Jim Messina denied that Rosen ever worked for them, but it has been noted that she had been a visitor to the White House over 30 times since 2008.  So while she may not be an employee, she certainly has their attention.

Yesterday, in her apology, Hilary Rosen said, "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."  What is she declaring "phony?"  Is it the Republican attack on contraceptives?  Or the abortion debate?  Or maybe the attack on welfare moms -- generally single, with children and unemployed?

And what of "the substance?"  Is she referring to Romney's economic plan, which includes putting Americans back to work?  Or is it Obama's economic plan to make the rich pay their "fair share?"  That sounds like a good way to create jobs, doesn't it?  Stop with the class warfare and divisive rhetoric -- America was built on freedom and hard work, not sharing equally in the labor of a few.

Interestingly, more women have lost their jobs than men during Obama's presidency.  Between the end of June 2009 and May of 2011, men gained over 768,000 jobs while women lost 218,000 jobs.  Much of those loses came from education and government positions, which are popular with women.  As the money from the stimulus ran out, so did the need for women in those occupations.

Democrats haven't seen women as equal for a long time.  They continue to create dependency through government policies that are anti- family, anti-children and anti-religion.  As proof unwed, welfare moms get far more love from the Democrats than stay-at-home moms.

Isn't it time the Democrats stop with the community organizing, and support women who work from both the office or the home?  Whether it's preparing a meal for the family, or finalizing a real estate presentation, they both require a lot of work.

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

"I have accepted fear as part of life - specifically the fear of change... I have gone ahead despite the pounding in the heart that says turn back..."- Erica Jong

"We are the change we have been waiting for."- Barack Obama

"Nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change."- Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits, the rebels and the troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because these people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."- Apple, Inc.

My wife and friends make a big deal out of my refusal to get into the twenty-first century.  But for me, change is hard.

 

Today presented another example of how I'm being left behind, as technology continues to plow ahead, making my fondness for nostalgia seem like soggy bowl of Quisp cereal.  There's a whirlwind of change blowing past my ears, making today's technology, fashion and vocabulary hard to grasp.

As part of La Crosse Kiwanis, I participate in Radio Days - held once a year at local radio stations.  We sell ads on the air as one of our service club's fundraisers.  I mention this, because it wasn't too long ago that disc jockeys would play 45 rpm records on a couple of turntables, then speak into a microphone while switching songs.  In the 60's, 70's and 80's, technology advanced from tape and eight-track cassettes to CD's.

This morning, while watching the "disc jockey" maneuver behind the microphone, I noticed he doesn't even need to be in the room anymore.  He can program his computer playlist ahead of time, schedule ads for specific times, add weather forecasts, and break away to sports updates all while sneaking a smoke outside the radio station building.  If I could push a button now and then, I could run the radio broadcast, and you wouldn't know the difference.

What is it about change that brings the excitement of new possibilities with dread of things no longer wanted?

I'm sure everyone - as they get older - looks back on their distant past with a certain amount of melancholy.  Just the other day, I was mentioning to my wife how as kids we used to get up early on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons.  Space Ghost, The Herculoids, The Mighty Mightor and Jonny Quest were worth getting up for on an early Saturday morning.  Today, we have the Cartoon Network, where you can watch every conceivable cartoon at any time of the day.  Family Video has the entire season of the Jetsons waiting to be rented.  Hell, they've probably made a movie by now.  No more going to bed early so you could get up to watch the exciting adventures of Dastardly and Mutley and their Flying Machines.  I'm sure those cartoons were horrible, but as a kid, I loved sitting right in front of the television set every Saturday morning.

I'm probably having the most trouble understanding cell phones.  There is nothing (right now) that represents change and cutting-edge technology like the cell phone.  I'm definitely old school when it comes to using my phone.  Looking at my cell phone statement, I see I was on it for all of ten minutes.  I view it as a badge of honor, since I know people who can't get out of bed without checking their phones first.

People tell me I should use it for business, but I'm generally able to make my important calls at the office.  However, I did pay the price last year, when I went on a sales call and couldn't find the business' address.  Of course I couldn't call him since I didn't have my cell phone with me, and there are no pay phones anymore.  Trying to explain why I missed my appointment with this client didn't go over too well when I talked to him an hour later from my office.

Whether it's the iPhone or Android, it doesn't matter - people have to have the latest.  J.D. Power and Associates recently said that people get a new cell phone every seventeen months.  That's incredible!  It probably has something to do with the introduction of the faster, improved times of 3G and 4G network capabilities, or the newest apps available on smartphones.

 

I'm pretending to know what all of that means, because I still have a regular flip phone (as opposed to a "smartphone") and it has none of those.  I used to tell my kids not to bother with text messages, because it would be easier to just call.  "Why would I want to call someone on my phone?" they would say.

Huh?  I guess that's the biggest change -- cell phones do so much more than provide the ability to call someone.  Today, smartphones function as a video camera, a portable media player, an internet client with email and web browsing capabilities.  Third-party application software allows access to games, reference libraries, GPS navigation, social networking, security and TV shows, films and music.  I'm guessing that means I can browse the web, leave messages, take pictures and listen to music.  All of which I do now anyway, but not on my phone.

Speaking of change, how many of us remember Michael Douglas in the movie "Wall Street" talking to a client with this huge portable phone (reminded me of an army radio from my days with G.I. Joe).  One of the first cell phones available was the 1984 Motorola DynaTac 8000x, which  hit the market priced at $3,995 ($9,237 in 2012 dollars) and weighed just under 2 pounds.  By contrast, today's iPhone can be bought for less than $350, weighs less than 1/2 ounce and is .4 inches thick.  Even I have to admit that the progress made with the cell phone is for the better.

My only gripe is how distracting it is to have dinner with someone who is always looking at their phone, or watching people stutter-step with their heads down while walking and reading a text message.

As an ex-journalist, I still enjoy reading newspapers.  There has always been something rewarding being able to feel newsprint between my fingers.  The snap of a newspaper always draws my attention, as does the smell of ink coming off the pages of  The La Crosse Tribune or The Wall Street Journal.  I could say the same thing about books, now that e Readers have become so popular.

This spring, after much agonizing and gnashing of teeth, I gave up my subscription to the local newspaper.  This is still causing some disappointment as I enjoyed eating breakfast with my early morning browsing of the sports section and opinion pages.  While I still get The Wall Street Journal, I'm frustrated by the fact that I have to wait until after lunch before it's delivered to my office.  Most of the paper's "news" is old news by the time I get it thanks to the internet and talk radio.

I read somewhere that newspapers have lost more than half their readers, ushering out newspaper reporters, publishers and printers.  The shift is to online and niche publishing.

An editor for The Virginia Pilot recently said, "Ultimately, a lot of the media outlets are already shifting either in part or in total to the Internet. I think in the near future you'll see a lot of virtual newsrooms, where you won't even have the big costs of having the office space."   He continued, "You'll have people working from their cars, working from laptops, cell phones and PDAs, and you'll never see them in the office."

All of which means I will be getting my news from a computer on my kitchen table instead of newsprint on my fingers as part of my morning routine.

Fashion is another mystery to me, and it's getting worse the older I get.  Take sagging, baggy pants for example -- is there something I'm missing here?  Why would anyone want to broadcast their ignorance of style and reputation by wearing something clearly designed to showcase their "street" mentality?  Rumor has it that baggy pants originated in prison where inmates were given pants without a belt; the same for shoes without laces.  And yet we have somehow gotten to the point where teenagers want to mimic the thug look to impress .... (women? other guys? ex-cons?)  At least they're still wearing underwear.

My wife was witness to a minor accident the other day where a vehicle jumped a curb and hit a picnic table.  When the young man climbed out of the car, the first thing he did was pull his pants up from around the bottom of his butt.  I'm almost thinking the reason he jumped the curb was because his pants where hanging around his ankles, and he couldn't find the brakes.  As she talked to him, he kept pushing his pants down, then back up again.  He would walk a few steps and his pants where ready to slide down to his knees.

Next to rap and tattoos, the fashion sense of a lot of young people today leaves me wishing for the good old days of "A Rebel Without a Cause."  Suddenly jeans, a white tee shirt and leather jacket don't look so bad.    At least James Dean and Natalie Wood had a cause I could relate to.

Once in a while it works out that some things are too good to change.  This past weekend, some friends and I found ourselves downtown La Crosse in a bar called The Casino.  This is a bar that has hung a neon sign in the window that says "Lousy Service" for the past 30 years (maybe longer).  Most bars that I went to in my college days don't exist anymore.  They either burned to the ground, or were replaced with new, hip discotheques that were replaced by grunge bars that were replaced by sports bars.

It didn't take long to realize that not much had changed at the Casino -- if you closed your eyes, you could still smell the sour beer and stale cigarettes.  In a way, the place still looked the same.   Same curved seats, same music that you can't hear anywhere else, still no television and the same desperate women trying to pick you up.

Thank God some things never change.

The Snows of March

Now that the WI Badgers have lost in basketball, I can wander from the television set long enough to enjoy the nice weather we are having this year.

For the past two weeks, we've experienced some of the warmest weather on record (at least within our lifetimes).   The flowers are blooming and the buds on bushes and trees are popping like its early May.  I think of places like Washington D.C. and Mackinaw Island which have festivals for the blooming of cherry blossoms and lilac bushes.  Something tells me they won't have anything to look at beyond April.

Anyone remember the snow?

My wife thought it would be fun to look back on past months of March and even April when the weather wasn't so nice-- unless you like snow skiing, snow shoveling and ice fishing.


Here are a few of the storms:

March 13-14, 1997 - West Central / Northeast Wisconsin - Snowstorm - 12 to 28 inches. Twenty-eight inches at Wautoma in Waushara County.

March 8-9, 1998 - Southwest / Central - Blizzard - 8 to 12 inches. Wind gusts reached 40 to 60 mph at times, causing frequent whiteout conditions. The heaviest snow total was 11.7 inches at Muscoda.

March 18-19, 2005 – West-Central – Winter Storm – 18 to 23 inches in a swath from southern Buffalo County to western Jackson County, with 12 to 15.6 inches in La Crosse County.  The maximum of 23 inches occurred in northwestern Jackson County.

March 13-14, 2006 – West-central to North Central – Winter Storm – 17 to 32 inches of heavy, wet snow swath from St. Croix County northeast to Iron County.  Thundersnow enhanced the accumulations.  In Iron County, Gile measured 32 inches while Upson had 27 inches.  In Ashland County, Mellen gathered 27 inches.  Very poor visibility resulted from gusty winds around 30 mph, and drifting resulted in hundreds of accidents.  Locals said it was the worst storm since the 1980s.

March 21, 2008 – Southern Wisconsin – Winter Storm – 6 to 18.5 inches in a wide swath from La Crosse to the Milwaukee to Kenosha area.  The West Bend Port Washington-Milwaukee area picked up 12 to 18.5 inches.  West Allis had high honors with 18.5 inches, 13 to 15 inches fell in the Kenosha area, and 14.8 inches piled up west of Beaver Dam.   Some convective bands of heavy snow were
reported.

Just last year, we had this:

March 22-23, 2011 – Northern and central portions of state – This late season winter storm resulted from a strong area of low pressure interacting with a cold air mass in place across the upper Midwest.  Moderate to heavy snow fell late the 22nd, continuing into much of the day on the 23rd, bringing 5-10” of snow to the Northern half of the state.  Thunderstorms developing in Iowa moved Northeast into colder air, resulting in locally heavy snow with numerous reports of thunder and lightning.  This resulted in higher totals across Northeast parts of the state where 12-18 inches fell.  Sleet and freezing rain mixed in for central parts of the state with some heavy ice accumulations.  Gusty Easterly winds produced near blizzard conditions for Northeast parts of the state and also helped to bring down a 2,000 foot media broadcast tower near Eau Claire in combination with heavy ice accumulations.  Green Bay recorded a two day storm total of 17.8 inches, the biggest snowstorm in over 120 years and the 3rd largest recorded snowstorm. In fact, this resulted in the first winter Green Bay had had 3 major snowstorms producing 10 inches or more of accumulation!

And let's not forget April:

April 27-28, 2002 - Northeast Wisconsin - Snowstorm - 8 to 20 inches. A late season
storm brought significant heavy, wet snow accumulations in a narrow axis from
Florence to Merrill.  Most of the snow fell within 12 hours as a heavy rate with
numerous reports of thunder and lightning.  Elcho received the most snow with 20
inches of accumulation.

So we need to enjoy the warm weather while we have it.  And I'm not jumping on the global warming wagon either (just look at some of those storms from the past few years!)  Weather can -- and will change.  I suspect our 70 degree forecast won't last for much longer.

Why?  Because it wasn't in the forecast on March 2-4, 1881 when Southern / Central Wisconsin was expected to receive up to 2 to 4 feet of snow.   Drifts of snow could reach 20 feet.

So don't put those shovels away just yet.

Expect The Disrespect In March

The University of Wisconsin basketball team has achieved much since Bo Ryan took over a perennially bad team, which had experienced the joy of March Madness only seven times since 1898.  Dick Bennett, head coach of the Badgers between 1995 and 2000, left the Badgers in a better position when he retired a few months into 2001.

But it didn't take much to improve upon a record as dismal as Wisconsin's.  Back in those days, going to the NCAA post season wasn't the highlight of our season -- occasionally beating a powerhouse like Illinois, Michigan State (I have a friend who likes to remind people that we were the last college team to beat Magic Johnson) and Ohio State served as the pinnacle of that achievement.

Much has changed since 2001, when Bo Ryan took over.  In the 11 years since Bo was introduced as the new coach, Wisconsin has gone to the NCAA tournament eleven times.  It has won or shared the Big Ten title three times.  Won the conference tournament two times.

With an overall record of 242- 91, Bo has a 73% winning percentage.  Within the conference, where Wisconsin has never finished lower than fourth place, he is 120-48, which is the second best record in the conference among active coaches (Ohio State's Thad Matta is first).

I mention all of these stats, because despite Wisconsin's success on the basketball court, hoops prognosticators continue to dismiss the Badgers as a team that will be upset in the first or second round.  It's fashionable to pick teams to upset Wisconsin. In typical fashion, ESPN's Myron Medcalf had this to say about the Badgers in the College Basketball Nation Blog--

"Badgers will go home early.  I'm picking Montana over Wisconsin... (their) offense has stalled multiple times in recent weeks.  Even though the Badgers are capable of neutralizing any offense, they've had problems capitalizing due to their own inconsistent offense.  Montana will be ready... plus Will Cherry (16 points per game) can match Jordan Taylor.  Grizzlies will advance."

Yet despite the repeated calls for a quick Badger demise, if you look at the Sweet Sixteen appearances since 2000, here's how Wisconsin ranks:

Duke 10
Kansas 8
Michigan State 8
North Carolina 7
Kentucky 7
Wisconsin 6
UConn 6
UCLA 6
Syracuse 6
Arizona 6

Even more impressive is the fact that Wisconsin has done it with only one McDonald's All-American.  No other team on that list has had fewer than five.  So not only is Wisconsin getting to the sweet sixteen, but they are doing it with far less talent.

Later this week, Wisconsin takes on Syracuse in another Sweet Sixteen appearance.  Wisconsin is seeded 4th, while Syracuse is the East Region's number one seed.  So naturally the Badgers are being dismissed before the tip-off.  Seth Davis, on CBS Sports, said right after Bo and his boys dispatched Vanderbilt,  that it's a bad match-up for Wisconsin.  Syracuse likes to play zone (that's all they've played in over 36 years), and Wisconsin won't be able to consistently shoot the 3 ball.

Now, I'm realistic about Wisconsin's chances, so I realize we have a tough game ahead of us.  But it just shows the bias these television analysts have when they dismiss us before the Badgers are even back to their team locker room.  No high flying dunks, no NBA-caliber players, no chance.

Jordan Taylor leads the Badgers

It's actually very easy to see why they have this bias.  For many of them, basketball is meant to be a fast paced game, with fast breaks, Sports Center slam dunks and incredible shooting.  The athletes on Duke, Kentucky and North Carolina are one-and-done players with dreams of playing in the NBA.  They play exciting basketball, even if it comes at the cost of turnovers, poor defense and egos the size of New York City.  But are they good for the game?

I was listening to the Dan Patrick radio show where an interesting point was raised about the state of college basketball.

Dan said, "I don't enjoy the game anymore.  College basketball is all about the coaches.  The faces of the game belong to John Calipari (Kentucky), Billy Donovan (Florida), Jim Beiheim (Syracuse), Tom Izzo (Michigan State), Roy Williams (North Carolina), Bill Self (Kansas) and Mike Krzyzewzki (Duke).  It's not about the players who play the game."

He continued, "I always enjoy and want to follow a player's progression.  I'd love to see Anthony Davis as a freshman, then see him as a sophomore, to see how his game has improved.  I don't get a chance to see what he can do as a sophomore, because he's gone after his first year.  And that's the problem with college basketball -- you don't watch during the regular season because you don't know who these players are.  You watch them for two weeks in March and they're gone.  Say hello to them and goodbye -- all in the same season."

Obviously, Dan Patrick is talking about the "elite" teams like North Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky.  Because some of the other teams that have been bracket busters -- VCU, Butler and Northern Iowa -- are usually loaded with juniors and seniors.  You can tell, and it's not unusual for these mid-major teams to make a run in March because they have played together for a long time.  They know each other and have improved their game beyond high school and traveling AAU teams.

As I listened to Dan talk about everything that's wrong about college basketball, all I could do was think about how different Wisconsin basketball is.  If he wanted to get to know players, he should follow Jordan Taylor, Ryan Evans and Josh Gasser.  Watch Taylor go from a 13 minute (1.6 points per game) player as a freshman to a 36 minute (14.7 points per game) player as a senior.

The Big Ten Network has a terrific program called The Journey, that showcases various players on each Big Ten team throughout the season.  You find out a lot more about these players -- like their childhood dreams, post college aspirations, the grueling therapy needed to overcome injuries, the time spent on studying, and the heartbreak of losing a close game.  Perhaps if the media spent more time getting to know the players and coaches there would be more interest in the game.  And more respect for teams like Wisconsin and what they do.

I doubt that Wisconsin will ever be thought of as elite.  To gain that moniker you need to win national championships.  Until we can recruit better players willing to stay for three or four years, it will remain a reach for Wisconsin to make it past the Sweet  Sixteen or Elite Eight.

There's some good basketball to watch if you get away from the one-and-done crowd.  The talking heads on CBS and ESPN may not respect our game, but that's only because they don't watch.

I'll be watching on Thursday.  I hope we prove them wrong (again).

The New McCarthyism

Some of you may be too young to remember Joe McCarthy, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin between 1947 and 1957.  He was noted for claiming that certain members of our government were either Communists and Soviet spies or sympathizers.  Ultimately, when most of his claims went unsubstantiated, he was censured by the United States Senate.  The term McCarthyism was used in reference to his practices, in particular anti-communist activities.  Today, there is still disagreement over whether his anti-communist accusations were true.

While Senator McCarthy may have failed in his attempt to convince others of his fear of communists in Congress, he did provide fertile political substance and tactics that would be used in politics (by both Republicans and Democrats) for the next half century.

Lately the term is used in reference to reckless and unsubstantiated claims against the character and/or patriotism of political opponents.  These attacks are usually a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public.  Recent examples of this "New McCarthyism" can be found today in the following situations:

. Suspension of ACORN funding after its abuse of federal funding
. Activities against suspected terrorists, mostly Muslims (following 9/11)
. Collection of emails opposed to Obama Care by the White House
. Bashing corporate travel by banks and Wall Street during the 2008 recession
. Blaming a "climate of hate" for the shooting of Arizona congress woman Gabrielle Giffords

The left has been using New McCarthyism to paint conservatives with a broad brush for some time.  If you can stomach it, watch MSNBC, CNN, HBO, Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live or listen to the left's version of talk radio -- Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Randy Rhodes and Mike Malloy.  Not a single day goes by when the right isn't wrongly characterized as being misogynistic, homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic.

Not surprising, it has influenced national media outlets like ABC, NBC and CBS.  Taxpayer-supported PBS and NPR have been documented on my blog for having their own bias towards conservatives, including the character assassinations of recent political candidates Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain.

Within the last few days, however, the left has taken its version of McCarthyism to new heights, with its conservative "war on women" campaign, spearheaded by the hypocritical assault against talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh.  I think most of us have heard what happened.  Rush -- in a poorly worded attempt to show absurdity by being absurd -- called Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke "a prostitute and slut."  Rush's description, which was meant to illustrate how we were paying someone to have sex (tax payer support of contraception), was greeted with near universal condemnation.

Went too far?

This week on his national radio program Rush apologized -- in his words he had "sunk to the level of liberals" and that he didn't mean harm to Sandra Fluke.  In typical McCarthyism fashion, the left -- including the aforementioned media, as well as members of Congress -- is calling on advertisers to boycott his show, and for Rush to step down from his hugely popular show.  To date, 12 advertisers have chosen to do so, and a handful of radio stations have dropped his three hour broadcast.  Sandra Fluke has refused to accept his apology, since such action would signal the end of this fabricated controversy.

This is nothing new for Progressives.  The left has been calling for the Fairness Doctrine as a way of silencing political dissent since conservatives began dominating talk radio.  Unfortunately, Rush's outburst has only intensified the left's determination.

In addition to the attacks on Rush is the left's demonizing Catholics as aggressors trampling a woman's "right" to contraceptives.  The whole war on women's rights started as a political strategy to frame the conservative right as a bunch of good 'ol boys who want to take contraceptives away from women.  It was classic politics -- initiated by ABC's George Stephanopoulos when he asked Mitt Romney during a a Republican debate if states had the right to ban contraceptives.  Shortly after, President Obama took to the podium to announce that through Obama Care, contraceptives were going to be made free to all women.  The debate -- and pressure on Catholic institutions to provide them -- came full circle with the testimony of Sandra Fluke.

As I mentioned earlier, the New McCarthyism is an attempt to influence (censor) political behavior by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public.  If you didn't know better, you would think women were losing their ability to buy birth control, much less affordable birth control.  None of which is true.  They may be losing touch with reality, but certainly not their ability to enjoy sex without the threat of unplanned pregnancies.  Which is the main goal of this argument about contraceptives.  The left looks at families -- in particular children -- as a disease.  Abortions are a backup to those who require contraceptives to make it through law school.

On a final note, I'd like to point to the hypocrisy of the left while trying to intimidate the voting public on the matter of Rush and Sandra Fluke.  It was laughable to listen to President Obama's news conference today when some "reporter" asked him what he thought about Rush's "prostitute and slut" comments.

His response:

"I don't know what's in Rush Limbaugh's heart, so I'm not going to comment on the sincerity of his apology.  What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don't have any place in the public discourse."  He called Fluke he said, "because I thought about Malia and Sasha (his daughters) and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about... and I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because they're being good citizens."

Maher -- see you in hell

The hypocrisy in Obama's response is his avoidance of Bill Maher, who contributed $1 million dollars to Obama's re-election.  Maher, a foul-mouthed little man, well-known militant atheist and one of America's nastiest talk show hosts, is unapologetic about saying the following:

George Bush - "retarded child emperor" and "terrorist's wet dream"
Catholics - "child-abusing religious cult' with a pope that "used to be a Nazi"
Rush Limbaugh - "Why couldn't he have croaked from (Oxycontin) instead of Heath Ledger?" and "Do it (repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell) because it will make Rush Limbaugh explode like a bag of meat dropped from a helicopter.  Do it because it will make Sarah Palin 'go rogue' in her pants."
Glenn Beck - "When we see crazy, senseless deaths like this, we can only ask why, why couldn't it have been Glenn Beck?
Sarah Palin - "Sarah Palin screaming about death panels?  You know what, Sarah, if we were killing off useless people, you'd be the first to know."  He recently called her "a dumb twat" and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaskan governor.
Michelle Bachmann - "She's not a mean girl.  She's a crazy girl with mean ideas."  He compared Palin and Bachmann to "boobs" and "Two bimbos."

Get the idea?  This man makes his living with this "comedy act", then makes a million dollar donation to Obama.  And the president is silent on the issue, with his hand out, eagerly taking donations for this year's election.

Don't expect the media to ask Obama about calling Bachmann, Palin, Bush or Beck to see if he defended their good citizenship.  Because he didn't.  It's politics as usual for the left and their supporters in the mainstream media.

McCarthyism is alive and well.

Is GM's Success for Real?

UPDATE (3/2/12)  General Motors has temporarily suspended production of its Volt electric car, the company announced Friday.  GM announced to employees at one of its facilities that it was halting production for five weeks and temporarily laying off 1,300 employees.

A few weeks ago I wrote about "Halftime in America" which tried to convince us that Detroit's auto industry was coming back.

Now we're being led to believe -- thanks to the same agenda driven media -- that GM had record profits and that we should thank President Obama for his rescue of the auto industry.  I may have graduated from Madison's journalism school 28 year ago, but that doesn't mean that I've forgotten the basic components of a news story.  This latest attempt to paint a rosy picture doesn't pass the ink test.

A sample of the hyperbole associated with the usual suspects like NPR, USA Today, NY Times and every major news broadcast gush the following praise: "GM Profits Soar to Record High," Obama Hails Record GM Profits.  The Wage Cutter In-Chief," "Resurgent General Motors Post Record $7.6 billion Profit," "Record GM Profits Could Make Romney's Anti-Bailout Message a Harder Sell," and  "UAW Bonuses on GM Profit May Lift Economy."

I'm always reminded by my wife that I'm an out-of-touch optimist, so believe me when I wish those headlines spoke the truth.  But they don't.

Media stretch number 1
"GM posts $7.6 million profit, surpassing the previous high of $6.7 billion earned in 1997." Seton Motley of Newsbusters had a great observation when he said that this profit is only possible because GM is paying no corporate taxes.  At a corporate tax rate of 39.2%, GM's profit of $7.6 billion would generate $2.98 billion in taxes.  Apply this tax -- like everyone else -- and you have profits of $4.62 billion, a far cry from 1997's record haul.

Since the press won't ask the obvious question, I will.  How is it possible that GM is not paying corporate taxes?  The answer is found in a complex, but interesting economics paper from Harvard Law Professors, J. Mark Ramseyer and Eric B Rasmussen.  In the paper, they reveal that the U.S. Treasury allowed the new GM to emerge from bankruptcy with something called "net operating losses" (NOL) intact.  Normally, when a company goes into bankruptcy, these NOLs can't be retained.   But because of an "exception" to normal tax law by the Treasury Department, GM was able to maintain these NOLs which today are offsetting corporate taxes that would be due.

Because of the Obama Administration's slight of hand -- a tax waiver no other business gets -- a large amount of wealth has been transferred to... (wait for it) ... GM's loyal United Auto Workers Union.   It is unconscionable to me that taxpayer money in the form of TARP money was used to buy GM stock; it's unforgiveable that the Obama Administration used our money to reward one of the biggest reasons GM was forced into bankruptcy in the first place:  the UAW.

But don't expect to hear any of this from the mainstream media.

Media stretch number 2
"GM's sales growth, market share, product trends and employee bonuses reinforce the idea that GM is getting stronger."  If the media are to be believed, GM has turned the corner to profitability and increased market share.  Looking closer, you will find that the auto industry as a whole did better in 2011.  Companies like Toyota, Volkswagen, Honda, Chrysler, Ford, etc. all reported much better profits from increased U.S. auto sales.  In fact, January 2012 continues this trend.  Automotive News just reported that U.S. auto sales rose 11 percent on the month to a total of 913,384 units, for an annual rate of 14.2 million units.

Yet, while nearly every automaker reported brisk upbeat sales numbers for the first month of 2012, GM didn't have much to cheer about.  GM sales were off by 6%, while Chrysler (now owned by Fiat) reported sales increases of 44% while Ford rose 7%.  Toyota and Honda also reported solid sales increases (7%-10%) nearly a year after the destructive March 11th earthquake devastated the country and one of its auto production bases.  So hold on to your party hats, ting tanglers and jang jigglers.  Maybe the improved profits can be attributed to an improving economy and production slowdowns at Toyota and Honda.

International sales in Europe and South America were also down again.  It's too early to say if GM is making a comeback -- perhaps it's just a natural expansion due to pent-up demand.  A better gauge of GM's success will be determined when it competes fairly with fully-operational Toyota and Honda, which have rebounded sharply going into the new year.

The Volt -- what were they thinking?

We are being told that the new Chevy Cruze and Volt are leading the company back.  This is only partially true, with the Volt continuing its miserable sales record.  Instead of meeting its goal of 10,000 sales by year end, GM had sold only 6,100 vehicles, despite being heavily subsidized by our government.

The Volt remains an expensive ideological gamble:  you get 40-50 miles out of the battery before the gasoline engine must kick-in.  You need four hours to charge (with a 240 volt charger) or 10-12 hours (with a 120 volt charger).  GM is planning to train 22,000 employees in an effort to manage expectations for new owners.  Apparently expecting the car to perform like a normal car is asking too much.  It costs GM $41,000 to manufacture the Volt (which when sold for $41,000 translates to $0 profit).  No wonder the Volt is struggling to lead GM into the next century.

 During the summer months, Volt sales had slowed to a trickle as GM shut down the Detroit factory where the car was being built.  Now we are being told that the factory was being retooled in order to boost the car's production volume.  Apparently it wasn't the car's cost or limited driving range, it was the factory's inability to produce it fast enough?  GM is saying that they will start selling a Volt version of the European Opel in the hopes of generating more sales.  The Opel has been "no es viable" for GM throughout Europe for more than a decade, and I don't think adding a Volt version will change its track record.

Despite the struggles with the Volt, GM continues to invest heavily in clean-energy technologies, with patents covering hybrid vehicles, fuel cells and solar energy.  And they plan to introduce Volt-like versions of the Cadillac and Buick models soon.

GM is having better success with the Chevy Cruze and Sonic, but they are much less profitable than trucks and SUVs.  With the price of gas potentially going through the $5 barrier, it bears watching to see if GM can continue to make enough money producing these less profitable cars.

I am being honest when I say that I'm glad GM is doing better than it was in 2008.  Whatever benefits come from keeping workers on the job is a positive.  But after 101 years, GM's practice of bad financial decisions (unions) and noncompetitive vehicles (Impala) caught up to it.  Looking at the government's decision to bailout GM denied the natural order of things.  GM was destined to go into bankruptcy -- even with the bailout, jobs were still lost, factories closed and dealerships shut down.

What the bailout did was prevent GM from rising from the ashes as a stronger, smarter company (minus all its baggage) capable of competing on the domestic and global stage.  GM was not "too big" to fail -- it was just too big to succeed in the corporate form it was.

The government bailout also prevented other companies from gaining ground on a competitor, who was down and out.  Toyota, Honda, Ford and Volkswagen didn't receive a bailout, therefore the natural order of the strong benefiting from the weak was altered.  I've heard many experts say it would have been the end of the auto industry, with more than a million jobs lost.  Ancillary companies would have been forced to close.  Not only is this a lie, it's not even creditable.  Other car companies would have absorbed many of those lost jobs, closed factories, and unfinished car designs.  People would have still bought cars -- keeping people on the assembly line -- just not GM's brand.  President Obama loves to talk about fairness.  Apparently, not when it comes to competition in the auto industry.

Why does it bother me so much that the media are lying about GM?  

Because Obama wants us to believe that he made the right choice by using $85 million dollars of taxpayer money to bailout GM and Chrysler.  The mainstream media now wants us to acknowledge his leadership in saving GM.  NBC News just "reported" that GM is now rewarding America's generosity with a record financial report for 2011.  Well, I'm not feeling any richer.  In fact I'm feeling ripped off by the political games being played -- by President Obama and the UAW leadership.

Speaking of paybacks, wouldn't it be great to get a $7,000 profit sharing check the way union members are this year?  The last time I checked, I haven't even received a "thank you" note from Government Motors, just a letter asking for another donation to Obama's 2012 re-election -- delivered by ABC, NBC and CBS.

Let me be the first say, "No thank you."

Glittering Jewels of Colossal Ignorance

I play basketball during my lunch hour to provide an outlet for my frustrations that develop over the first part of the day.  It's tremendously therapeutic to run full court, box out for a rebound and hit an occasional winning shot.  All of a sudden, the guy who was complaining about his auto insurance rates going up because he was responsible for causing $3,598 in damage, doesn't seem so bad.

The same philosophy applies to writing this blog.  If the insanity of the Walker recall efforts gets too much, I can type away until I feel like I've said my two cents, proven the fallacy of their argument and (in my mind) saved the state from unconscionable indebtedness.  Every so often, however, it gets to be too much.

So, I want to provide my early 2012 examples of such stupidity that it defies all attempts to forget them.  Perhaps listing these glittering jewels of colossal ignorance will help others realize just how bad it has gotten.  When the majority of people start talking like this, you know we're going to hell in a hand basket.

My first example is the proclamation by Pulp Fiction's Samuel Jackson in an Ebony interview that he voted for Obama because of his skin color.  According to Jackson, "Obama's message didn't mean sh*t to me.  I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do.  I voted for Barack because he was black.  Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people -- because they look like them."

Sorry, Sam but you are an ignorant buffoon.  According to election results in 2008, 54 percent of young whites voted for Obama, proving that at least a majority of whites aren't colorblind.  On the other hand 96 percent of blacks voted for Obama because of his race.

But Jackson wasn't finished.  He added, "When it comes down to it, they wouldn't have elected a n*gga.  Because, what's a n*gga?  A n*gga is scary.  Obama ain't scary at all.  N*ggas don't have beers at the White House.  N*ggas don't let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call you a liar."  He went on to say that Obama's first term was timid and that he hopes he gets a second term because then he could behave like a "scary n*gga, cuz he ain't gotta worry about being re-elected."

I don't know what's worse -- his grammar or his use of the N-word.  It's obvious that he can read a movie script, but if this is the way he speaks normally, he has a lot of fans fooled.  And why can blacks get away with saying the N-word but no one else?  Hopefully these comments are the beginning of the end of Jackson's career.  What a bigot and racist.

Example number two:  Maya Angelou, the 83-year old, black poet who read at President Obama's inauguration, is thought of by some as the "sage of black America".  She had this to say recently (concerning Obama's re-election):

"I think we are going to see a number of people who say: ' I have no racial prejudice in my heart, not in my conversation'," Angelou says.  "But in the next few months, as we wind up to the double campaign, I tell you we are going to see some nastiness, some vulgarity, I think.  They'll pull the sheets off."


Reflecting on Obama's presidency, Angelou says "He is America's president.  But he also describes himself as America's first black president.  His physical self, just being there, his photograph in the newspapers as president of the United States; that has done so much good for the spirit of the African American.  We see more and more children wanting to be like President Obama, wanting to go to school."

Why is it that black activists are the first to play the race card?  If we criticize Obama, somehow we're all card-toting members of the Klu Klux Klan?  The fact that the president has done more to destroy 2.2 million jobs than create new ones is somehow related to him being black?  The explosion in our national debt to more than $15 trillion is a figment of our imagination, and solely a by-product of our racial biases?

You can't criticize Obama's presidency based on his color, but it's permissible to use it as an attribute when claiming he's the first black American president.  (Sorry, but I believe President Clinton took that distinction when he moved his office to Harlem, N.Y. and proclaimed his race-altering transformation.)  So if we are to believe this intellectual sycophant, Barack Obama's an inspiration to black kids who suddenly want to go to college.  Somehow I don't see this same adoration in some of Chicago's African American kids who don't know who their fathers are but who know how Derrick Rose cheated in college to become a star in the NBA.

My final example is from Maxine Waters, who's always good for putting her foot in her mouth.  The senior senator from California spoke her mind last week at a state party convention in San Diego.  For those of you who think it's Republicans in Congress holding progress back because we won't work with the Democrats, listen to this:

"I saw pictures of (House Republican leaders) Boehner and Cantor on our screens at the convention.  Don't ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything.  These are demons."  She told the crowd, "they are bringing down this country, destroying this country, because they'd rather do whatever they can do to destroy this president rather than what's good for this country."  Apparently congressmen from the GOP are bad for the country.  Maybe -- just maybe -- there's a good reason we don't want anything to do with these people.

Ms. Waters also said that banks will be "shaking in their boots" if Democrats retake the House and she assumes control of the House Finance Committee (the great bloviator Barney Frank is retiring).  Somehow I don't think we have to worry about Maxine getting the chair on this committee, however.  She continues to face an ethics investigation into her potential role in securing federal money for a bank with ties to her husband.

I kid you not.

As much as I like to label these comments as colossally ignorant,  it worries me that more than half the people in this country actually think the same way.  Whether its accusations about Republicans wanting to outlaw contraceptives, or Warren Buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary, or GM's announcement that the Volt is the "car of the future" -- there are too many people focused on Whitney Houston's funeral, and not on things that are really changing our world.

Oh well.  At least we can all agree that this year's Grammy winner, Adele, is one heck of a singer.

Half Time in America?

Last night's Super Bowl XLVI was bad enough with the New York Giants and New England Patriots playing.  Twenty-four hours later, I still can't decide who I wanted to win.  For me, it took some very funny dog ads from Doritos and Bud Light to make it watchable.

There was one ad, however, that didn't leave me laughing and that was Halftime in America, narrated by Clint Eastwood, who did his best to put a positive spin on the recovery of Detroit and America's car industry.  Update:  Some conservatives are saying that it puts a positive spin on Obama's bailout since it was written by two of his campaign supporters.

Kick some butt, Clint

"It's halftime.  Both teams are in their locker rooms discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half," Eastwood says in the spot.  "It's halftime in America too.  People are out of work and they're hurting.  And they're wondering what they're going to do to make a comeback.  And we're all scared, because this isn't a game.  The people of Detroit know a little something about this.  They almost lost everything.  But we pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again."

"Detroit's showing us it can be done.  And what's true about them is true about all of us," Eastwood continues.  "This country can't be knocked out with one punch.  We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines.  Yeah, it's halftime in America.  And, our second half is about to begin."

If you were on your sixth Budweiser (or Stroh's since we're discussing Detroit here), you might actually think:  "Hell, yeah!  That's the American spirit that built this country.  Punch us hard, and we may go down.  But we'll get back up -- spitting teeth and blood -- and hit you back twice as hard."  That's the American Spirit that built the Empire State Building, Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.   And I think it's great that they got Eastwood to narrate the whole thing, because I can't think of a tougher son of a bitch than Dirty Harry to carry that message.

Unfortunately, that's not the message than can be told from the bailout of General Motors Corporation, Chrysler Group LLC and their finance units, much less the rejuvenation of Detroit as a city coming back against tough odds.  Government intervention isn't what made America great.  Individual freedom, through innovation has made us the greatest nation on earth.  A two minute ad -- carrying a message of government bailouts, and tough looking union employees -- isn't good enough to get us out of this jam.

Let's look at the bailout of GM and Chrysler:  President Bush and Obama both presided over a loan of more than $85 billion in the hopes of preventing two of the big three auto companies from going bankrupt (Ford declined their offer).  In addition, fear of massive job losses, reduced tax revenue, and irreparable damage to the future credibility of the auto industry were given as reasons for the bailout.  Neither President nor members of Congress had the fortitude to let the auto industry stand on its own, despite howls of protest from the majority of American taxpayers.

True to predictions, GM and Chrysler both filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy a few months after receiving the bailout money.  In addition, years later after coming out of bankruptcy:

. GM is still Government Motors.
. The U.S. Government converted $45.3 billion in loans to a 70% ownership position.
. This ownership remains a drag on GM's profit potential, as is evident by the Obama
  administration's ideological commitment to "green" development (think the Volt).
. GM's stock price of $26.70 per share is still less than half of the $53 price that the U.S. Treasury
  Department needs to break even.  Selling at anything less than that would mean additional
  taxpayer losses.
. The Canadian Government converted an $8.1 billion stake into 12% ownership.
. GM has $27 billion in future, unfunded pension liabilities, which could become taxpayer liabilities if
  the auto company cannot make payments.
. From its founding in 1923 until the government took over in 2009, GM had a total of ten CEO's --
  none of the three CEO's since have lasted even a year.

As a whole, the auto industry employed 955,000 in 2008.  Today there are 746,000.

I don't know what would have happened to the auto industry without the bailout, but it's safe to say that GM and Chrysler would have still filed for bankruptcy, but come out much leaner (yes, fewer jobs and less union influence) with more flexibility to meeting consumer demand.  That, to me, would represent taking a punch and coming back with a left, countered by a right hook to the jaw.

It seems to me that since the bailout, the auto industry (through regulations placed on it by its majority owner, Obama) has been trying to sell us on its vision of profitability.  But seriously, what does the government really know about profit?  Has it ever been profitable?

Can Detroit be saved?

As for the city of Detroit, it's ludicrous to think that the city is on it's way back.  Putting "Imported from Detroit" on auto ads doesn't fool anyone -- the city is hurting.

The ad with Clint Eastwood apparently shot many of the locations used in New Orleans and Los Angeles.  I realize it was about America at Halftime, but don't you think they could have used some actual Detroit imagery for an ad centered primarily on Detroit's urban renewal?  Or is it because there aren't any?

In 2011, Detroit was named by Forbes Magazine as one of the most violent cities in America, with 345 murders reported in the Detroit metropolitan area.  That's nearly 1 murder every day.  The economic picture in Detroit was supposed to get better once the auto company bailout was complete.  I'm sorry, President Obama, but it hasn't happened.  Unemployment has remained high -- estimated at almost 50%.  City officials  claim, the once glamorous city now has more people living in poverty than cars in the street.  And the U. S. census bureau shows that a quarter of a million people have left Detroit in the past ten years.  If the Super Bowl ad had actually been honest, it would have shown around 60,000 vacant buildings and 35,000 abandoned homes lining the streets of the city.

The editor of Detroit's Michigan Citizen, Zenobia Jeffries, explains, "We are seeing home foreclosures and a continued flight to the suburbs which takes the tax base away from the city and there's more and more of that.  The decline in the school system is making people leave the city.  And so there's no money here and no jobs here."

Downriver Scrap Iron & Metal Company, located five miles outside Detroit, is one of a few businesses booming with new faces.  Scrapping --gutting homes and buildings for their cooper and steel pipes -- has increased dramatically as the city loots itself.   Landmark buildings and foreclosed homes are being gutted for survival, says Downriver's owner Albert Wojtala. "With the little money they get, they're trying to survive, pay their bills.  They just can't make it -- everything has gone to hell."

If Detroit is a beacon of hope and a shining example of what makes America great, we are in deeper trouble than any of us know.

So, it's halftime in America.  General Motors and Chrysler (and by proxy Detroit) will never be thought of as winning this game until it is off the government teat and standing on its own, able to sustain profitable growth with products consumers want and like.  Cutting ties with Obama and Washington D.C. is a must.

It's inevitable that government can't run a business profitably.  As the failings of the U.S. Post Office, AMTRAK Railways and Fannie May / Freddie Mac remind us, the bottom line always turns red.

Much like the bloody streets of once-great Detroit.