The War on Women

It seems to me that if there is a  "War on Women", it is the Left that is conducting it. 

Birth Control:  It is the Left that seems to believe that all the costs and responsibilities of preventing a birth is 100% on the female.  Witness the recent hullabaloo concerning Sandra Fluke.  President Obama and the rest of the Democrats all sympathize with this poor, poor, woman who is burdened with $3000 in birth-control expenses.  That must be because they believe the men she's with are free of responsibility.  The Left, however, say it's the Right who have a problem with women because they believe in personal responsibility.

Name-Calling:  Okay, Rush Limbaugh was way out of line publicly calling Fluke the names he did.  Keep in mind that he did apologize for it.  Ed Schultz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham, basically the same thing.  At least he apologized.  Where's the apologies for the following?

• Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the 'c' word and the 't' word.  He has also said pretty despicable stuff about Michelle Malkin and Michelle Bachmann.
• David Letterman not only made a reference to Palin having a "slutty flight attendant look", he also attacked her daughter.
• Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it."
• Harry Belafonte called Condoleeza Rice a "house [n-word]".
• Governor Jerry Brown's wife called Meg Whitman a "whore".

I believe there is nothing the Left hates more than a conservative woman.  Actually, that's not true, they hate black conservative women even more.  They can't stand the idea of a woman using her own mind and making choices that don't fit the agenda.  So basically, the Left is all for a woman to be smart, independent, and successful as long as she thinks and does, and believes in everything the Left tells her to.

Rape is Perfectly Okay (As long as it's a Democrat):  Roman Polanski drugged and raped an under-aged teenager and most of Hollywood is perfectly fine with this.  Whoopi Goldberg even said it wasn't "rape rape".  Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick.  Despite all the efforts by the media and Hollywood, the truth came out.  Then you have Clinton placing Kathleen Willey's hand on his genitalia.  Gloria Steinem (YES GLORIA STEINEM), the feminist's feminist, said this was okay since he stopped when she said "No."

The Left is all for women who think like they do.  As for the rest, they are despicable and fair game.

The War Against You

Sometimes, the best way to get a point across is to twist the narrative around and force the opposition to see a situation in a different light.  I am going to do this regarding the current controversy concerning ObamaCare and the Catholic Church.

For those of you who don't understand the hubbub regarding the mandate requiring facilities, including Catholic-run hospitals to offer free birth-control, please consider the following hypothetical situation:

What if it was discovered that bacon was strong in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer?  What if studies showed that women who ate bacon were significantly much less likely to develop breast cancer?  What if studies also showed that bacon helped and even cured women who already had breast cancer?

Now, imagine a President forcing all institutions, even those run by Jews and Muslims, to offer bacon as a treatment or a preventative measure.  How would you feel about that?  How do you think Jewish and Muslim communities would react?  How many people would call the United States an "intolerant" or "racist" nation for such a mandate?

Or am I supposed to just accept that because the mandate only affects Christians that it's okay?

Fearless Recap

It was a pretty good year for me in predicting the recent NFL season.  I wasn't perfect but I wasn't way off either.

Preseason Projection                    Actual
AFC East                                      AFC East  (Perfect)
Patriots                                           Patriots
Jets                                                 Jets
Dolphins                                         Dolphins
Bills                                                Bills

AFC North                                  AFC North (Not so perfect.  At least I got the Ravens right.)
Ravens                                          Ravens
Browns                                         Steelers
Steelers                                         Bengals
Bengals                                         Browns

AFC South                                  AFC South (Who could have picked the Colts last, really?)
Texans                                          Texans
Colts                                             Titans
Jaguars                                          Jaguars
Titans                                            Colts

In the next two divisions, I was right except the last place team finished first.
AFC West                                  AFC West (I, like many, underestimated Tim Tebow.)
Chargers                                      Broncos
Raiders                                        Chargers
Chiefs                                          Raiders
Broncos                                       Chiefs

NFC East                                  NFC East (I clearly underestimated the Giants.)
Eagles                                         Giants
Cowboys                                    Eagles
Redskins                                     Cowboys
Giants                                         Redskins

NFC North                               NFC North (Close)
Packers                                      Packers
Lions                                          Lions
Vikings                                       Bears
Bears                                         Vikings

NFC South                               NFC South (No comment)
Falcons                                      Saints
Saints                                         Falcons
Buccaneers                                 Panthers
Panthers                                     Buccaneers

NFC West                               NFC West (I always pick the 49'ers last.)
Seahawks                                  49'ers
Rams                                        Cardinals
Cardinals                                   Seahawks
49'ers                                        Rams

Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl (I had one team right.  I had the wrong NFC East opponent.)

Other fearless predictions:

Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury. (Matt Schaub)

Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last. (Rams and Buccaneers.  I was off by one.)

Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season. (Chargers and Eagles.  Off by one again.)

There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior. (49'ers)

One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season. (Newton and Dalton. Damn!)

Scoring will be down this year.  The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason. (Wrong!  I underestimated the effect of the "no leading with your helmet" rule.  Defenses were pretty soft this year.)

There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail. (Wrong!  Most teams think they are the Packers or Patriots.)

At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.

NFL - Conference Championships

Is this the season where we return to sanity?

The traditional rules to winning a Superbowl are the following:

1. Have a smart, accurate quarterback who performs under pressure.  Quarterbacks who double as running backs need not apply.

2. Have a featured running back who rushed for over 1,000 yards but did not lead the league or even the conference in rushing.  Teams that are mostly about the running game don't belong here.

3. Have a strong defense.

For decades, having all three of the above has been the formula.  There have been a few exceptions, such as the 2000 Ravens, but year by year, this has been almost always the case.

However, each of the last two years has featured teams that don't quite fit this formula.  Two years ago, the New Orleans Saints won with hardly any running game to speak of.  They, in fact, barely beat the Indianapolis Colts, another team without a strong running game or even that good of a defense.  Both these teams featured complex, dynamic passing games that seemed to overcome their other deficiencies.  Then last year, it happened again with the Green Bay Packers.  This leads to the question - has the formula been changed?

This year, the Packers went 15-1 with a weak running game and a suspect defense.  They seemed to be on a collision course with the Saints, who had similar strengths and weaknesses.  This weekend was supposed to be the big shootout between these two pass-happy teams.  As we know now, it wasn't to be.  In fact, the two teams in the NFC that won last week follow the traditional formula.

Now, of the four teams left, only the Patriots depend almost solely on their passing game with their weak running game and suspect defense.  However, I'm not sure if the Ravens fit the formula either as we'll see if Joe Flacco is poised and accurate enough.

The way I see it, this is a very good thing.  Just like the steroid-era of baseball showed, too much offense is not necessarily a good thing.  In baseball, home runs were supposed to be special and exciting.  When there's 10 home runs in a game, the luster wears off and it just becomes expected.  In football, stuffed runs, quarterback sacks, and knocked-down passes are as exciting as touchdowns.  A 10-3 game can be as entertaining as a 35-31 game.

Here I go:

Giants over 49ers
Ravens over Patriots

NFL

Saints over 49ers
Patriots over Broncos
Ravens over Texans
Giants over Packers

The Candidates

Alright, it's time to chime in on the 2012 Presidential candidates.

I've seen many debates, watched the candidates on news shows, listened to interviews, and examined their records.  I also want to add I've watched and listened to the left's take on these candidates to get an additional perspective.  After all, I am a firm believer that 2008's John McCain was a product of the left-leaning media that relentlessly and successfully convinced Americans that he was the most electable Republican candidate.

This is not 2008.  It seemed, at first, that the left-wing media (you know, those "mainstream" outfits like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and pretty much any major city newspaper) decided that the best way to get Barack Obama re-elected was to promote Mitt Romney.  Romney, after all, initiated "RomneyCare", the basis for "ObamaCare", so he wasn't conservative enough to rally the conservatives of the Tea Party ilk.  The problem with that idea was Romney is also a successful businessman and just might come across as someone who could actually fix the economy and get elected.   The media, for a while, just seemed content to let the debates go without saying much.  When Herman Cain started repeatedly getting accused of sexual harassment,  the story was so juicy that the media made sure it got plenty of airtime.  I'm sure the media was happy they didn't have to deal with a black Republican candidate.  After all, any criticism of him would be condemned as racism by the right.  No wait!  That's what the left does.  Now, the media is promoting Jon Huntsman.  He has virtually no chance of winning but I'm sure the media is promoting his leftish platform as a model of how the eventual Republican winner should run his campaign against Obama.

Here is my take on the candidates:

Jon Huntsman:  This man is irrelevant.  The only person who thinks he can be President is him.

Herman Cain:  While I would have relished the thought of the left squirming about a right-leaning black man running against Barack Obama, it just wasn't to be.  Cain lost me with his insistence on his "9-9-9" plan.  I'm all for radical tax reform but Cain's plan seemed too convenient.  Are we really supposed to believe that after careful analysis of the tax system, the optimal tax rates for personal income, business income, and national sales tax just happens to be 9%, 9%, and 9% giving Cain a handy catchphrase to state over and over again?  Good thing it wasn't the 8.75-9.34-7.73 plan.  Nobody would have remembered it.  The tax plan was also the only thing Cain seemed to be armed with.  He stumbled badly when handling questions about foreign policy or positions on abortion.  I like Cain as a person but he frankly was not ready to be President.  By the way, whatever happened to all the sexual harassment suits that were popping up until he cancelled his run?

Michele Bachmann:  Every time I heard Bachmann speak, she always said all the right things.  She comes across as very smart and very conservative.  However, Bachmann's got some baggage with her husband and there are indications that she doesn't always "walk the walk".  Also, Tim Pawlenty accused her of not accomplishing anything in Congress and she wasn't able to respond well to that.  Sorry Michele, not this year.  Stay in Congress, stay conservative, and we'll see next time.  I haven't given up on you but this 2012 election is not for you.  I still wonder what the "Queen of Rage" cover of Newsweek was about.  She never seemed angry to me.  Oh yeah!, it's the media, never mind.

Rick Santorum:  I like him a lot.  He may be the best conservative candidate.  He comes across as a hard-working, very knowledgeable family man.  If this election was based strictly on integrity and principles, Santorum would be my guy.

Rick Perry:  Perry comes across to me as weak.  He seems to have been a pretty good governor but I have no idea where he is on foreign policy.  He shows up at debates unprepared which is pretty unacceptable.  He reminds me of George W. Bush when he speaks and that won't get him elected.

Ron Paul:  I wish this guy was as irrelevant as Huntsman because in my opinion, he has no business being a Presidential candidate.  The utopia of a teeny, tiny, government would fail within weeks when Iranian-sponsored terrorists attack us and we aren't able to do anything about it because we'll have such a small military.  Paul is weaker than Obama on foreign policy and frankly scares the hell out of me.  I would honestly vote for Obama if Paul became the Republican candidate.  (Which is very unlikely.)

Newt Gingrich:  When Gingrich put his hat in the ring, I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't sure why.  I kept hearing from supporters how intelligent he is and how he was the one primarily responsible for the "budget surplus" that everyone gives Clinton credit for. (Not really a surplus but that's not important right now.)  Once I heard Gingrich in a debate speak favorably of the federal government aiding people in buying a home.  He is always talking about a "government policy" for this and a "government policy" for that.  Gingrich has shown himself as a big-government Republican.  Yet, he has the gumption of calling himself "conservative".  Hey Newt, know thyself and stop attacking Romney with your leftish, anti-capitalist views.  Why don't you just become Obama's campaign manager and be done with the charade?

Mitt Romney:  This election is about A. Who is going to fix the economy? and B. Who is going to guide the U.S. and the free world through what is going to be a very dangerous time for the world?  The President is going to have to deal with a new leader in North Korea, Iran about to become a nuclear power, a very nervous Israel,  potentially hostile new regimes in Egypt and Libya, and all sorts of instability in Europe.  On this basis, I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate who is best suited to deal with this by far.  Really, my fellow Americans, this is not the time to fret over positions on abortion or gay marriage.  We need to have Americans working and producing again.  This is the best way to stay strong and be in position to confront those who would destroy us. 

If you believe I am wrong about this.  Please let me know.  I'd love to read it.