Notes Concerning the Partial Government Shutdown

There seems to be a lot of mythology concerning what's happening in Washington now.  Let's get a few things straight.

The Senate and the President could work with the House.  They won’t so they’re as stubborn as the Congress.  Although the Senate and the President approved on paying members of the military, they refuse to pass the multiple bills proposed by the House to fund many of the government programs and services that are so dearly beloved by the Democrats.  These bills have nothing to do with ObamaCare, yet these same Democrats tell us how terrible it is that this stuff isn’t funded.

The Democrats want this partial shutdown.  They believe they can use it to convince Americans that Republicans are taking stuff away from them.  They are actively trying to make us unhappy by shutting down monuments and historic sites that require more funding and effort to shut down than to just leave them be.  They are actively preventing commercial fishing boats from fishing.  Again, it costs more and requires more effort to do this, but Democrats think it’s worth it because they believe they can blame these dastardly deeds on Republicans.  As long as they believe they can pull a fast one on the American public, they will be perfectly happy to continue the partial shutdown and tell us how terrible it is.

If you are thinking ObamaCare is some kind of government-run socialized medicine program similar to Canada’s or England’s, think again.  Understand that I would be against such a thing as well, but that’s not what ObamaCare is.  ObamaCare is a sweet deal made between the U.S. Government with health insurance companies.  By forcing people to buy insurance – especially young people who commonly wouldn’t buy it, the healthcare industry gets more customers.  The government, in return, gets more control, power, and funding.  This is great for the healthcare executives and the Washington politicians.  It screws the majority of Americans in raising rates and cutting services and access to doctors.

A vast majority of doctors are against ObamaCare.  It will mean less pay for them and more for administrators.  It also means they will spend less time with each patient.  This is causing and will further cause doctor shortages.  It just isn’t worth going through years and years of schooling, going deeply into debt, only to end up making the same salary as some government bureaucrat.  The number of applicants for medical schools around the country is going down.  The would-be doctors of the world are going to law schools instead where the number of applicants is going up fast.  The government hasn’t figured out how to screw lawyers yet.  This is probably because most politicians are lawyers.  Incidentally, the doctors who support ObamaCare tend to be the ones staffed by hospitals.  It doesn’t affect them so much.

ObamaCare is cake – as in “Let them eat cake”.  Politicians don’t want it.  Anybody who has any political clout is lobbying to be exempt from it.  Nancy Pelosi keeps telling us how wonderful it is but wouldn’t dare have it for herself or her family.  The rest of the Left keep reminding us that ObamaCare is LAW.  Well if it is LAW, then Congress and everyone else in Washington is under the LAW as well.  That’s how America works.

I am paying twice as much for my healthcare policy as I did a year ago.  My premium is supposed to go up even more next year.  I’ve also lost my doctor whom I had for over 10 years.  He wants no part of ObamaCare.  My situation is the norm, not the exception.  Years ago, Barack Obama promised my rates would go down and I would be able to keep my doctor.  Did Barack Obama lie or did he badly miscalculate?  How much have your rates risen?

A Different Game

Once upon a time, someone invented a sport called "soccer" or "football".  The game obviously appealed to a lot of people as it has been very popular from then to this day.  It is in fact, the world's most popular sport.  How popular is it?  It is so popular that it has been re-invented many, many times.

The rules are pretty straightforward.  Start with a rectangular-shaped grass field and put goals on each end and basically, two teams kick, pass, and shoot a ball and try to get the ball into the defended goal on the opponent's side of the field.  With the exception of the player defending the goal (the goalie), the players play both offense and defense simultaneously.  The game is played for a given time limit. There are a few rules such as not using hands and not kicking the ball outside of the rectangular arena.  That's more or less, the game of soccer.  It's simple enough where a thing or two can be changed and a brand new game can be invented.

For example, instead of kicking a ball, have the players use sticks to strike the ball.  Now you have field hockey.  Field hockey is essentially soccer.

If the players use nets, you have lacrosse.  Lacrosse is essentially soccer.

Now replace the grass field with an ice rink and use a rubber disk instead of a ball.  Now you have ice-hockey.  Ice hockey is essentially soccer.

Okay, replace the ice with a hardwood floor.  Change the angle of the goal from horizontal to vertical and you have basketball.  Basketball is essentially soccer.

Put the grass field back and now have the players ride horses and hit a ball with a stick and you have polo.  Polo is essentially soccer.

Instead of having continuous motion, have set scrimmages and allow players to run with or throw an elongated ball forward.  Now you have American football.  American football is essentially soccer.

Instead of putting an object into a goal at the end of the rectangle, let's just make the rule where the object just has to be struck to the opposing side where the opponent can't hit it back.  Now, we have a whole slew of new sports.

Play that way with your hands and you have volleyball.  Volleyball is essentially soccer.

Play volleyball in the water and you have water polo.  Water polo is essentially soccer.

Go back to a hard surface and strike the ball with a tightly netted paddle and you've got tennis.  Tennis is essentially soccer.  For that matter, so is badminton.

Shrink the rectangle and raise it up as a table and you have table tennis or ping pong.  Table tennis is essentially soccer.

Now, cut the rectangular arena in half, put a wall on one end and have opposing players on the same side of the wall.  You have racquetball and handball.  Racquetball and handball are essentially soccer.

Here's a bit of a stretch but bear with me.  Take the rectangular arena and spin it round.  Instead of a net, have just a pole with a soccer ball hanging on a rope from the top.  You've got tether ball.  Tether ball is essentially soccer.

Let's sum it all up.  Field hockey, lacrosse, ice hockey, basketball, polo, American football, volleyball, water polo, tennis, badminton, table tennis, racquetball, handball, and tether ball are all variants of soccer.

Do you know what isn't soccer?  Baseball isn't soccer.  Baseball breaks many of the rules of soccer and soccer variants.  Players are either playing defense or offense, never at the same time.  The defense handles the ball.  There's no time limit or set scoring.  The object is for the player to reach the goal, not the ball.  Baseball is different.

Yes, baseball is different.  This is perhaps why so many don't seem to care for it.  One views a soccer game or variant and can very quickly figure out the basics of the game.  Baseball really needs to be explained to the newcomer or it will seem very confusing - especially if this newcomer is expecting another form of soccer. 

Baseball is the sport of physics and mathematics.  So many principles are there where a student of these disciplines can have a field day (pun intended).  It's a game where geometry and statistics is intertwined with physical action and mental toughness.  Unlike soccer and variants where strategy is about specific plays, strategy in baseball is fluid and constant.  So much so that the untrained spectator doesn't perceive it.  To enjoy baseball, one must be willing to be involved in it and not just passively watch it. 

Professional baseball doesn't always seem to get it.  It seems that some believe that changing a thing or two here and there to make it more "soccer-like" will get the unwashed masses who spend their money on tickets and jerseys for soccer and soccer variants to give baseball another look.  It isn't going to happen.  Why?  Because baseball is different.

Is adding instant-replay to baseball really going to improve baseball?  I don't think so.  Umpires and their all too human abilities and inabilities having to make instant decisions over a split-second occurrence is part of what makes baseball different, and better I might add.  Players and managers screaming at umpires over a perceived blown call is part of the fabric of baseball.  Why even try to get rid of it? 

For that matter, get rid of the designated hitter.  A baseball player is both a batter and a fielder.  Save the specialty players for American football.  It has no use in baseball except for those out there that believe an extra batter in the lineup is actually going to get a soccer person's attention. 

Baseball is different.

I want a Bat Mitzvah

Yes, you've read the title correctly.  I believe I deserve a retroactive Bat Mitzvah.  If some citizens get to have a party just for reaching a certain age, well, I should have one too. 

Can you believe some narrow-minded, bigots have the gumption to say I can't have one.  They argue by using ridiculous, Torah-thumping, sexist, ageist comments suggesting that I can't have a Bat Mitzvah because I'm not a thirteen year old Jewish girl.

Is this not America?  Don't we have discrimination laws?

How dare these people infringe on my rights by invoking some silly, antiquated religious rule!  Let's organize a march on Washington to raise awareness so the Supreme Court can rule on this travesty that is so unfair to us non-Jewish adult males.

The Deal

Here's an offer from the Left of America that's been going around recently:

"Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we've decided we're leaving.

We in New York intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast.

We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
We're taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

Citizen of the Enlightened States of America"

Now, I'm a conservative who lives in California so it's a bit awkward to speak on behalf of the Red States but let me try.

I'll take the deal.  Hold on everybody on the Right.  Hear me out!

First of all, this proposal isn't entirely fair.  For example, the Blue States think they're entitled to having places like Yosemite.  Let me remind them that although Yosemite is in California, it's in the eastern - Red part of the state.  In fact, California, like most Blue states, is vastly Red geographically.  It would be a Red state if it weren't for the Los Angeles and San Francisco urban areas. 

Of course, Lex Luthor showed in Superman: The Movie that a few miles east of the west coast is "just hundreds and hundreds of miles of worthless desert land". 

I don't want to argue small details, I'll concede Yosemite.  After all, we get Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier, and Great Smoky Mountain National Parks.  We also get New Orleans.  The current (mostly Democrat) residents are certainly welcome to stay there but they will have to switch ideologies.  Otherwise, you can have them.

I object to you referring to the south as "Slave States".  What century are you people living in?

By the way, condors have been introduced into the Grand Canyon.  There's another National Park we get.

"38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties"

You people believe that Hurricane Sandy was caused by humans contributing .0028% of the Earth's greenhouse gases.

Now, here's why I take the deal.

We get Alaska, Texas, Oklahoma and the Dakotas.  We get the oil.  Without the hysterics in our midst, we will build enough refineries and have cheap gasoline.  We'll be happy to sell you some but it's going to cost you.

We'll have lots of open space for wind and solar power too.  We're not against this, we just object to the government "investing" in these technologies.  If there's jobs and profit to be made, we'll do it - and not burden the taxpayers.

We'll be very business-friendly.  Businesses large and small are welcome.  Were not big on unions, so our companies will be competitive.  You'll have Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Honda.  We'll have Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, and Nissan.

"We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs."

Do you really think they'll stay with you?  You're going to want to significantly tax these people.  We're the ones who will actually be "fair".  Everyone will pay the same flat tax rate.  These entrepreneurs are going to be mostly Republicans anyways.  They're going to want to come to us.  How are you going to stop them from leaving?  Maybe, you will build a wall?

Anybody who wants to leave the Red States certainly may.  We won't stop them.  These will most likely be the people who don't work and scam welfare benefits.  They won't like living in the Red States.  They can be your burden, not ours.

Like any new nation, we'll have our share of problems.  Since no one will be on welfare, we'll all have a stake in making this work.  We'll find solutions.  Your economy will tank as your bluetopia* cannot possibly work. 

We believe in a strong military.  It will be a major priority.  Who's going to defend you?

In ten years or so, our nation will be going strong.  Your's will resemble Greece.

When that happens, we'll invade and the hippies and drug-addicts (you know, the ones abusing that "good weed") that will comprise a significant percentage of your nation will be unable to do anything about it. 

We'll re-instate the Constitution and get our country back.

We win.

*bluetopia (def.):  A community or group of communities where all workers make a comfortable "living wage" performing services - depending on their abilities, for the rest of the community.  Children of all races grow up in a harmonious, pollution-free environment with no violence, no crime, and therefore, no guns.  All conflicts are handled within and outside of the community with compassion and diplomacy.  Businesses don't compete with each other.  They just have set, "fair", pricing so anybody and everybody can afford anything.  All profits are re-distributed evenly back to the community. 

-From the Department of Alternate Universes (it would be a very boring place to live, anyways)

The Choice

Today is one day before Election Day, November 6, 2012.  I'm sure everyone living in a swing state will appreciate this as it should mean the end of incessant ads on TV, radio, phone calls, and mailers.  As many (including the candidates, themselves) have said, the choices are clear regarding how you vote for President.

Here is my perspective of what those choices are:

Obama will continue to push expansion of the federal government.  Obama will continually push programs that make decisions for us regarding what and how we should eat, who handles our health care, how and by what means we commute, and how our children should be educated.

Obama believes that the way to solve unemployment is for the government to hire workers to fix and update America's infrastructure.  He will push more stimulus and increase corporate taxes to try to pay for it.  The taxes won't be able to so the deficit and debt will grow.

Obama will not significantly improve the economy.  At best it will stabilize at its current state - leaving 23+ million unemployed.  Obama is not interested in improving the economy at the expense of his other priorities.

Obama will blame the increased deficit and debt on these same corporations and fault them for not agreeing with his "vision". 

Obama wants to severely diminish large and small business in this country.  He wants nationally-run corporations.

Obama will dismiss complaints about high gas prices and high inflation and suggest that this is because we need to embrace "green" technologies.  He will use the bad economy to promote his agenda of taking down the oil companies.  (May I remind you that oil companies hire millions of Americans including geologists, chemists, and other high-end professions.)

Obama will do nothing to alleviate racial tensions in America.  Obama thrives on perpetuating the belief that his opponents are racists.  It gives him a convenient scapegoat whenever he doesn't get his way or if someone disagrees with him.

Obama will continue to allow the U.N. to have more control and diminish America's role in the world.  It is possible that he will allow the U.N. to set policies and laws for United States citizens.

Obama will leave alone any kind of immigration reform as it is too controversial.  Otherwise, he'd have done it the first two years he was in office.

Obama will continue to defend "The Affordable Healthcare Act" and tell you the thousands of dollars more you are paying is not a tax and less than you would have paid if the evil insurance companies had their way.

Romney will bring years of upper-management experience and apply them.  He will start with national energy production and create a significant number of private sector jobs.

Romney's plan of adding private sector jobs will lower unemployment enough to increase the tax revenues needed to start dealing with the deficit and debt.  It will take years to turn this around, though but at least, Romney will address this seriously.

Romney will take a harder line in foreign relations.  Romney believes in "Peace through strength" as opposed to "strength through peace".

Romney, despite what his detractors say, will leave social issues alone for the most part.  He's not some religious-right evangelist as some seem to want to portray him.
________________________________________________________________________________

The above is in a nutshell, my perspective.  My economic arguments are based on Obama's record and the pitiful GDP numbers we've gotten and the non-improving unemployment rate.  My foreign policy arguments are based on how Obama's handled Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and of course, Libya. 

I've heard others stating diametric beliefs.  Let me share a few.

• Romney is a George W. Bush clone.
• Romney will take command of your "female parts"
• Romney will put you all in "chains".
• Romney will put us all in the fields "picking crops".

There are almost no pro-Obama arguments, only anti-Romney arguments.  The only pro-Obama argument I sometimes hear is that the economy is improving and to stick with him.  The economy has shown a sliver of improvement in the past month.  Do you really believe this will continue with the way Obama is?

2012 Round 1 "Four Years Ago..."

I don't have too much to comment about the recent debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  I do believe Romney won the debate, perhaps not as strongly as some pro-Republican commentators would suggest, but he won it nonetheless.

It was clear right away that Obama was not used to someone looking at him in the eye and holding him accountable for his poor record.  I believe that Obama gets daily doses of comments like "We think you're great, Mr. President!", "You are so smart, Mr. President." and  "I support you wholly, Mr. President."  This explains why he was ill prepared for "Now, I'm concerned that the path that we're on has just been unsuccessful."  Previously, when comments like that were made, Obama had the luxury of  hearing or reading such comments, then mulling it over for a period, and then responding in his usual condescending way.  (He obviously feels he's above all this.)

Romney was polite, respectful, and relentless.  It was very clear he is not the uncaring, clueless, racist, idiot that the Democrats, much of Hollywood, and much of the mainstream media portrayed him to be. Now they're the ones who look bad and they deserve it.

Obama seemed to start every answer with "Four years ago..."  He is still blaming Bush.

I'm looking forward to the Vice-Presidential debate this Thursday.  This should be another huge win for the Romney/Ryan campaign as I seriously doubt Joe Biden has the tools to stand toe-to-toe with Paul Ryan.

Why is this on Thursday when the Presidential debate was on a Wednesday?  There's football on Thursday and much of America probably won't watch this debate for that reason.  What were they thinking?  They didn't choose Thursday on purpose for this very reason, did they?

Did they?

How many times did Obama say "Four years ago"?

"You know, four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."

"Now, four years ago, when I stood on this stage..."

"Well, four years ago, when I was running for office, I was traveling around and having those same conversations that Governor Romney talks about."

"You know, four years ago, we were going through a major crisis."

"You know, four years ago, I said that I'm not a perfect man and I wouldn't be a perfect president."

Hate Speech 2

Hate Speech 1

““We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. - Chick-fil-A President and COO Dan Cathy 2012


“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix…. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” - Barack Obama 2008


One of the above statements is considered "hate speech" by many and has caused a major public furor.  The other was publicly applauded.   Enough said.

An Afternoon with the Great Elderski (Part 5)

(Here's the final part.)

Wrapping up the Race Issue

17 black youths detained in Palmdale for beating Latino.  This has hardly been reported.

Obama can stop the racial nonsense by saying “Al, knock it off!” and “Jesse, knock it off”
Obama is all about race.  He says Trayvon could have been his son.  He accused the Cambridge police of acting stupidly without knowledge of the facts.

The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama.  It was the first time in years that they endorsed a Democrat.  The Tribune stated that “However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America’s slow progress towards equality and inclusion. On November the 4^th, we’re going to elect a President to lead us through a perilous time and restore us a common sense of national purpose.”
Do you think he’s done that?

Larry goes on about the Tribune faulting McCain about a poor choice for his Vice President.

Why is Sarah Palin considered such an inferior running mate when you have Joe Biden?

Biden

He plagiarized somebody’s speech while running for President.  He was caught and embarrassed and dropped out.  He told people he graduated at the top half of his law school when he was at the bottom.  He has taken the wrong position about every major issue while in the Senate.  One of the first things he did as a Senator was vote to cut off funding to the South Vietnamese.   This lead to millions being killed and millions of refugees.  Biden threatened to divulge national security secrets because he disapproved of Reagan’s policies.  He voted against the first Iraqi War and was in favor of the second one only to denounce it months later when things weren’t going well.  He’s the one who said Iraq should be broken up into three parts, something the Iraqis did not want.  He was wrong about the duties of what the VP are while Palin was correct.  Of course, Biden thinks j-o-b-s is a three letter word and urged a man in a wheel chair to stand up.

What was that about Sarah Palin again?

Miscellany

Paul Ryan has a new plan which the Chicago Tribune compliments as real leadership.  Buyer’s remorse on endorsing Obama?

Caller Jason has a challenge.  He’ll give Larry a hundred dollars on any case of black on white crime where the black was able to use the “Stand Your Ground” law.  Larry asks what that proves.  Jason goes on to say 1 in 4 GOP members believe Obama’s parents have an illegal marriage because they are not of the same race.  Jason may have a point in his first challenge but that second one is a flat out lie.  He’s making stuff up.

Larry Elder Show from Reagan Library 5

An Afternoon with the Great Elderski (Part 4)

My continuing introduction of Larry Elder to those who aren't aware of his existance.  From the Reagan Library on March 30, 2012.

More on Race Relations:
7 black youths are being held in Palmdale for beating up a 15 year old Latino.  As in the case with the British youths (See Part 2), Obama probably won’t weigh in on that either since the Latino wouldn’t look like Obama’s son. Ed calls in and challenges Larry that Talk Radio is skewed to the Right.  Elder reminds Ed that NPR, which is funded by tax dollars is overwhelmingly Left.  (I'll concede this is a weak argument by Larry.  Talk Radio is predominantly Right.  However, TV, newspapers, magazines, schools, and movies are all dominions of the Left so give us our talk radio please.)  Then Ed tries to challenge Larry concerning Jackson and Sharpton’s moral authority for getting involved in the Treyvon Martin case.  His argument is so convoluted that Larry cuts him off and says the conversation has “officially jumped the shark.”  Larry remarks that Ed is the kind of person he hopes doesn’t vote. 

We hear President Obama, in full “reverend” voice talking about the “Moses generation” which took us 90% of the promised land with the Civil Rights movement.  The remaining 10%, according to Obama is in the wealth, achievement, empathy, and hope gaps.  What do these “gaps” have to do with race relations or civil rights?

This leads right into Jesse Jackson, who also believes that the wealth, or lack thereof of many blacks is a civil rights issue.  When Larry told Jesse that civil rights is about the right for all to vote or be able to attend a college of their choice, Jesse said “Obviously, Mr. Elder identifies with white males."  Yeah, nice comeback.

Going back to NPR, 85% of its audience is white.  Blacks comprise 5%.  So here is a publicly funded institution with very little diversity.  “Isn’t this a problem, Mr. Obama?”

Caller Don reminds us that just because the police arrest someone doesn’t mean the DA will have a case.  Larry, who spent time in a DA’s office, agrees and says this is what may be happening with the Treyvon Martin case.

Audio here: Larry Elder Show from Reagan Library 4

An Afternoon with the Great Elderski (Part 3)

Intellectual Firepower: Who has it?

Larry Elder takes a break from the Treyvon Martin issue and starts talking about who the smart people are in politics and political commentary.  Larry argues that most of the intellect is on the Right with people like Paul Ryan, Charles Krauthammer, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham.  (Interesting to note that Larry unwittingly categorized this list into white males, black males, and white females)

Who's on the Left? (Crickets, then audience laughter)

Larry argues it wasn't always this way.  He points out Michael Kinsley who was once on Crossfire with Pat Buchanan.  He also mentions blogger Andrew Sullivan.

Then he brings up Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman and comments "That's the best you guys have?"

The case for a bigger government with a broad interpretation of the commerce clause in the Constitution is hard to make.  How do you intellectually argue that the commerce clause allows the government to mandate you to buy something?  The commerce clause is there to prevent one state from taxing another, "it wasn't designed to tell you what to pay somebody, what hours to pay, how far away from a computer screen your chair has to be.” 

Ron Suskind wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Price of Loyalty about the George W. Bush Administration.  It was unflattering and Suskind was treated well by the media and was invited on shows like The Today Show several times.  After he wrote Confidence Men, un unflattering book about the Obama Administration, he was ostracized.

Suskind wrote about two Obama economic advisors Christina Romer and Alan Krueger and how they tried to convince President Obama that it is not true that productivity causes unemployment.  This is about such claims Obama made about ATMs putting people out of work.  ATM machines don’t cause unemployment. They shift employment to those who have to manufacture, improve, distribute, maintain and repair the machines.  It is also a fact that there are now more tellers than before ATM machines.  Obama, upon hearing these arguments, wouldn't budge according to the economists.  “Obama was just wrong!”

Larry goes into how ABC News reporter Charles Gibson reminds then-candidate Obama that if you raise Capital gains tax, then revenue goes down.  Obama agrees but says “it’s a matter of fairness”.  Then, Obama goes on to say he needs the extra revenue to invest in infrastructure and our schools.  HELLO!, YOU’RE NOT GETTING EXTRA REVENUE BY INCREASING THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX!!!!!

In the same interview, Obama condemns spending without cutting and hiking up the deficit to 4 trillion dollars during the 8 year Bush Administration.  (It’s gone up 5 trillion in his 3+ years)

"History, shmistory"

Here's the audio: Larry Elder Show from the Reagan Library 3

An Afternoon with the Great Elderski (Part 2)

Race Relations and Current Events

The show segues into the current controversy regarding the Treyvon Martin Killing.  I admit that I figured there was a good chance this issue would be in the past once I got around to blogging this.  No chance, this is not going away, unfortunately.

A caller named "Rod" slams director Spike Lee for domestic terrorism in attempting to broadcast the address of George Zimmerman.  Lee only apologized for tweeting the wrong address.  Other than that, he sees no wrong-doing. 

Larry reminds us of how Spike Lee disapproves of inter-racial couples which should offend 1 out of every three couples in California since a third of marriages here consist of two people of a different race.  Spike Lee also publicly called Senator Trent Lott a "card-carrying member of the Klan" to Diane Sawyer.  Listen to Elder's impersonation of Sawyer with the audio link below, it's priceless.

If you really want to get Larry Elder's wheels turning, just mention Al Sharpton.  No one mentioned him here, Larry just decided to talk about him and remind us of Sharpton's resume of of immoral behavior.   He goes into the Tawana Brawley incident where Sharpton accused a white man of rape and said "If I lie, you sue me."  When the man was acquitted, he did, indeed sue Sharpton.  Sharpton transferred his assets to his wife's name and basically pleaded poverty.  He only paid it so he could come clean in his Presidential run.  Elder tells of how he called into the Ghiraldo Rivera show and Rivera said that "anybody can make a mistake." 

He then talks of Crown Heights, a section of New York City where in 1991, a 7 year old black child was killed by an Hasidic Jew in an accident.  Sharpton fired up the African-American community by calling the Jews in Crown Heights "diamond merchants" and challenged them to "pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house".  This led to 3 days of riots and 100 people injured and a young jewish scholar was stabbed to death by a black mob yelling "Kill the jew!".  The New York Times reported this incident as an even fight between blacks and jews even though virtually none of the violence was committed by any jews.  Sharpton never apologized and Elder questions how Sharpton has any moral authority to stick his nose into the Treyvon Martin incident.

Next, Elder talks about how two British students vacationing in Florida were called "crackers" and beaten to death by 17 year old Shawn Tyson.  The parents of the two students tried to contact President Barack Obama.  Obama never responded yet he was rather quick to put his two cents in on the Treyvon Martin case.  What's the difference?  Is it because neither of the Brits would have looked like Obama's son?

Here's the audio:  Larry Elder Show from Reagan Library 2

An Afternoon with the Great Elderski (Part 1)

On Friday, March 30, 2012, Talk Show Host Larry Elder broadcasted his afternoon show from the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.  I'm a big fan of Mr. Elder as I have been listening to him for 14 years or so.  I decided to take the afternoon off from work and see him broadcast live.  It was totally worth it, although, admittedly, admission was free.
Larry Elder must be the most congenial talk show host you'll ever find.  I believe that many of those who disagree with him politically, like him nevertheless.  He is so good-natured that it's hard to imagine someone strongly disliking him.  Sadly, those who dislike Mr. Elder are those who can benefit the most from his wisdom.  You see, Larry Elder grew up in South Central Los Angeles but due to a strong family upbringing, he doesn't fit the stereotype of a black male who believes he is an oppressed victim.  Because of this, those who follow the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan see Larry Elder as a sellout and therefore, a threat.  Larry Elder, like so many, isn't appreciated in his home community.  Larry Elder is a Libertarian Republican.  He's pragmatic enough to understand that it's best to support the Republican Party in order for his Libertarian beliefs of small, non-intrusive government to survive.

On to the show.  I'm sharing this because although this was in an unusual venue, it was a very typical Larry Elder show and maybe someone will read this and consider listening to him.  The show begins with a rousing round of applause as Mr. Elder walks in and sits down at his station. 

ObamaCare
Larry first gets into the Supreme Court and President Barack Obama's health care law.  The Solicitor General did an awful job defending ObamaCare.  He couldn't answer the fundamental question "If it is okay to compel me to buy health insurance, then it's okay to compel me to buy broccoli.  It's okay to compel me to do 45 minutes on my treadmill 3 times a week.   It's okay to compel me to get 6 hours of sleep."  Elder asserts that Obama now wants his law to go down and he wasn't unhappy with his guy's performance.  Why would Obama want it to go down?  Basically, so he can blame Republicans for messing up his landmark legislation. 

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of law at UC Irvine told Larry in a previous show that the law is legal and "those terrible appointees of the Supreme Court are running down a very good law."  Larry challenges that ObamaCare is so bad and nobody in politics or the media can defend it with anything factual.  So the best thing is, to let it go and blame the Republicans. 

"Obama will bring us together." is what a friend of Larry told him.  How is Obama bringing us together when his health care mandate didn't get a single Republican vote?  What if George W Bush had gone to Iraq without a single Democrat vote?

Doctors don't like ObamaCare.  Doctors represent one of the most respected professions and two-thirds of them believe it will worsen health care and a majority of them will either cut back hours or leave the profession altogether if ObamaCare gets implemented.

Richard Foster, the chief actuator of Medicare shoots down two big assertions of ObamaCare.  One is that it will cut costs.  Two is that one can keep their current plan.

Michael Hilton of the L.A. Times says ObamaCare is unpopular because people are unaware of the benefits.  Elder asks that if this is so, why aren't we hearing about these benefits?  Elder points out that a book titled "Left Turns" by a UCLA professor Tim Groseclose looks at the 20 largest media outlets and 18 of them (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN among them), are left-oriented.  The two right-leaning organizations are the Washington Times and Fox News.  He also references a book by Ben Shapiro called "Prime Time Propaganda" that indicates how much to the left Hollywood is.  So why aren't these organizations telling us how great ObamaCare is?  Answer: they can't because it isn't so wonderful.

Here's the audio:   Larry Elder Show from Reagan Library 1

Larry Elder can be heard Monday through Friday at 3 pm Pacific Time at KABC AM 790.  He can also be heard online at http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/citadel/?sid=966.

Larry Elder's website

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.

2011 NFL Fearless Predictions

First of all, here's a sneak peak at the final standings:

AFC East
Patriots
Jets
Dolphins
Bills

AFC North
Ravens
Browns
Steelers
Bengals

AFC South
Texans
Colts
Jaguars
Titans

AFC West
Chargers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos

NFC East
Eagles
Cowboys
Redskins
Giants

NFC North
Packers
Lions
Vikings
Bears

NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Buccaneers
Panthers

NFC West
Seahawks
Rams
Cardinals
49'ers

Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl

Other fearless predictions:

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

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

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.

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.

One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season.

Scoring will be down this year.  The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason.

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.

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

Show Me the Racism!

“...as long as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell!” -Rep. Maxine Waters

"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term President." -Rep. Frederica Wilson

"The Tea Party is so obviously racist." -Janeane Garofalo

"Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Let's forget about the whole "call for the end of vitriolic rhetoric" and consider the above statements.
 
There's a lot of harsh speech against a group of Americans who recently began calling for a smaller federal government and lower taxes.  It's obvious that those on the political left (those who call for higher taxes and larger government) don't like them.  Many publicly call them "racists".  Other than the fact the the President of the United States is half-black, what's the justification?
 
The Tea Party seems to protest Congress as much as Obama.  This makes sense since Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, the part that actually approves budgets, tax breaks, and tax increases.  Congress is mostly white so what are these accusations of racism based on?
 
The Tea Party is also accused of being "the enemy".  What is this all about?  Lower taxes and more personal responsibility is a threat?  To whom is this a threat?
 
Let's look at the charter of the Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/). 
 
1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.

2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.

3. Stronger Military Is Essential.

4. Special Interests Eliminated.

5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.

6. Government Must Be Downsized.

7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.

8. Deficit Spending Will End.

9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.

10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.

11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.

12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.

13. Intrusive Government Stopped.

14. English As Core Language Is Required.

15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

If any of the above items are racism or in some way, a threat to you.  I'd certainly like to know why.  I don't personally believe in every single item here, but this stuff hardly seems worthy of any of the harsh rhetoric.