DC v. HELLER, June 27, 2008
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court announced its decision in one of the most anticipated cases it took on this year, DC v. Heller. In this case, Dick Heller, a special police officer, objected to the DC law that prohibits the ownership of handguns. The DC law subjecting all legal firearms to licensing, banning all hand guns, and requiring all legally permitted weapons, such as rifles and shotguns, to be kept in homes only if "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device". He viewed this law as depriving him of the chance to defend himself effectively against threats in his home. In one of its final decisions of the term, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the DC law prohibiting ownership of handguns does not jibe with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This decision seems completely reasonable. The idea behind the law was that by eliminating guns, the city would be safer. However, almost the exact opposite has been the case. DC has a large number of homicides each year, and the fact that there is not supposed to be any guns in the city, does seem to be practical. The idea that if it is against the law to own or posses a handgun, then there would be a drop in crime does not hold up. What the law has done though, is give criminals a free reign of terror over the citizens of DC. If criminals know that there is zero chance of the target of their crime spree would shoot them, they are much more likely to engage in illegal behavior, since the consequences would not likely include being shot.
This ruling gives the residents of DC a chance to defend themselves and their homes. This is a basic notion of what everyone in this country believes. If someone tries to cause you harm, you have the right to defend yourself. The former law did not do anything to protect DC citizens. Criminals still used handguns and the law abiding citizens were unable to defend themselves. Crime was rampant and the rationale for the law seemed misguided. One must remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun needs to be fired and that takes an individual. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true.
I do not own a hand gun and probably never will. Guns scare me. However, if I am trained and keep the hand gun in a safe place, I feel there is no reason for me to not have the right to own a handgun. Now, if criminals think that they can just terrorize the citizens of our nations capital with very little possible impact, maybe they will think twice if they now realize that this type of behavior can lead to being shot and possibly death.
Obviously, the previous law did not protect the citizens of DC and was not effective in reducing crime in the city. Maybe, with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the citizens of DC will see a decrease in crime and an overall improvement in the quality of life in our nations capital.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
FRIENDS OF ANGELO
FRIENDS OF ANGELO, June 24, 2008
Much has been made about the current financial crisis and its alleged instigator, Countrywide Financial. Countrywide’s Chief Executive Officer, Angelo Mozilo had a program, “Friends of Angelo” where important individuals received better financial terms on their loans. Two participants in this “FOA” program are Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad. Senator Dodd is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs while Senator Conrad is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and is also a member of the Finance Committee.
Not much has been made of the fact that two prominent members of the Senate have received special interest rates on their mortgages. The only reason they got these special rates were that they were part of the “Friends of Angelo” program. One would think that since they received a special deal, that they would have notified the Senate Ethics Committee of these sweetheart deals. These deals reduced the amount of fees that they paid by thousands of dollars.
Senator Dodd has acknowledged that he was part of the program, but did not know what his participation in such a program basically meant. According to the Washington Post, “ Dodd borrowed $506,000 at 4.25 percent to refinance a Capitol Hill townhouse, originally purchased in 1999, and $275,042 at 4.5 percent to refinance a home in East Haddam, Conn. Rather than requiring him to pay the full amount to obtain the reduced mortgage rates, as other customers must, Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan and a quarter-point, or $700, on the second.”
As the Chairman of the Senate Committee dealing with housing issues, one would have to be a complete moron to believe that Senator Dodd believed that he cold get mortgages at 4.25 and 4.5 percent. If he is to believed, one would also have to assume that as Chairman, he has no idea what he is doing or what he is supposed to be overseeing. Mortgage rates were not 4.25 percent, but he was able to negotiate such a deal? He must be a hell of a negotiator.
Senator Conrad also benefited from the program. According to the same Washington Post article, “Conrad spoke to Mozilo about his mortgage in 2002, but the deals under scrutiny were not finalized until 2004. Mozilo ordered one point waived on a loan for a more than $1 million vacation home in Bethany Beach, Del., providing a $10,700 benefit to Conrad. Conrad also received financing in 2004 for an eight-unit apartment building in North Dakota from Countrywide, in apparent contradiction of the company's rules prohibiting mortgages for any dwelling with more than four units, according to Conrad's staff. Mozilo ordered subordinates to approve the apartment-building loan, according to an internal e-mail obtained by Portfolio, because "the borrower is a senator."
Due to his position, Senator Conrad reduced his fee by one point, which meant he saved $10,700. IS this a gift from Countrywide? I would imagine it was, but the Senator did not notify the Senate Ethics Committee of such a gift. Also, since Countrywide gave him a mortgage on a property they would not typically finance, one must assume that due to his role as a Senator, he got a special deal from Countrywide. This type of deal was not available to those of us, normal citizens who are trying to find affordable mortgages to purchase our residences.
Both Senators claim that they did nothing wrong and the press seems to buying this response. However, if either one of these Senators was a Republican Chairman, one could safely assume that the Washington Post and New York Times would be demanding their resignations. Either the two Senators are not telling us the truth, or they are about the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They would have to be oblivious to everything around them if they did not know what their mortgage payments were or what the interest rate was. I get a monthly statement from my mortgage company that states the interest rate as well as the breakdown of where each of my payments is going – whether towards interest, principal balance, or my escrow account to payoff my taxes. Now maybe both of their wives handle their finances, but you would have to suspend all belief to believe that neither of them knew that they got such a deal.
“Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint Friday with the Senate ethics committee requesting an investigation of the Countrywide loans. It cited Senate rules that allow for "loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public.’” The Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer stated that a complaint had been filed and the Committee was looking into the situation. Looking into the situation? What more do they want? A federal conviction or something on that order before they will look into the possible wrong doing by one of their own? We all know that the Senate is the most exclusive club in America and that they all do whatever they can to protect each other, but this is ridiculous.
Why haven’t Senate Republicans been demanding an investigation? One local news station stated that the Republicans were worried where the investigation would go and that some of their members might also have benefited from such deals. Is this not enough evidence that those who are elected to represent us in Washington are completely out of touch with reality and should all be replaced with more responsive and ethical leaders?
Much has been made about the current financial crisis and its alleged instigator, Countrywide Financial. Countrywide’s Chief Executive Officer, Angelo Mozilo had a program, “Friends of Angelo” where important individuals received better financial terms on their loans. Two participants in this “FOA” program are Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad. Senator Dodd is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs while Senator Conrad is the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and is also a member of the Finance Committee.
Not much has been made of the fact that two prominent members of the Senate have received special interest rates on their mortgages. The only reason they got these special rates were that they were part of the “Friends of Angelo” program. One would think that since they received a special deal, that they would have notified the Senate Ethics Committee of these sweetheart deals. These deals reduced the amount of fees that they paid by thousands of dollars.
Senator Dodd has acknowledged that he was part of the program, but did not know what his participation in such a program basically meant. According to the Washington Post, “ Dodd borrowed $506,000 at 4.25 percent to refinance a Capitol Hill townhouse, originally purchased in 1999, and $275,042 at 4.5 percent to refinance a home in East Haddam, Conn. Rather than requiring him to pay the full amount to obtain the reduced mortgage rates, as other customers must, Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan and a quarter-point, or $700, on the second.”
As the Chairman of the Senate Committee dealing with housing issues, one would have to be a complete moron to believe that Senator Dodd believed that he cold get mortgages at 4.25 and 4.5 percent. If he is to believed, one would also have to assume that as Chairman, he has no idea what he is doing or what he is supposed to be overseeing. Mortgage rates were not 4.25 percent, but he was able to negotiate such a deal? He must be a hell of a negotiator.
Senator Conrad also benefited from the program. According to the same Washington Post article, “Conrad spoke to Mozilo about his mortgage in 2002, but the deals under scrutiny were not finalized until 2004. Mozilo ordered one point waived on a loan for a more than $1 million vacation home in Bethany Beach, Del., providing a $10,700 benefit to Conrad. Conrad also received financing in 2004 for an eight-unit apartment building in North Dakota from Countrywide, in apparent contradiction of the company's rules prohibiting mortgages for any dwelling with more than four units, according to Conrad's staff. Mozilo ordered subordinates to approve the apartment-building loan, according to an internal e-mail obtained by Portfolio, because "the borrower is a senator."
Due to his position, Senator Conrad reduced his fee by one point, which meant he saved $10,700. IS this a gift from Countrywide? I would imagine it was, but the Senator did not notify the Senate Ethics Committee of such a gift. Also, since Countrywide gave him a mortgage on a property they would not typically finance, one must assume that due to his role as a Senator, he got a special deal from Countrywide. This type of deal was not available to those of us, normal citizens who are trying to find affordable mortgages to purchase our residences.
Both Senators claim that they did nothing wrong and the press seems to buying this response. However, if either one of these Senators was a Republican Chairman, one could safely assume that the Washington Post and New York Times would be demanding their resignations. Either the two Senators are not telling us the truth, or they are about the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They would have to be oblivious to everything around them if they did not know what their mortgage payments were or what the interest rate was. I get a monthly statement from my mortgage company that states the interest rate as well as the breakdown of where each of my payments is going – whether towards interest, principal balance, or my escrow account to payoff my taxes. Now maybe both of their wives handle their finances, but you would have to suspend all belief to believe that neither of them knew that they got such a deal.
“Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint Friday with the Senate ethics committee requesting an investigation of the Countrywide loans. It cited Senate rules that allow for "loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public.’” The Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer stated that a complaint had been filed and the Committee was looking into the situation. Looking into the situation? What more do they want? A federal conviction or something on that order before they will look into the possible wrong doing by one of their own? We all know that the Senate is the most exclusive club in America and that they all do whatever they can to protect each other, but this is ridiculous.
Why haven’t Senate Republicans been demanding an investigation? One local news station stated that the Republicans were worried where the investigation would go and that some of their members might also have benefited from such deals. Is this not enough evidence that those who are elected to represent us in Washington are completely out of touch with reality and should all be replaced with more responsive and ethical leaders?
FLIP FLOPS?
FLIP FLOPS, June 24, 2008
A lot has been made this past week over the apparent “flip flops” that both major candidates for President experienced this week. Senator McCain decided to support off shore drilling and Senator Obama’s decided not to take public money to support his campaign. A lot of the media pundits have been relatively quiet on these decisions. Why?
Senator McCain’s decision is a smart one, but not enough. With current gas prices of over $4 per gallon, most Americans are feeling the squeeze of higher energy costs. I filled up my Ford Escape yesterday at $4.129 a gallon and it cost me over $55. I currently don’t drive a whole lot, so it is not a huge issue for me at this point. However, if I needed to fill up each week, this would begin to have a serious impact on my personal finances. Senator McCain switched his position this past week on this issue. I am surprised that more members of congress have not done the same. Over the past ten years, a number of times legislation has been pushed to diversify America’s energy policy. Drilling in ANWAR was passed in 1997 but vetoed by President Clinton, who said that the legislation would produce no new oil for five to seven years. Well if that legislation had been signed into law, today we would have about an additional one million of barrels of oil on the market. While this is about five percent of the US daily consumption, this would still reduce the overall cost of a barrel of oil. According to a recent editorial by Michigan representative, Candice Miller a co-sponsor of the No More Excuses Energy Act, the legislation would “lift the moratorium on exploring for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, which could produce as much as 17 billion barrels of oil. It would also open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil and natural gas exploration, which could produce as much as 1 million barrels of oil per day for several decades.”
Is drilling to solution to all our current energy problems? No, the US needs to diversify it energy consumption. We need to see an increase in oil production, natural gas production, nuclear energy development, and renewable energy development. None of these will reduce the cost of oil today however. These are all long-term solutions to the current problem. While the announcement of additional drilling either in ANWAR or on the Outer Continental Shelf might reduce the price per barrel some since the anticipation of increased supply, it will not have a dramatic impact. That seems to be the problem in Washington these days. There is no short term, quick solution that will drop the price per barrel closer to the $40-50. Senator McCain’s statement got a quick reaction as a “flip-flop” from Democrats, and the environmental lobby. Senator McCain should basically come out and say, “You’re right; I did change my mind on this issue. When I had previously stated my opposition, the price of gas was not over $4 per gallon. American families were not struggling to figure out how to pay the increased cost of gasoline with other increases in basic necessities, like food. The current situation demands that we look at alternative methods of satisfying the increased demand for gasoline.”
The US currently does not have the ability to inexpensively convert most renewable sources of energy into usable energy. I explored the cost of adding solar panels to my house to reduce the cost of heating my home. I was told that the cost would be about $15,000 to add a few solar panels to my roof and it would take about seven to ten years to payoff this cost with respect to the energy savings. Can we run our cars on batteries? Not yet, Detroit has not yet figured out how to develop an engine that will run on a renewable energy source as effectively and as long as a normal gallon of gasoline. We have seen an increase in ethanol gasoline, but that has led to an increase in food prices as corn grower’s shift their product away from food to energy.
The US needs to diversify its energy consumption and production. Do we really want our dollars going to the Middle-East or Venezuela in order to support our daily need of oil? No, but we are also not going to be able to produce our daily oil needs domestically. Also, with the amount of oil that developing countries such as China and India consume, the demand for oil is only going to increase. We should start using more renewable sources of energy – solar, wind, biomass so that as we increase our consumption and use of these types of energy, we will continue to develop more cost efficient sources of energy. Senator McCain will likely not be hurt by his change in opinion, but he could have scored a bigger win had he expanded his view on changing the US energy plan. He could have forced Senator Obama to either dismiss the talk as not doing anything to reduce the daily cost of oil (which is what his response was) and putting the onus on Senator Obama to come up with a plan that would reduce gas prices. Obama’s belief that reducing the tax breaks for oil companies or an excessive profit tax for these same companies would do nothing to reduce the cost and would dramatically impact the US economy because they would in fact raise the price of oil.
Senator Obama last week decided that he would not take the $84 million to finance his general election campaign. He decided that he would rather take money from his supporters to finance his campaign. I totally agree with his decision. If the Senator feels he can effectively raise enough money to finance his campaign without taking our tax dollars, I feel that is a great idea. The Senator has shown a remarkable ability to raise money throughout the primary campaign and he should be able to raise in excess of $100 million in about a week. He has over one million current contributors who could all donate to his general election campaign. The Senator’s campaign states that most of his donors are small dollar donors who give less than $200. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, forty-five percent of his one and a half million donors fit into this category. The Obama campaign believes that it will be able to raise a substantial amount of money from its supporters to overcome the change in position.
I believe that the campaign made the right call. Let’s assume that the campaign keeps the 45% small donor base and gets 50% of its primary donors to donate to the general election campaign. Let’s also assume that his small donors give $100 to the campaign while the large donors give an average of $750 to the campaign. He would likely raise over $343 million for the campaign to spend over the eight week general election campaign. This is a low estimate since I would imagine that with the energy on the Democratic side, he would likely get more than 50% of his donors to commit to his general election campaign and I would imagine that at least with his larger donors, they would max out their contributions of $2,300. Could he possibly spend that much money? Sure, he would likely be on TV in most states and he could also finance state operations in states that he may not win, but that could help with the get out the vote operation and help down the ticket Democratic candidates. He could possibly take over the operation that the DNC is supposed to do since he would have the financial capabilities to do so.
This financial advantage would drastically help Obama in that he would not have to conserve any money and would not have to make tough decisions as to whether or not to go up with an ad in a state that he might not win. He could also force McCain to spend money in states that he did not anticipate he would have to spend money in. He could put a number of “safe” McCain states in play and force McCain to make tough choices as to where to spend his limited resources.
I think that a candidate for President needs to have the support of the American people and the best way to measure that support is through financial donations. If a candidate is unable to raise sufficient funds, they are not a serious candidate. The American taxpayer should not be financing such candidates. A candidate such as Obama has shown that he has a broad range of support from across America. He can easily find his campaign and he should. I don’t think that paying for elections is a smart use of American tax dollars. Particularly when the country is facing so many issues including the war of terror, an economic slow down, an energy supply problem, broken infrastructure that desperately needs government action to fix. All of these problems need money to solve and I think it is a better use of our money to work on those problems as opposed to funding a campaign.
While Obama might take some heat and criticism from a few in the press, it is not likely to make a big difference. The 4-1 cash advantage that he likely would have would allow him to focus on other more important issues, like trying to get elected. Hopefully Obama’s decision to not take federal funding for both his primary and general election campaigns will eliminate the need for future candidates to take public financing and instead focus on raising enough on their own to support their campaigns.
Both of these decisions were the right ones to make by the different campaigns. Is anything going to happen due to these decisions, not likely. Is either campaign going to be negatively effected? Not likely. The biggest potential problem would be if either of the campaigns changes their opinion on another issue and it can be turned into a more general theme, much like Senator Kerry found out in 2004.
A lot has been made this past week over the apparent “flip flops” that both major candidates for President experienced this week. Senator McCain decided to support off shore drilling and Senator Obama’s decided not to take public money to support his campaign. A lot of the media pundits have been relatively quiet on these decisions. Why?
Senator McCain’s decision is a smart one, but not enough. With current gas prices of over $4 per gallon, most Americans are feeling the squeeze of higher energy costs. I filled up my Ford Escape yesterday at $4.129 a gallon and it cost me over $55. I currently don’t drive a whole lot, so it is not a huge issue for me at this point. However, if I needed to fill up each week, this would begin to have a serious impact on my personal finances. Senator McCain switched his position this past week on this issue. I am surprised that more members of congress have not done the same. Over the past ten years, a number of times legislation has been pushed to diversify America’s energy policy. Drilling in ANWAR was passed in 1997 but vetoed by President Clinton, who said that the legislation would produce no new oil for five to seven years. Well if that legislation had been signed into law, today we would have about an additional one million of barrels of oil on the market. While this is about five percent of the US daily consumption, this would still reduce the overall cost of a barrel of oil. According to a recent editorial by Michigan representative, Candice Miller a co-sponsor of the No More Excuses Energy Act, the legislation would “lift the moratorium on exploring for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, which could produce as much as 17 billion barrels of oil. It would also open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil and natural gas exploration, which could produce as much as 1 million barrels of oil per day for several decades.”
Is drilling to solution to all our current energy problems? No, the US needs to diversify it energy consumption. We need to see an increase in oil production, natural gas production, nuclear energy development, and renewable energy development. None of these will reduce the cost of oil today however. These are all long-term solutions to the current problem. While the announcement of additional drilling either in ANWAR or on the Outer Continental Shelf might reduce the price per barrel some since the anticipation of increased supply, it will not have a dramatic impact. That seems to be the problem in Washington these days. There is no short term, quick solution that will drop the price per barrel closer to the $40-50. Senator McCain’s statement got a quick reaction as a “flip-flop” from Democrats, and the environmental lobby. Senator McCain should basically come out and say, “You’re right; I did change my mind on this issue. When I had previously stated my opposition, the price of gas was not over $4 per gallon. American families were not struggling to figure out how to pay the increased cost of gasoline with other increases in basic necessities, like food. The current situation demands that we look at alternative methods of satisfying the increased demand for gasoline.”
The US currently does not have the ability to inexpensively convert most renewable sources of energy into usable energy. I explored the cost of adding solar panels to my house to reduce the cost of heating my home. I was told that the cost would be about $15,000 to add a few solar panels to my roof and it would take about seven to ten years to payoff this cost with respect to the energy savings. Can we run our cars on batteries? Not yet, Detroit has not yet figured out how to develop an engine that will run on a renewable energy source as effectively and as long as a normal gallon of gasoline. We have seen an increase in ethanol gasoline, but that has led to an increase in food prices as corn grower’s shift their product away from food to energy.
The US needs to diversify its energy consumption and production. Do we really want our dollars going to the Middle-East or Venezuela in order to support our daily need of oil? No, but we are also not going to be able to produce our daily oil needs domestically. Also, with the amount of oil that developing countries such as China and India consume, the demand for oil is only going to increase. We should start using more renewable sources of energy – solar, wind, biomass so that as we increase our consumption and use of these types of energy, we will continue to develop more cost efficient sources of energy. Senator McCain will likely not be hurt by his change in opinion, but he could have scored a bigger win had he expanded his view on changing the US energy plan. He could have forced Senator Obama to either dismiss the talk as not doing anything to reduce the daily cost of oil (which is what his response was) and putting the onus on Senator Obama to come up with a plan that would reduce gas prices. Obama’s belief that reducing the tax breaks for oil companies or an excessive profit tax for these same companies would do nothing to reduce the cost and would dramatically impact the US economy because they would in fact raise the price of oil.
Senator Obama last week decided that he would not take the $84 million to finance his general election campaign. He decided that he would rather take money from his supporters to finance his campaign. I totally agree with his decision. If the Senator feels he can effectively raise enough money to finance his campaign without taking our tax dollars, I feel that is a great idea. The Senator has shown a remarkable ability to raise money throughout the primary campaign and he should be able to raise in excess of $100 million in about a week. He has over one million current contributors who could all donate to his general election campaign. The Senator’s campaign states that most of his donors are small dollar donors who give less than $200. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, forty-five percent of his one and a half million donors fit into this category. The Obama campaign believes that it will be able to raise a substantial amount of money from its supporters to overcome the change in position.
I believe that the campaign made the right call. Let’s assume that the campaign keeps the 45% small donor base and gets 50% of its primary donors to donate to the general election campaign. Let’s also assume that his small donors give $100 to the campaign while the large donors give an average of $750 to the campaign. He would likely raise over $343 million for the campaign to spend over the eight week general election campaign. This is a low estimate since I would imagine that with the energy on the Democratic side, he would likely get more than 50% of his donors to commit to his general election campaign and I would imagine that at least with his larger donors, they would max out their contributions of $2,300. Could he possibly spend that much money? Sure, he would likely be on TV in most states and he could also finance state operations in states that he may not win, but that could help with the get out the vote operation and help down the ticket Democratic candidates. He could possibly take over the operation that the DNC is supposed to do since he would have the financial capabilities to do so.
This financial advantage would drastically help Obama in that he would not have to conserve any money and would not have to make tough decisions as to whether or not to go up with an ad in a state that he might not win. He could also force McCain to spend money in states that he did not anticipate he would have to spend money in. He could put a number of “safe” McCain states in play and force McCain to make tough choices as to where to spend his limited resources.
I think that a candidate for President needs to have the support of the American people and the best way to measure that support is through financial donations. If a candidate is unable to raise sufficient funds, they are not a serious candidate. The American taxpayer should not be financing such candidates. A candidate such as Obama has shown that he has a broad range of support from across America. He can easily find his campaign and he should. I don’t think that paying for elections is a smart use of American tax dollars. Particularly when the country is facing so many issues including the war of terror, an economic slow down, an energy supply problem, broken infrastructure that desperately needs government action to fix. All of these problems need money to solve and I think it is a better use of our money to work on those problems as opposed to funding a campaign.
While Obama might take some heat and criticism from a few in the press, it is not likely to make a big difference. The 4-1 cash advantage that he likely would have would allow him to focus on other more important issues, like trying to get elected. Hopefully Obama’s decision to not take federal funding for both his primary and general election campaigns will eliminate the need for future candidates to take public financing and instead focus on raising enough on their own to support their campaigns.
Both of these decisions were the right ones to make by the different campaigns. Is anything going to happen due to these decisions, not likely. Is either campaign going to be negatively effected? Not likely. The biggest potential problem would be if either of the campaigns changes their opinion on another issue and it can be turned into a more general theme, much like Senator Kerry found out in 2004.
Monday, June 23, 2008
US Olympic Basketball Team
US OLYMPIC BASKETBALL TEAM, June 23, 2008
Today, the US Olympic Basketball team was announced. The team of 12 meant that many NBA stars were left off the squad. One can’t really argue with the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, and Josh Howard you don’t need very much else to have a pretty good chance to win the Gold medal. I have just a few comments on the team: 1) Jason Kidd is the planned starting point guard? During the playoffs for Dallas he was slow, couldn’t guard anyone, and didn’t really score. While his sole role will be to keep the other four guys on the court happy by trying to equally distribute the ball to each of them, there is no way he is one of the top three point guards that the US has. If I am Coach K, I think Chris Paul and Deron Williams both likely play a lot more than Kidd. Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, or Allen Iverson all seem to be better point guards at this point in time than Kidd. Maybe the coaches are just looking for a veteran presence that won’t act selfishly and will be a role model for the young stars chosen for the team. 2) Lack of dominant center and power forwards – the centers chosen for the team include: Dwight Howard and Carlos Boozer while the sole true power forward is Chris Bosh. Dwight Howard is a star, no question about it. However, there is no dominant defensive center patrolling the paint and just daring opponents to try and drive the lane. Maybe there just isn’t much driving in the international game and in the last Olympics the US was done in by sharp outside shooting, but if my memory is right, Puerto Rican point guard Carlos Arroyo helped PR beat the US with his quickness and his ability to penetrate the lane and if necessary dish to an open outside shooter. This lack of defensive presence might allow opposing point guards to penetrate and if there is no help, either score or pass off to an open shooter. This issue is also a problem if Jason Kidd is in the game and can’t seem to guard anyone. It seems like the selection committee wanted hybrid type players – forwards that can play the 3 or 4 spot, centers that can play the 4 or 5 spot, and guards that can play either the point or shooting guard or the 2 and 3 spot. 3) This is a team of small forwards – Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, Tayshaun Prince all are capable defenders and the first three are dominant scorers. This is where the team will win or lose. If Bryant and James play like they are capable – they are the two best players in all of basketball, the US team has a chance to dominate any opponent. 4) Outside shooting – Michael Redd made this team because he is the best outside shooter and after the problems in Athens; the US team needed someone who can break up a zone defense with lights-out shooting. The hope seems to be that in addition to Redd, that James, Bryant, Anthony, or Dwayne Wade will also be able to hit an open 15 footer. One would assume, based on just the names on the back of the jersey, that the US team will be the favorite for the gold medal. However, it is the Olympics, and strange things typically happen to the US team. Let’s just hope that the twelve players play as a team and put aside personal statistics and just play for the gold medal.
Today, the US Olympic Basketball team was announced. The team of 12 meant that many NBA stars were left off the squad. One can’t really argue with the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, and Josh Howard you don’t need very much else to have a pretty good chance to win the Gold medal. I have just a few comments on the team: 1) Jason Kidd is the planned starting point guard? During the playoffs for Dallas he was slow, couldn’t guard anyone, and didn’t really score. While his sole role will be to keep the other four guys on the court happy by trying to equally distribute the ball to each of them, there is no way he is one of the top three point guards that the US has. If I am Coach K, I think Chris Paul and Deron Williams both likely play a lot more than Kidd. Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, or Allen Iverson all seem to be better point guards at this point in time than Kidd. Maybe the coaches are just looking for a veteran presence that won’t act selfishly and will be a role model for the young stars chosen for the team. 2) Lack of dominant center and power forwards – the centers chosen for the team include: Dwight Howard and Carlos Boozer while the sole true power forward is Chris Bosh. Dwight Howard is a star, no question about it. However, there is no dominant defensive center patrolling the paint and just daring opponents to try and drive the lane. Maybe there just isn’t much driving in the international game and in the last Olympics the US was done in by sharp outside shooting, but if my memory is right, Puerto Rican point guard Carlos Arroyo helped PR beat the US with his quickness and his ability to penetrate the lane and if necessary dish to an open outside shooter. This lack of defensive presence might allow opposing point guards to penetrate and if there is no help, either score or pass off to an open shooter. This issue is also a problem if Jason Kidd is in the game and can’t seem to guard anyone. It seems like the selection committee wanted hybrid type players – forwards that can play the 3 or 4 spot, centers that can play the 4 or 5 spot, and guards that can play either the point or shooting guard or the 2 and 3 spot. 3) This is a team of small forwards – Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Carmello Anthony, Tayshaun Prince all are capable defenders and the first three are dominant scorers. This is where the team will win or lose. If Bryant and James play like they are capable – they are the two best players in all of basketball, the US team has a chance to dominate any opponent. 4) Outside shooting – Michael Redd made this team because he is the best outside shooter and after the problems in Athens; the US team needed someone who can break up a zone defense with lights-out shooting. The hope seems to be that in addition to Redd, that James, Bryant, Anthony, or Dwayne Wade will also be able to hit an open 15 footer. One would assume, based on just the names on the back of the jersey, that the US team will be the favorite for the gold medal. However, it is the Olympics, and strange things typically happen to the US team. Let’s just hope that the twelve players play as a team and put aside personal statistics and just play for the gold medal.
Friday, June 20, 2008
THE WEEK IN SPORTS...
THE WEEK IN SPORTS, June 20, 2008
Earlier this week, two important events happened in the world of sports. First, the Boston Celtics clinched their 17 NBA Championship by humiliating the Los Angeles Lakes in Game 6 of the series, 131-92 Tuesday night. A series that the NBA hoped for, with its two “premier” teams facing off once again in the finals had everything setup perfectly for the NBA. But then it all fell apart, first a former NBA ref claimed that the NBA fixed playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Then the series turned into a snore, blowout series. Teams blew 20 point leads and the final game was a 39 point blowout. This is the best of the NBA? If I am the league, I really would hope not.
Also, Monday Tiger Woods won the US Open at Torrey Pines in a 19 hole playoff against Rocco Mediate. Tiger was playing his first tournament since he had surgery on his knee following the Masters. Tiger’s injured knee includes a double stress fracture in his left leg as well as a torn ACL. He hopes to be back competing on the PGA tour next season. The fact that Tiger was able to win a major tournament, playing an additional 19 holes, under those conditions is truly remarkable. Tiger is the PGA tour in a lot of respects. He is the best player, the biggest draw and drives TV ratings. The tour will survive without Tiger, but it will not grow as much as it would if Tiger was playing. The upcoming British Open, PGA Championship, and the Ryder Cup will all miss having Tiger play, but the bigger issue will be tournaments such as next week’s Buick Open in Grand Blanc, MI and Tiger’s own AT&T National tournament outside Washington, DC. These tournaments flourish if Tiger participates. More spectators attend the tournament, higher TV rating accompany Tiger’s play, more kids get a chance to learn about the game of golf when he hosts clinics near the tournament, and more merchandise is purchased at tournaments he plays. His inability to play in these types of tournaments is a huge drain to the local economy and hurts the overall PGA tour. The PGA tour should hope that one of its young stars – Sergio Garcia, Luke Donald, or another young golfer or established veteran goes on a run where he is competitive each week. Let the PGA develop and promote another one of its players so that it takes some of the pressure and reliance off Tiger Woods.
Earlier this week, two important events happened in the world of sports. First, the Boston Celtics clinched their 17 NBA Championship by humiliating the Los Angeles Lakes in Game 6 of the series, 131-92 Tuesday night. A series that the NBA hoped for, with its two “premier” teams facing off once again in the finals had everything setup perfectly for the NBA. But then it all fell apart, first a former NBA ref claimed that the NBA fixed playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Then the series turned into a snore, blowout series. Teams blew 20 point leads and the final game was a 39 point blowout. This is the best of the NBA? If I am the league, I really would hope not.
Also, Monday Tiger Woods won the US Open at Torrey Pines in a 19 hole playoff against Rocco Mediate. Tiger was playing his first tournament since he had surgery on his knee following the Masters. Tiger’s injured knee includes a double stress fracture in his left leg as well as a torn ACL. He hopes to be back competing on the PGA tour next season. The fact that Tiger was able to win a major tournament, playing an additional 19 holes, under those conditions is truly remarkable. Tiger is the PGA tour in a lot of respects. He is the best player, the biggest draw and drives TV ratings. The tour will survive without Tiger, but it will not grow as much as it would if Tiger was playing. The upcoming British Open, PGA Championship, and the Ryder Cup will all miss having Tiger play, but the bigger issue will be tournaments such as next week’s Buick Open in Grand Blanc, MI and Tiger’s own AT&T National tournament outside Washington, DC. These tournaments flourish if Tiger participates. More spectators attend the tournament, higher TV rating accompany Tiger’s play, more kids get a chance to learn about the game of golf when he hosts clinics near the tournament, and more merchandise is purchased at tournaments he plays. His inability to play in these types of tournaments is a huge drain to the local economy and hurts the overall PGA tour. The PGA tour should hope that one of its young stars – Sergio Garcia, Luke Donald, or another young golfer or established veteran goes on a run where he is competitive each week. Let the PGA develop and promote another one of its players so that it takes some of the pressure and reliance off Tiger Woods.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
IF IT'S SUNDAY...
IF IT’S SUNAY…, June 14, 2008
This past Friday, America lost someone they spent a lot of Sunday mornings with. NBC’s Meet the Press host; Tim Russert suffered a heart attack and passed away Friday at the NBC studios here in Washington. He had just returned from a graduation trip to Europe with his wife and son. Meet the Press was the standard for all Sunday morning talk shows. It was the gold standard and the envy of all the networks. It was copied, but never duplicated.
Candidates, elected officials and community leaders made the decision to take his questions each weekend. There they would be subjected to intense questioning of their previous statements and policy positions. Russert was a master of using the interviewee’s own words as they basis of his line of questions. Meet the Press was the leading Sunday Morning Talk Show in terms of both audience and importance. Russert was tough, probing, but always fair. He was always prepared his research better than everyone else’s, and he always seemed to have a rare quote that the guest had made that contradicted their current opinion. He was able to use the guests own words in contradicting their opinions. There were no softballs, nor puff interviews on Meet the Press. Russert’s thirst for knowledge and understanding of a particular issue allowed him to ask the tough questions, and not accept the bland talking point. One did not go on Meet the Press expecting to pontificate ones position with no in depth, detailed counter arguments, because Russert would have the counter arguments and ask opposing points of view questions.
While I never met Mr. Russert, he is an extraordinary example for those of us that have spent time in public service. Russert worked for both Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Governor Mario Cuomo. While that background might give me or some of his guests a moment of concern, it never seemed that he allowed his personal beliefs interfere with the interview. While he was a former Democratic staffer, most viewers would not have known of his background based upon the questions he would ask. He wanted information and in his thirst for information was usually better prepared and had a better understanding of the issue than the guest. He knew policy and typically asked the questions that everyone wanted asked – why, how, to what extent, and so forth.
Tim Russert is someone we all would like to emulate, someone that we all respected and looked up to. He was someone that we all wished we could be like. He was someone I spent most Sunday mornings listening to, and debating with. Much to my mother’s disappointment, I would rather spend my Sunday morning listening to him than to my local parish priest.
One of the positive things outside of the actual interview that personified Russert was his relationship with his father. He has written two books chronicling his relationship with his father. On this Father’s Day weekend, all of us should personify Russert in making sure that we all tell our Fathers how important they are to each of us and how much they influenced us in our daily lives. And while his death came suddenly to us, perhaps he had accomplished all that God wanted from him and so he brought him up to heaven.
Happy Father’s Day, Dad! I love you!
This past Friday, America lost someone they spent a lot of Sunday mornings with. NBC’s Meet the Press host; Tim Russert suffered a heart attack and passed away Friday at the NBC studios here in Washington. He had just returned from a graduation trip to Europe with his wife and son. Meet the Press was the standard for all Sunday morning talk shows. It was the gold standard and the envy of all the networks. It was copied, but never duplicated.
Candidates, elected officials and community leaders made the decision to take his questions each weekend. There they would be subjected to intense questioning of their previous statements and policy positions. Russert was a master of using the interviewee’s own words as they basis of his line of questions. Meet the Press was the leading Sunday Morning Talk Show in terms of both audience and importance. Russert was tough, probing, but always fair. He was always prepared his research better than everyone else’s, and he always seemed to have a rare quote that the guest had made that contradicted their current opinion. He was able to use the guests own words in contradicting their opinions. There were no softballs, nor puff interviews on Meet the Press. Russert’s thirst for knowledge and understanding of a particular issue allowed him to ask the tough questions, and not accept the bland talking point. One did not go on Meet the Press expecting to pontificate ones position with no in depth, detailed counter arguments, because Russert would have the counter arguments and ask opposing points of view questions.
While I never met Mr. Russert, he is an extraordinary example for those of us that have spent time in public service. Russert worked for both Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Governor Mario Cuomo. While that background might give me or some of his guests a moment of concern, it never seemed that he allowed his personal beliefs interfere with the interview. While he was a former Democratic staffer, most viewers would not have known of his background based upon the questions he would ask. He wanted information and in his thirst for information was usually better prepared and had a better understanding of the issue than the guest. He knew policy and typically asked the questions that everyone wanted asked – why, how, to what extent, and so forth.
Tim Russert is someone we all would like to emulate, someone that we all respected and looked up to. He was someone that we all wished we could be like. He was someone I spent most Sunday mornings listening to, and debating with. Much to my mother’s disappointment, I would rather spend my Sunday morning listening to him than to my local parish priest.
One of the positive things outside of the actual interview that personified Russert was his relationship with his father. He has written two books chronicling his relationship with his father. On this Father’s Day weekend, all of us should personify Russert in making sure that we all tell our Fathers how important they are to each of us and how much they influenced us in our daily lives. And while his death came suddenly to us, perhaps he had accomplished all that God wanted from him and so he brought him up to heaven.
Happy Father’s Day, Dad! I love you!
FIXED?
FIXED GAMES, June 12, 2008
The NBA finals are currently being battled between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers. The NBA’s “dream match up” is a continuation of the fierce rivalry that defined the NBA during the late 1980’s. As someone who grew up in the Metro Detroit area, I was a fan of neither team. In fact, these two teams were two of the three teams I hated the most (the other being the Chicago Bulls). The NBA marketing team got exactly what it wanted with the finals between these two teams.
However, the one thing the NBA did not want, nor need is the debate that is currently going on involving the NBA and alleged “fixed” games. Former NBA referee, Tim Donaghy accused NBA referees of altering the outcome of certain playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Donaghy has pleaded guilty to betting on games he officiated and receiving cash payments from gamblers. He faces up to 33 months in prison for his crimes and will be sentenced in July. Following his guilty plea, his allegations of additional referees altering the outcome of games has caused a lot of grief for the NBA. Instead of focusing solely on the leagues championship, reporters and fans are now questioning whether or not the games are fixed. This is the worst possible scenario for a professional sports league. This is not the WWE, this is the NBA. If the allegations that the NBA and its referees altered the outcome of games to increase TV ratings or to make sure certain teams advanced in the playoffs, the NBA will basically cease to exist in many peoples minds.
The NBA prides itself on its marketing prowess, and the fact that it has a large audience, both in the US and internationally for its games. No sports league cares more about its marketing of the league and its players than the NBA. It has done a wonderful job marketing its international players – Yao Ming is not only a star of the Houston Rockets, but he is an international star. He is in TV commercials throughout the world and is on billboards across Asia, hyping everything from tennis shoes to credit cards.
NBA Commissioner, following the publication of the allegations made by Donaghy, stated that no one else was involved in any such activities. How does he know that? Prior to the Donaghy case, he had stated that no NBA referee would ever alter games. The fact that I am writing about the fact that the NBA might be fixed is clearly a problem for the NBA. In what should be its greatest week of the season, instead has turned into a nightmare. It doesn’t matter as much as to whether or not the allegations are true or not. The fact that a former NBA referee would even suggest such a scenario gives credibility to all fans who believe that their team is getting screwed by the refs.
All fans criticize officiating whenever calls go against their favorite teams. They blame the refs for the problems their teams face. If a team loses a close game and there are fouls called at the end of the game, fans question the calls and blame the referees for the loss. The sanctity of the NBA was questioned this week by someone who has plead guilty to betting on basketball and taking money from gamblers. While he might not have the best tract record as someone to believe, the mere implication that he has stated could kill the NBA. If people believe that the games are fixed, are they likely to watch? While we all know that the refs give preference to the stars of the league – has anyone ever seen Michael Jordan called for traveling? I don’t think so, but this is much more than just a non-call or two. This is the integrity of the game and the NBA better hope that Donaghy was the only problem it had, because if it turns out that there are additional problems, the league is in real trouble.
The NBA finals are currently being battled between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers. The NBA’s “dream match up” is a continuation of the fierce rivalry that defined the NBA during the late 1980’s. As someone who grew up in the Metro Detroit area, I was a fan of neither team. In fact, these two teams were two of the three teams I hated the most (the other being the Chicago Bulls). The NBA marketing team got exactly what it wanted with the finals between these two teams.
However, the one thing the NBA did not want, nor need is the debate that is currently going on involving the NBA and alleged “fixed” games. Former NBA referee, Tim Donaghy accused NBA referees of altering the outcome of certain playoff games in 2002 and 2005. Donaghy has pleaded guilty to betting on games he officiated and receiving cash payments from gamblers. He faces up to 33 months in prison for his crimes and will be sentenced in July. Following his guilty plea, his allegations of additional referees altering the outcome of games has caused a lot of grief for the NBA. Instead of focusing solely on the leagues championship, reporters and fans are now questioning whether or not the games are fixed. This is the worst possible scenario for a professional sports league. This is not the WWE, this is the NBA. If the allegations that the NBA and its referees altered the outcome of games to increase TV ratings or to make sure certain teams advanced in the playoffs, the NBA will basically cease to exist in many peoples minds.
The NBA prides itself on its marketing prowess, and the fact that it has a large audience, both in the US and internationally for its games. No sports league cares more about its marketing of the league and its players than the NBA. It has done a wonderful job marketing its international players – Yao Ming is not only a star of the Houston Rockets, but he is an international star. He is in TV commercials throughout the world and is on billboards across Asia, hyping everything from tennis shoes to credit cards.
NBA Commissioner, following the publication of the allegations made by Donaghy, stated that no one else was involved in any such activities. How does he know that? Prior to the Donaghy case, he had stated that no NBA referee would ever alter games. The fact that I am writing about the fact that the NBA might be fixed is clearly a problem for the NBA. In what should be its greatest week of the season, instead has turned into a nightmare. It doesn’t matter as much as to whether or not the allegations are true or not. The fact that a former NBA referee would even suggest such a scenario gives credibility to all fans who believe that their team is getting screwed by the refs.
All fans criticize officiating whenever calls go against their favorite teams. They blame the refs for the problems their teams face. If a team loses a close game and there are fouls called at the end of the game, fans question the calls and blame the referees for the loss. The sanctity of the NBA was questioned this week by someone who has plead guilty to betting on basketball and taking money from gamblers. While he might not have the best tract record as someone to believe, the mere implication that he has stated could kill the NBA. If people believe that the games are fixed, are they likely to watch? While we all know that the refs give preference to the stars of the league – has anyone ever seen Michael Jordan called for traveling? I don’t think so, but this is much more than just a non-call or two. This is the integrity of the game and the NBA better hope that Donaghy was the only problem it had, because if it turns out that there are additional problems, the league is in real trouble.
Monday, June 9, 2008
TWO STRIKES, YOU'RE OUT
TWO STRIKES, YOU’RE OUT, June 9, 2008
Today the inevitable finally happened. The Chicago Bears waived former first round draft pick Cedric Benson. Benson, who has been arrested twice in the past month in Austin, TX for alcohol related offenses. On Saturday night, Benson was arrested for running a red light and failing a field sobriety test. Benson’s attorney stated that Benson had two or three drinks at dinner and did not think he was under the influence. This recent arrest comes about a month after Benson was arrested, again in Austin for boating while intoxicated.
The 2005 first round pick for the Bears has been another disappointment for the Bears. Last year, taking over for Thomas Jones, Benson had only 196 rushing attempts for 674 yards and four touchdowns. Benson also caught 17 passes for just 123 yards. I doubt that those were the stats that the Bears hoped for when they turned the rushing game over to the former Texas star.
While Benson was not the only problem with the Bears last season, these two incidents made it a simple decision for the Bears to drop him. The team drafted Tulane running back Matt Forte in the second round of this years NFL draft and also has Adrian Peterson and Garrett Wolfe as running backs. One would have thought that after the problems Benson experienced last season, he would have decided that it was time to put up or shut up. Well, instead Benson decided that he would drink his way out of Chicago. The Bears offense has so many holes, particularly at qb, ol, and rb that changing one starter is not likely to change much but I would imagine that the rest of the team realizes that there is no time to fool around. The team expects more effort and spending time in jail is not likely to help you make a team.
While Benson has not yet been convicted of either charge, one would hope that he realizes that he must change the way he acts or else he will have to find a new line of work. It is likely that another team will take a chance on Benson, but his chances are running out. These two arrests, along with is two arrests during his college days at Texas for marijuana possession in 2002 and for criminal trespassing in 2003. As Bears GM Jerry Angelo stated, Benson’s “pattern of behavior” led to his dismissal from the team. One would hope that someone with the rare athletic talent that Benson possesses would try and get his life in order so that not only can he continue his football career but also to not put the general public in harms way with his reckless behavior.
Today the inevitable finally happened. The Chicago Bears waived former first round draft pick Cedric Benson. Benson, who has been arrested twice in the past month in Austin, TX for alcohol related offenses. On Saturday night, Benson was arrested for running a red light and failing a field sobriety test. Benson’s attorney stated that Benson had two or three drinks at dinner and did not think he was under the influence. This recent arrest comes about a month after Benson was arrested, again in Austin for boating while intoxicated.
The 2005 first round pick for the Bears has been another disappointment for the Bears. Last year, taking over for Thomas Jones, Benson had only 196 rushing attempts for 674 yards and four touchdowns. Benson also caught 17 passes for just 123 yards. I doubt that those were the stats that the Bears hoped for when they turned the rushing game over to the former Texas star.
While Benson was not the only problem with the Bears last season, these two incidents made it a simple decision for the Bears to drop him. The team drafted Tulane running back Matt Forte in the second round of this years NFL draft and also has Adrian Peterson and Garrett Wolfe as running backs. One would have thought that after the problems Benson experienced last season, he would have decided that it was time to put up or shut up. Well, instead Benson decided that he would drink his way out of Chicago. The Bears offense has so many holes, particularly at qb, ol, and rb that changing one starter is not likely to change much but I would imagine that the rest of the team realizes that there is no time to fool around. The team expects more effort and spending time in jail is not likely to help you make a team.
While Benson has not yet been convicted of either charge, one would hope that he realizes that he must change the way he acts or else he will have to find a new line of work. It is likely that another team will take a chance on Benson, but his chances are running out. These two arrests, along with is two arrests during his college days at Texas for marijuana possession in 2002 and for criminal trespassing in 2003. As Bears GM Jerry Angelo stated, Benson’s “pattern of behavior” led to his dismissal from the team. One would hope that someone with the rare athletic talent that Benson possesses would try and get his life in order so that not only can he continue his football career but also to not put the general public in harms way with his reckless behavior.
SENATE RESTAURANT SERVICES
SENATE RESTAURANT SERVICES, June 9, 2008
A recent Washington Post story mentioned that the Senate dining Room will soon be handed over to a private contractor. According to the report, since 1993 the Senate dining rooms have lost over $18 million with an expected loss of $2 million this year alone. Things are so bad that unless a $250,000 subsidy is made, they will not make payroll next month. “Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires.”
Doesn’t this statement seem to go against the typical Democratic notion about standing up for the worker and railing against “big business”? If the Senate can not manage its own dining services, what makes you think that they can manage the country?
Senator Diane Feinstein mentioned that the reason for the losses, “noticeably subpar" food and service. Lousy food and service is a pretty good way for any restaurant to encounter problems. One of the basic steps a restaurant must take inn order to ensure its survival is to have a good product and make sure that the diner has an enjoyable time. Obviously, the Senate run restaurants either have not learned this basic lesson or refuse to adhere to it. Senator Feinstein stated that without privatizing the restaurants, prices would rise by 25%. Either way, it seems like this is a great idea that should save the American taxpayer much needed funds.
You would expect that an operation that has posted a profit only seven times in the past 44 years would be a cause of concern for our elected officials. You would think that the Senate would act more like the House, which privatized its restaurant services in the 1980s. With the privatization, the House has seen a dramatic increase in traffic and has in fact provided money back to the House as part of its relationship, $1.2 million since 2003. A government entity that actually makes money instead of wasting our money? This is exactly the type of government management that we need. When the American public has to deal with the prospects of $4 gas, I think it is about time that the Senate stops this wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
However, Senator Feinstein’s decision to contract out the operations of the Senate dining rooms has brought concern from some of her colleagues. Both Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) and Robert Menendez (NJ) expressed dismay at having to privatize these operations.
Senator Menendez said that "you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own." Well what’s it going to be? Are the Democrats going to continue to “stand up for the little guy” or is it going to start acting responsibly and stop wasting the tax payer’s money? One would think that this is a pretty simple question, but with all the pontificating that the Senate Democrats do, some might now be caught between a rock and a hard place. I am interested to see how the main stream media plays this story. I am impressed that the Washington Post actually covered the story. I am sure that the Senate leadership thought that be having a late night voice vote might eliminate most of the coverage of the change, all tax payers should be thankful that the Washington Post provided us with a brief look inside some of the problems the Democrats might be having when instead of speaking, they have to lead. Now that the Democrats are responsible for the operations of the Senate, will they appease their labor union financial backers or will the operate the Senate in a way that is responsible and limits the amount of wasteful spending? It should be interesting to see what impact the smart decision that Senator Feinstein made has on the labor bosses and on the percdeption that Democrats stand up for the little guy while the bad Republicans stand with the big corporations.
A recent Washington Post story mentioned that the Senate dining Room will soon be handed over to a private contractor. According to the report, since 1993 the Senate dining rooms have lost over $18 million with an expected loss of $2 million this year alone. Things are so bad that unless a $250,000 subsidy is made, they will not make payroll next month. “Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires.”
Doesn’t this statement seem to go against the typical Democratic notion about standing up for the worker and railing against “big business”? If the Senate can not manage its own dining services, what makes you think that they can manage the country?
Senator Diane Feinstein mentioned that the reason for the losses, “noticeably subpar" food and service. Lousy food and service is a pretty good way for any restaurant to encounter problems. One of the basic steps a restaurant must take inn order to ensure its survival is to have a good product and make sure that the diner has an enjoyable time. Obviously, the Senate run restaurants either have not learned this basic lesson or refuse to adhere to it. Senator Feinstein stated that without privatizing the restaurants, prices would rise by 25%. Either way, it seems like this is a great idea that should save the American taxpayer much needed funds.
You would expect that an operation that has posted a profit only seven times in the past 44 years would be a cause of concern for our elected officials. You would think that the Senate would act more like the House, which privatized its restaurant services in the 1980s. With the privatization, the House has seen a dramatic increase in traffic and has in fact provided money back to the House as part of its relationship, $1.2 million since 2003. A government entity that actually makes money instead of wasting our money? This is exactly the type of government management that we need. When the American public has to deal with the prospects of $4 gas, I think it is about time that the Senate stops this wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
However, Senator Feinstein’s decision to contract out the operations of the Senate dining rooms has brought concern from some of her colleagues. Both Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) and Robert Menendez (NJ) expressed dismay at having to privatize these operations.
Senator Menendez said that "you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own." Well what’s it going to be? Are the Democrats going to continue to “stand up for the little guy” or is it going to start acting responsibly and stop wasting the tax payer’s money? One would think that this is a pretty simple question, but with all the pontificating that the Senate Democrats do, some might now be caught between a rock and a hard place. I am interested to see how the main stream media plays this story. I am impressed that the Washington Post actually covered the story. I am sure that the Senate leadership thought that be having a late night voice vote might eliminate most of the coverage of the change, all tax payers should be thankful that the Washington Post provided us with a brief look inside some of the problems the Democrats might be having when instead of speaking, they have to lead. Now that the Democrats are responsible for the operations of the Senate, will they appease their labor union financial backers or will the operate the Senate in a way that is responsible and limits the amount of wasteful spending? It should be interesting to see what impact the smart decision that Senator Feinstein made has on the labor bosses and on the percdeption that Democrats stand up for the little guy while the bad Republicans stand with the big corporations.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
WHAT A GAME!
WHAT A GAME!! June 3, 2008
Last night’s game five of the Stanley Cup Playoffs between the Detroit Red Wings and the Pittsburgh Penguins was a great example of what a compelling the sport of hockey is and can be. The game had everything (except, of course from my point of view, a Red Wing victory). Speed, hits, critical saves, questionable penalties, beautiful passes and scoring opportunities, a great comeback, blood, guts, players leaving everything out on the ice after nearly 110 breath taking minutes of classic hockey, and a crowd making more noise than I can remember ever coming out of Joe Louis Arena.
The game was also exactly what NBC and the NHL needed. On a night with limited competition on the major networks – sorry but reruns of Two and a Half Men should not count as compelling television, the Stanley Cup Finals gave the world a chance to see the beauty that hockey can be.
The game started with the public belief that the series was almost over, all the Wings needed to do was show up and they would be raising Lord Stanley’s Cup before the home crowd. After handing the Penguins their first home loss in Game 4 since February, most pundits thought the series was basically over. The one group that didn’t buy into this notion was the Penguins. They came out and played a terrific first period, which ended with them leading the Wings 2-0. It was not a very good period for the Wings. They looked a step slow, and made way too many turnovers which led to many opportunities for the Penguins. Against a team like Pittsburgh, when given the chance to bury them, you must take advantage of the opportunity. The team has too many soon-to-be and already stars to allow them any opportunity to gain any confidence.
However, midway through the second period, the tide started to change. Rookie Darren Helm scored a goal for the Wings and they started to dominate play. The crowd really got back into the game and it seemed like everyone was on the edge of their seats. I was watching the game at home and was certainly on the edge of my seat. Both teams had opportunities to score but each goalie made critical saves to keep the score 2-1.
With the start of the third period, the crowd at Joe Louis and Wings fans around the world was hoping that their favorite team could muster one or two more scoring opportunities so that the crowd and the City of Detroit could go home happy. The Wings scored two goals within five minutes and took the lead. All that was left for Wings fans was to count down the final few minutes before Commissioner Bettman would be handing the Stanley Cup to Captain Nick Lidstrom. However the hopes of the team, City and all its fans were dashed when with just 34 seconds left in regulation, the Penguins scored the tying goal. The game went into overtime, and continued into the third overtime period. There were power plays, and close calls, but both goalies kept the puck out of the net. Close to 1:00am eastern time, the Penguins won the game when Petr Sykora slapped a shot over Chris Osgood’s shoulder. It was a great game that was filled with two way action, closes calls, shots off the post, and everything that a hockey fan could want.
The finals first two games were on VS, while the rest of the Stanley Cup finals are on NBC. According to some press reports, last nights game garnered a 4.3 overnight rating and an 8 share. The league is also lucky that the N BA Finals has decided to take almost a week off before starting their “dream match up” series between the Celtics and Lakers on Thursday night. So the NHL will again have the stage to themselves on Wednesday night for Game 6 and hopefully the level of play will again match last nights game and fans and non-fans will see what the NHL really can be.
Last night’s game five of the Stanley Cup Playoffs between the Detroit Red Wings and the Pittsburgh Penguins was a great example of what a compelling the sport of hockey is and can be. The game had everything (except, of course from my point of view, a Red Wing victory). Speed, hits, critical saves, questionable penalties, beautiful passes and scoring opportunities, a great comeback, blood, guts, players leaving everything out on the ice after nearly 110 breath taking minutes of classic hockey, and a crowd making more noise than I can remember ever coming out of Joe Louis Arena.
The game was also exactly what NBC and the NHL needed. On a night with limited competition on the major networks – sorry but reruns of Two and a Half Men should not count as compelling television, the Stanley Cup Finals gave the world a chance to see the beauty that hockey can be.
The game started with the public belief that the series was almost over, all the Wings needed to do was show up and they would be raising Lord Stanley’s Cup before the home crowd. After handing the Penguins their first home loss in Game 4 since February, most pundits thought the series was basically over. The one group that didn’t buy into this notion was the Penguins. They came out and played a terrific first period, which ended with them leading the Wings 2-0. It was not a very good period for the Wings. They looked a step slow, and made way too many turnovers which led to many opportunities for the Penguins. Against a team like Pittsburgh, when given the chance to bury them, you must take advantage of the opportunity. The team has too many soon-to-be and already stars to allow them any opportunity to gain any confidence.
However, midway through the second period, the tide started to change. Rookie Darren Helm scored a goal for the Wings and they started to dominate play. The crowd really got back into the game and it seemed like everyone was on the edge of their seats. I was watching the game at home and was certainly on the edge of my seat. Both teams had opportunities to score but each goalie made critical saves to keep the score 2-1.
With the start of the third period, the crowd at Joe Louis and Wings fans around the world was hoping that their favorite team could muster one or two more scoring opportunities so that the crowd and the City of Detroit could go home happy. The Wings scored two goals within five minutes and took the lead. All that was left for Wings fans was to count down the final few minutes before Commissioner Bettman would be handing the Stanley Cup to Captain Nick Lidstrom. However the hopes of the team, City and all its fans were dashed when with just 34 seconds left in regulation, the Penguins scored the tying goal. The game went into overtime, and continued into the third overtime period. There were power plays, and close calls, but both goalies kept the puck out of the net. Close to 1:00am eastern time, the Penguins won the game when Petr Sykora slapped a shot over Chris Osgood’s shoulder. It was a great game that was filled with two way action, closes calls, shots off the post, and everything that a hockey fan could want.
The finals first two games were on VS, while the rest of the Stanley Cup finals are on NBC. According to some press reports, last nights game garnered a 4.3 overnight rating and an 8 share. The league is also lucky that the N BA Finals has decided to take almost a week off before starting their “dream match up” series between the Celtics and Lakers on Thursday night. So the NHL will again have the stage to themselves on Wednesday night for Game 6 and hopefully the level of play will again match last nights game and fans and non-fans will see what the NHL really can be.
Monday, June 2, 2008
TONIGHT'S THE NIGHT...
TONIGHT’S THE NIGHT… June 2, 2008
Tonight the Detroit Red Wings attempt to win the Stanley Cup for the fourth time in the past eleven years when they host the Pittsburgh Penguins at Joe Louis Arena. The Wings, who lead the series 3-1, will try to raise Lord Stanley’s Cup as the first team with a European born Captain, Nick Lidstrom.
Before the series started, much of the discussion focused on the Red Wings experience versus the Penguins talented youth. The Wings have made the playoffs for the past 17 years while the Penguins, benefiting from the fact that they have been at the top of the NHL draft over the past few years have the next NHL super-star in Sidney Crosby, a former #1 overall pick in goalie Marc Andre-Theory, and a potential Hart trophy winner in Evgeny Malkin. Most of the alleged experts were not sure if the “old” Wings could handle the young Penguin stars.
As one might expect with a 3-1 lead, the Wings have shown that their experience is a valuable commodity. They have made the plays when needed. A great example was the play of Henrik Zetterberg, during Pittsburgh two-man power play late in the third period. Not only did Zetterberg have an excellent defensive play against Crosby, but he also carried the puck into the Penguins zone and got off shot on goal killing even more time. The Wings, with players such as Lidstrom, Draper, Maltby, McCarty all playing for their fourth Stanley Cup ring as a member of the Wings, have used their experience to exploit the younger Penguins.
Does experience always trump talent? What about in other walks of life?
The 2008 Presidential campaign is about to shape up as a debate between experience, John McCain, and youthful talent, Barack Obama.
Senator McCain has a long history of public service. Not only in the US Senate, but also as a Naval officer who spent too long in the Hanoi Hilton as a prisoner of war. He was a member of the House of Representatives for four years in the mid 1980’s and then was elected as a Senator in 1986. He has served in the Senate for the past twenty one years. Senator Obama gained famed during the 2004 campaign with an eloquent speech at the Democratic convention. With that speech, Obama became a national figure and was elected to the Senate later that year. Obama prior to his brief three year career in the Senate, served for eight years in the Illinois State Senate.
Obama speaks often of changing the tone in Washington and stressing his ability to reach across political isles to get legislation passed. However, I don’t think anyone can point to any time where he has done this. He was not one of the “Gang of Thirteen” that worked on a bipartisan judicial nominee agreement. He has not been the author of any major bipartisan legislation such as McCain-Feingold. What Senator Obama is very good at is giving speeches. He is able to appeal to everyday Americans with eloquent rhetoric that doesn’t fit his experience.
As a staffer on the 2000 Bush for President campaign, one of the big arguments against then Governor Bush by the national media and his Democratic opponents was his alleged lack of experience. He had only been Governor for four years and only the year before announcing his candidacy been re-elected as Governor.
Was President Bush qualified to be President? Obviously, America thought so. His leadership of the State of Texas as well as his business background provided America with enough comfort that he was the better candidate than the much more “experienced” Vice President Al Gore.
Is this year going to be the same? Most of the national polls have Republicans in a lot of trouble. The Real Clear Politics average Generic Congressional Vote (April 25 – May 25) poll has the Democrats up 49.4 – 37.4. There is general agreement that the Democrats have a much better chance to pick up seats in both the House and the Senate this November. Wouldn’t that also mean that Senator Obama would have a clear advantage over Senator McCain? One would think so, however the Real Clear Politics average of four different polls, run from May 21-June 1, between Obama and McCain has Obama up by only .7 points. Why is this?
Is it that this election will be a national security election and Americans do not yet trust Obama to successfully defend us from the many threats that exist? The Senator mentioned many times during the campaign that he would meet with leaders of nations that sponsor terrorism or have openly spoken of their hatred for our way of life. Countries such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are not friends with the United States. Yet the Senator said that he would sit down and meet with their leaders within his first year in office. This naïve response has many Americans wondering if he is ready to be Commander in Chief. As the campaign continues over the next few months, Americans are going to have to decide whether or not this will be a national security election and if it is are they willing to go with the inexperienced candidate?
My current opinion, a lot can change in five months, is that Nick Lidstrom will be given Lord Stanley’s Cup tonight by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, and it is way too early for Senator Barack Obama to be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.
Tonight the Detroit Red Wings attempt to win the Stanley Cup for the fourth time in the past eleven years when they host the Pittsburgh Penguins at Joe Louis Arena. The Wings, who lead the series 3-1, will try to raise Lord Stanley’s Cup as the first team with a European born Captain, Nick Lidstrom.
Before the series started, much of the discussion focused on the Red Wings experience versus the Penguins talented youth. The Wings have made the playoffs for the past 17 years while the Penguins, benefiting from the fact that they have been at the top of the NHL draft over the past few years have the next NHL super-star in Sidney Crosby, a former #1 overall pick in goalie Marc Andre-Theory, and a potential Hart trophy winner in Evgeny Malkin. Most of the alleged experts were not sure if the “old” Wings could handle the young Penguin stars.
As one might expect with a 3-1 lead, the Wings have shown that their experience is a valuable commodity. They have made the plays when needed. A great example was the play of Henrik Zetterberg, during Pittsburgh two-man power play late in the third period. Not only did Zetterberg have an excellent defensive play against Crosby, but he also carried the puck into the Penguins zone and got off shot on goal killing even more time. The Wings, with players such as Lidstrom, Draper, Maltby, McCarty all playing for their fourth Stanley Cup ring as a member of the Wings, have used their experience to exploit the younger Penguins.
Does experience always trump talent? What about in other walks of life?
The 2008 Presidential campaign is about to shape up as a debate between experience, John McCain, and youthful talent, Barack Obama.
Senator McCain has a long history of public service. Not only in the US Senate, but also as a Naval officer who spent too long in the Hanoi Hilton as a prisoner of war. He was a member of the House of Representatives for four years in the mid 1980’s and then was elected as a Senator in 1986. He has served in the Senate for the past twenty one years. Senator Obama gained famed during the 2004 campaign with an eloquent speech at the Democratic convention. With that speech, Obama became a national figure and was elected to the Senate later that year. Obama prior to his brief three year career in the Senate, served for eight years in the Illinois State Senate.
Obama speaks often of changing the tone in Washington and stressing his ability to reach across political isles to get legislation passed. However, I don’t think anyone can point to any time where he has done this. He was not one of the “Gang of Thirteen” that worked on a bipartisan judicial nominee agreement. He has not been the author of any major bipartisan legislation such as McCain-Feingold. What Senator Obama is very good at is giving speeches. He is able to appeal to everyday Americans with eloquent rhetoric that doesn’t fit his experience.
As a staffer on the 2000 Bush for President campaign, one of the big arguments against then Governor Bush by the national media and his Democratic opponents was his alleged lack of experience. He had only been Governor for four years and only the year before announcing his candidacy been re-elected as Governor.
Was President Bush qualified to be President? Obviously, America thought so. His leadership of the State of Texas as well as his business background provided America with enough comfort that he was the better candidate than the much more “experienced” Vice President Al Gore.
Is this year going to be the same? Most of the national polls have Republicans in a lot of trouble. The Real Clear Politics average Generic Congressional Vote (April 25 – May 25) poll has the Democrats up 49.4 – 37.4. There is general agreement that the Democrats have a much better chance to pick up seats in both the House and the Senate this November. Wouldn’t that also mean that Senator Obama would have a clear advantage over Senator McCain? One would think so, however the Real Clear Politics average of four different polls, run from May 21-June 1, between Obama and McCain has Obama up by only .7 points. Why is this?
Is it that this election will be a national security election and Americans do not yet trust Obama to successfully defend us from the many threats that exist? The Senator mentioned many times during the campaign that he would meet with leaders of nations that sponsor terrorism or have openly spoken of their hatred for our way of life. Countries such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are not friends with the United States. Yet the Senator said that he would sit down and meet with their leaders within his first year in office. This naïve response has many Americans wondering if he is ready to be Commander in Chief. As the campaign continues over the next few months, Americans are going to have to decide whether or not this will be a national security election and if it is are they willing to go with the inexperienced candidate?
My current opinion, a lot can change in five months, is that Nick Lidstrom will be given Lord Stanley’s Cup tonight by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, and it is way too early for Senator Barack Obama to be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.
LOYAL BAND OF BROTHERS?
LOYAL BAND OF BROTHERS? June 1, 2008
A lot has been made this week of the “tell all” book by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan. I have known Scott since the campaign in Austin, TX in 1999. Scott was always professional and would listen to my input in the limited interaction we had (Scott was responsible for notifying the press of the spending the campaign did, information that I was one of two people responsible for). I have not read the book, nor will I.
With the book, Scott mentions a couple of things that I have some concerns with. First, Scott owes his entire professional career to President Bush. Much has been made of his Texas ties. That he was one of the President’s closest advisors who have now stated that the President was wrong on a number of issues.
One of Scott’s biggest concerns was the lack of bi-partisanship, particularly with respect to the war of terror. President Bush when he was Governor was very good at developing relationships with the Democratic leaders in Texas. Much has been written about the relationship the then Governor had with Bob Bullock, the former Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Texas. When President Bush ran for President in 1999 and 2000, he often mentioned his desire to change the tone in Washington and run a different kind of Administration. He wanted to be a “uniter not a divider.”
With the “war room mentality” of the Clinton Administration and the bitter impeachment battle, Republicans and Democrats here in Washington did not really seem to want to work together towards a common good. One must always expect a difference of opinion on certain issues, but you would hope that each side might be able to give up a little for the overall good. However, in DC a lot of folks believe that keeping an issue alive and the permanent campaign mentality going is a beneficial ideal. There is one big problem with Scott’s view; bi-partisanship requires two sides coming together. If the Democrats are not willing to work with the Administration and would rather call the President and the Administration names, not much bi-partisanship is going to happen.
Scott also complained that the President was not intellectually curious. Scott was the press secretary; he was not part of the domestic policy council, the national Security Council, or the homeland security council. He likely was not included in many of the meetings where policy was determined. Scott’s job was not to determine policy, but rather to inform the public of the Administrations policy decisions. If Scott did not like the fact that his role was to explain the decisions made by the Administration, why did he stay on for so long? If he did not like the decisions that were made, why didn’t he speak up earlier? Why did he stay on the job if he was so disgusted with the decisions? It seems like Scott took advantage of the prospects of the job and once he was forced out of the White House decided to change his views to sell more books.
Politico.com has published the original book proposal that Scott tried to sell back in January of 2007. What is written on the proposal and what seems to be the finished product are rather different. The initial proposal mentions, “And, I will directly address myths that have been associated with him, some deliberately perpetuated by activist liberals and some created by the media, and look at the reality behind those myths.” The book however seems to just restate opinions held by those not friendly to the President or the Administration.
One of the other strange things regarding the book is the confusion of Scott’s former colleagues within the White House. This past week, Dan Bartlett, Dana Perino, Trent Duffy, Ari Fleischer, and Karl Rove have all disputed a number of assertions made in the book. They all seem to say, we never saw this side of Scott. We never heard Scott mention these concerns. It seems like Scott through the process of writing the book changed his view of both the President and the Administration.
There are a couple of other issues one must look at when deciding the validity of the book. Most people would agree that Scott was not a very good press secretary. The press, during his tenure always seemed to be complaining about him. The Administration basically let Scott go and gave him the benefit of the doubt that he left on his own. However, it was known within Washington that Scott was basically fired.
Also, Scott was upset that the Administration and the President did not support his mother’s run for Governor of Texas. The President supported his former running mate and current Governor Rick Perry instead of Scott’s mom. Did this decision influence his change of opinion of the President and Administration?
A final issue that Scott brings up is his accusation that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby lied to him when they told him that they were not involved in leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the media. Scott during his press briefing mentioned that both told him that they were not involved. Scott mentioned, this morning during his Meet the Press interview, that the question he asked both of them was, “I asked them point blank, ‘Where you involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity in any way?” Karl, on Fox News, had a different memory of the question, “But the fact of the matter is Scott’s questions to me were: did I leak Valerie Plame’s name, and the answer is no.”
While this disagreement might seem minor, it is a big issue. If Scott asked the wrong question it is his own fault. I realize that Karl is only directly answering the question that Scott put forward and if he thought about the actual question probably could understand what Scott was trying to get at, only it seems that Scott did not ask the question correctly. Scott should have known through his job as Press Secretary that you should only answer the question asked and not provide any additional information. Also, as Press Secretary he should not try to interpret what the questioner is really looking for. If the wrong question is asked, answer it and move on. This is basic Press Secretary 101.
I hope that Scott is happy with his book and that it helps provide for his family. I don’t think that any other candidate, elected official, or corporation is ever going to hire him to speak for him based upon what he has said in the book and his going after the President and the Administration. Good luck Scott, I think that you are probably going to need it.
A lot has been made this week of the “tell all” book by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan. I have known Scott since the campaign in Austin, TX in 1999. Scott was always professional and would listen to my input in the limited interaction we had (Scott was responsible for notifying the press of the spending the campaign did, information that I was one of two people responsible for). I have not read the book, nor will I.
With the book, Scott mentions a couple of things that I have some concerns with. First, Scott owes his entire professional career to President Bush. Much has been made of his Texas ties. That he was one of the President’s closest advisors who have now stated that the President was wrong on a number of issues.
One of Scott’s biggest concerns was the lack of bi-partisanship, particularly with respect to the war of terror. President Bush when he was Governor was very good at developing relationships with the Democratic leaders in Texas. Much has been written about the relationship the then Governor had with Bob Bullock, the former Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Texas. When President Bush ran for President in 1999 and 2000, he often mentioned his desire to change the tone in Washington and run a different kind of Administration. He wanted to be a “uniter not a divider.”
With the “war room mentality” of the Clinton Administration and the bitter impeachment battle, Republicans and Democrats here in Washington did not really seem to want to work together towards a common good. One must always expect a difference of opinion on certain issues, but you would hope that each side might be able to give up a little for the overall good. However, in DC a lot of folks believe that keeping an issue alive and the permanent campaign mentality going is a beneficial ideal. There is one big problem with Scott’s view; bi-partisanship requires two sides coming together. If the Democrats are not willing to work with the Administration and would rather call the President and the Administration names, not much bi-partisanship is going to happen.
Scott also complained that the President was not intellectually curious. Scott was the press secretary; he was not part of the domestic policy council, the national Security Council, or the homeland security council. He likely was not included in many of the meetings where policy was determined. Scott’s job was not to determine policy, but rather to inform the public of the Administrations policy decisions. If Scott did not like the fact that his role was to explain the decisions made by the Administration, why did he stay on for so long? If he did not like the decisions that were made, why didn’t he speak up earlier? Why did he stay on the job if he was so disgusted with the decisions? It seems like Scott took advantage of the prospects of the job and once he was forced out of the White House decided to change his views to sell more books.
Politico.com has published the original book proposal that Scott tried to sell back in January of 2007. What is written on the proposal and what seems to be the finished product are rather different. The initial proposal mentions, “And, I will directly address myths that have been associated with him, some deliberately perpetuated by activist liberals and some created by the media, and look at the reality behind those myths.” The book however seems to just restate opinions held by those not friendly to the President or the Administration.
One of the other strange things regarding the book is the confusion of Scott’s former colleagues within the White House. This past week, Dan Bartlett, Dana Perino, Trent Duffy, Ari Fleischer, and Karl Rove have all disputed a number of assertions made in the book. They all seem to say, we never saw this side of Scott. We never heard Scott mention these concerns. It seems like Scott through the process of writing the book changed his view of both the President and the Administration.
There are a couple of other issues one must look at when deciding the validity of the book. Most people would agree that Scott was not a very good press secretary. The press, during his tenure always seemed to be complaining about him. The Administration basically let Scott go and gave him the benefit of the doubt that he left on his own. However, it was known within Washington that Scott was basically fired.
Also, Scott was upset that the Administration and the President did not support his mother’s run for Governor of Texas. The President supported his former running mate and current Governor Rick Perry instead of Scott’s mom. Did this decision influence his change of opinion of the President and Administration?
A final issue that Scott brings up is his accusation that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby lied to him when they told him that they were not involved in leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the media. Scott during his press briefing mentioned that both told him that they were not involved. Scott mentioned, this morning during his Meet the Press interview, that the question he asked both of them was, “I asked them point blank, ‘Where you involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity in any way?” Karl, on Fox News, had a different memory of the question, “But the fact of the matter is Scott’s questions to me were: did I leak Valerie Plame’s name, and the answer is no.”
While this disagreement might seem minor, it is a big issue. If Scott asked the wrong question it is his own fault. I realize that Karl is only directly answering the question that Scott put forward and if he thought about the actual question probably could understand what Scott was trying to get at, only it seems that Scott did not ask the question correctly. Scott should have known through his job as Press Secretary that you should only answer the question asked and not provide any additional information. Also, as Press Secretary he should not try to interpret what the questioner is really looking for. If the wrong question is asked, answer it and move on. This is basic Press Secretary 101.
I hope that Scott is happy with his book and that it helps provide for his family. I don’t think that any other candidate, elected official, or corporation is ever going to hire him to speak for him based upon what he has said in the book and his going after the President and the Administration. Good luck Scott, I think that you are probably going to need it.
MISC MUSINGS
MISC. MUSINGS, May 21, 2008
This past Sunday, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital after suffering a seizure while on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. Earlier today, his doctors announced that the Senator has a cancerous brain tumor. Senator Kennedy's doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital said he had a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe, a region of the brain that helps govern sensation, movement and language. According to doctors, there is an expected 1 to 3 year life expectancy with this diagnosis. Most of Washington, DC expressed their concern for the Senator. No matter what party you are, you have to respect the accomplishments of Senator Kennedy. While you may not agree with everything he believes, he has earned the admiration of many of us who live in the DC area. We can only hope that he overcomes this latest diagnosis and continues to serve not only the residents of the State of Massachusetts and the United States.
Today brings another two primary contests in Kentucky and Oregon. It is widely believed that Senator Clinton will win Kentucky by a wide margin and Senator Obama will win Oregon. Will these results bring us any closer to a Democratic nominee? With only a few contests left, we are getting close to the end of the primary campaign. But does the end of the primary campaign mean the end of the race between Obama and Clinton? I am not sure it does. If the race continues for the next few weeks or even months, once a decision is made, the losing side might feel discouraged with the final results. The votes between the two candidates are very close, the number of confirmed delegates is also very close. The only thing basically left is the “super delegates.” These delegates have been slowly breaking towards Obama over the past few weeks. Is either candidate going to have the total 2,026 delegates needed to confirm the nomination? It does not look like it. Both campaigns are coming up with different rationales for why they should be the eventual nominee. And as long as this continues, the biggest winner is Senator John McCain and the Republicans. In a year where it looks like Republicans should be in real trouble, the Democratic mess might allow the Republicans to keep the White House.
Last night the Detroit Red Wings beat the Dallas Stars 4-1 to make another appearance in the Stanley cup finals. The Wings will play the Pittsburgh Penguins starting Saturday night. This series is the “dream series” in the minds of the NHL. You have Detroit’s “Hockeytown” vs. the Penguins young guns. In a series where you will see stars such as Henrick Zetterberg, Pavel Datsuyk, Nick Lidstrom on the Wings and Sidney Crosby, Evgeny Malkin, and Marian Hossa for the Penguins. The Wings have won three of the last ten Stanley Cups and seem to have an experience advantage while the Penguins have the upcoming stars in Crosby and Malkin. For the NHL’s sake, you have to hope that the series is as good as projected. An increase in viewers on tv under a great series between two spectacular teams, can hopefully raise the profile of the league throughout the US. For way too long, the NHL has been a distant fourth in prominence amongst the top sports leagues. It is a tough game to watch on tv due to the problems following the puck, but in person there is no sport better. One can only hope that a great series will translate into increased fan support for the great sport that hockey really is. Of course the NHL made another huge mistake by having the Stanley Cup finals start on Saturday night. Why is this a problem? Because the NBA Eastern Conference finals between the Detroit Pistons and the Boston Celtics is also playing that night in Detroit and the two series will compete head to head on Saturday, Monday and Wednesday. While this may seem like only a problem in Detroit, the City of Detroit is one of the most important cities for the NHL. It is called Hockeytown for a reason. I know that Hockey Night in Canada runs every Saturday night on CBC (I used to watch it most Saturday nights) and CBC has the priority, but it might have been smart to schedule the Stanley Cup Finals around other major sporting events.
This past Sunday, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital after suffering a seizure while on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. Earlier today, his doctors announced that the Senator has a cancerous brain tumor. Senator Kennedy's doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital said he had a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe, a region of the brain that helps govern sensation, movement and language. According to doctors, there is an expected 1 to 3 year life expectancy with this diagnosis. Most of Washington, DC expressed their concern for the Senator. No matter what party you are, you have to respect the accomplishments of Senator Kennedy. While you may not agree with everything he believes, he has earned the admiration of many of us who live in the DC area. We can only hope that he overcomes this latest diagnosis and continues to serve not only the residents of the State of Massachusetts and the United States.
Today brings another two primary contests in Kentucky and Oregon. It is widely believed that Senator Clinton will win Kentucky by a wide margin and Senator Obama will win Oregon. Will these results bring us any closer to a Democratic nominee? With only a few contests left, we are getting close to the end of the primary campaign. But does the end of the primary campaign mean the end of the race between Obama and Clinton? I am not sure it does. If the race continues for the next few weeks or even months, once a decision is made, the losing side might feel discouraged with the final results. The votes between the two candidates are very close, the number of confirmed delegates is also very close. The only thing basically left is the “super delegates.” These delegates have been slowly breaking towards Obama over the past few weeks. Is either candidate going to have the total 2,026 delegates needed to confirm the nomination? It does not look like it. Both campaigns are coming up with different rationales for why they should be the eventual nominee. And as long as this continues, the biggest winner is Senator John McCain and the Republicans. In a year where it looks like Republicans should be in real trouble, the Democratic mess might allow the Republicans to keep the White House.
Last night the Detroit Red Wings beat the Dallas Stars 4-1 to make another appearance in the Stanley cup finals. The Wings will play the Pittsburgh Penguins starting Saturday night. This series is the “dream series” in the minds of the NHL. You have Detroit’s “Hockeytown” vs. the Penguins young guns. In a series where you will see stars such as Henrick Zetterberg, Pavel Datsuyk, Nick Lidstrom on the Wings and Sidney Crosby, Evgeny Malkin, and Marian Hossa for the Penguins. The Wings have won three of the last ten Stanley Cups and seem to have an experience advantage while the Penguins have the upcoming stars in Crosby and Malkin. For the NHL’s sake, you have to hope that the series is as good as projected. An increase in viewers on tv under a great series between two spectacular teams, can hopefully raise the profile of the league throughout the US. For way too long, the NHL has been a distant fourth in prominence amongst the top sports leagues. It is a tough game to watch on tv due to the problems following the puck, but in person there is no sport better. One can only hope that a great series will translate into increased fan support for the great sport that hockey really is. Of course the NHL made another huge mistake by having the Stanley Cup finals start on Saturday night. Why is this a problem? Because the NBA Eastern Conference finals between the Detroit Pistons and the Boston Celtics is also playing that night in Detroit and the two series will compete head to head on Saturday, Monday and Wednesday. While this may seem like only a problem in Detroit, the City of Detroit is one of the most important cities for the NHL. It is called Hockeytown for a reason. I know that Hockey Night in Canada runs every Saturday night on CBC (I used to watch it most Saturday nights) and CBC has the priority, but it might have been smart to schedule the Stanley Cup Finals around other major sporting events.
SPYGATE
SPYGATE, May 16, 2008
Earlier this week, former New England Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh met with both NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. One of the major points that came out of the meeting with the commissioner was that Mr. Walsh stated that the Patriots did not video tape the St. Louis Rams walk-through prior to the Super Bowl. Mr. Walsh mentioned that he was in fact on the field during the walk through and told a Patriots assistant coach about a few of the formations he saw, including having star running back Marshall Faulk returning kicks. Commissioner Goodell following the meeting basically insinuated that the entire “Spygate” issue was done. The NFL took away a first round draft pick from the Patriots and fined both Coach Bill Belichick and the Patriots.
These actions did not seem to satisfy the senior Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Senator Specter is upset that Commissioner Goodell destroyed the tapes that the Patriots turned over to the league last fall. The Senator also believes that the NFL investigation was not independent and is now calling for a separate independent investigation similar to what Major League Baseball did with former Senator George Mitchell investigation into steroid use within baseball.
Doesn’t Congress have much more important things to work on other than whether or not certain NFL team’s video tape opposing coaches signals? There is a war on terror going on, the US economy has slowed, there is the mortgage crisis, and gasoline is pushing $4 per gallon. All of these are much more important issues that the congress should be focused on.
Instead, you have a single senator demanding yet another independent investigation. Why is Senator Specter doing this? Is it because the NFL, like other professional sports leagues, enjoys anti-trust exemptions? Or is it more likely because the Patriots beat the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX and beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC playoffs in 2001 and 2004? Is the Senator pushing this issue to appease his constituents? It seems to me that this in just another example of someone in Congress wasting the people’s time and money on an issue or project that potentially only benefits a few? It also seems to me that Senator Specter, and particularly his staff feels slighted in that the NFL didn’t cower in fear when they asked for information? All too often in Washington, staffers under the guise of their boss, act as if they are the most important person in the world. They act superior to everyone even if they have no idea what they are talking about. Senator Specter, focus on something that is important to the country and stop wasting time and money on this ridiculous belief that the NFL is covering up alleged cheating.
Earlier this week, former New England Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh met with both NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. One of the major points that came out of the meeting with the commissioner was that Mr. Walsh stated that the Patriots did not video tape the St. Louis Rams walk-through prior to the Super Bowl. Mr. Walsh mentioned that he was in fact on the field during the walk through and told a Patriots assistant coach about a few of the formations he saw, including having star running back Marshall Faulk returning kicks. Commissioner Goodell following the meeting basically insinuated that the entire “Spygate” issue was done. The NFL took away a first round draft pick from the Patriots and fined both Coach Bill Belichick and the Patriots.
These actions did not seem to satisfy the senior Republican senator from Pennsylvania. Senator Specter is upset that Commissioner Goodell destroyed the tapes that the Patriots turned over to the league last fall. The Senator also believes that the NFL investigation was not independent and is now calling for a separate independent investigation similar to what Major League Baseball did with former Senator George Mitchell investigation into steroid use within baseball.
Doesn’t Congress have much more important things to work on other than whether or not certain NFL team’s video tape opposing coaches signals? There is a war on terror going on, the US economy has slowed, there is the mortgage crisis, and gasoline is pushing $4 per gallon. All of these are much more important issues that the congress should be focused on.
Instead, you have a single senator demanding yet another independent investigation. Why is Senator Specter doing this? Is it because the NFL, like other professional sports leagues, enjoys anti-trust exemptions? Or is it more likely because the Patriots beat the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX and beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC playoffs in 2001 and 2004? Is the Senator pushing this issue to appease his constituents? It seems to me that this in just another example of someone in Congress wasting the people’s time and money on an issue or project that potentially only benefits a few? It also seems to me that Senator Specter, and particularly his staff feels slighted in that the NFL didn’t cower in fear when they asked for information? All too often in Washington, staffers under the guise of their boss, act as if they are the most important person in the world. They act superior to everyone even if they have no idea what they are talking about. Senator Specter, focus on something that is important to the country and stop wasting time and money on this ridiculous belief that the NFL is covering up alleged cheating.
DOUBLE STANDARD
DOUBLE STANDARD, May 16, 2008
Senator Barack Obama visited a state he, and the rest of the Democratic Presidential candidates, ignored during the primary campaign. Michigan, along with Florida, decided that they would like to have a larger voice in the primary campaign, especially as related to smaller states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
During his visit to Michigan, Senator Obama visited a Chrysler LLC plant in Sterling Heights in Macomb County. Macomb County is the home of “Reagan Democrats.” These traditional, white, working class Democrats have been segment of the Democrat primary campaign that has eluded Senator Obama. These voters are one of the bases of the Clinton campaign. For Senator Obama to win in November, he will have to have vote for him.
However, Senator Obama’s reaching out to traditional Reagan Democrats is not what this is about. During the tour, a reporter for the local ABC affiliate, WXYZ, Peggy Agar asked the Senator, what he was going to do to “help the American auto workers?”
Obama’s response was, “Hold on one second, sweetie, we'll do a press avail, thanks.” He did not answer the question, as there was no press avail. He made a condescending remark to a professional woman. This is the man that wants to be the President of the United States? He is a Harvard educated lawyer, who one would think would know that it is not okay to characterize women in that manner.
I have just one question relating to this issue, why hasn’t the National Organization of Women (NOW) spoken up about how the Senator’s comments to a female reporter were inappropriate.
Would it be that NOW is basically a Democratic front and even though they support Senator Clinton for President, they are not likely to speak out against a fellow Democrat. Just like when they didn’t speak out against President Clinton for having an affair with a White House intern, NOW seems to only speak out when the person is a Republican or a corporation. Following the Lewinski affair, the leadership of NOW, Kim Gandy and Patricia Ireland both spoke out against the Republicans who were proceeding with an impeachment case against the President for lying under oath about the affair.
Would they have acted the same way if it were a Republican? I don’t think so. It is just another example of the double standard that certain groups hold when someone acts against their standards. Just another typical day inside the Beltway.
Senator Obama later called and apologized for his language. A small issue that if it were another person from another political party would be a much bigger issue and would be getting a lot more publicity on all the major main stream media outlets/
Senator Barack Obama visited a state he, and the rest of the Democratic Presidential candidates, ignored during the primary campaign. Michigan, along with Florida, decided that they would like to have a larger voice in the primary campaign, especially as related to smaller states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
During his visit to Michigan, Senator Obama visited a Chrysler LLC plant in Sterling Heights in Macomb County. Macomb County is the home of “Reagan Democrats.” These traditional, white, working class Democrats have been segment of the Democrat primary campaign that has eluded Senator Obama. These voters are one of the bases of the Clinton campaign. For Senator Obama to win in November, he will have to have vote for him.
However, Senator Obama’s reaching out to traditional Reagan Democrats is not what this is about. During the tour, a reporter for the local ABC affiliate, WXYZ, Peggy Agar asked the Senator, what he was going to do to “help the American auto workers?”
Obama’s response was, “Hold on one second, sweetie, we'll do a press avail, thanks.” He did not answer the question, as there was no press avail. He made a condescending remark to a professional woman. This is the man that wants to be the President of the United States? He is a Harvard educated lawyer, who one would think would know that it is not okay to characterize women in that manner.
I have just one question relating to this issue, why hasn’t the National Organization of Women (NOW) spoken up about how the Senator’s comments to a female reporter were inappropriate.
Would it be that NOW is basically a Democratic front and even though they support Senator Clinton for President, they are not likely to speak out against a fellow Democrat. Just like when they didn’t speak out against President Clinton for having an affair with a White House intern, NOW seems to only speak out when the person is a Republican or a corporation. Following the Lewinski affair, the leadership of NOW, Kim Gandy and Patricia Ireland both spoke out against the Republicans who were proceeding with an impeachment case against the President for lying under oath about the affair.
Would they have acted the same way if it were a Republican? I don’t think so. It is just another example of the double standard that certain groups hold when someone acts against their standards. Just another typical day inside the Beltway.
Senator Obama later called and apologized for his language. A small issue that if it were another person from another political party would be a much bigger issue and would be getting a lot more publicity on all the major main stream media outlets/
POST INDIANA AND NORTH CAROLINA
POST INDIANA, NORTH CAROLINA, May 7, 2008
With the election results in North Carolina and Indiana showing that Senator Barack Obama won North Carolina rather easily and Senator Hilary Clinton struggling to win Indiana, what can we anticipate happening next?
Many political pundits believe that last nights results effectively ends the game for Senator Clinton. It is now almost mathematically impossible for Senator Clinton to gain the necessary 2025 delegates to secure the nomination (this is the number not counting Michigan and Florida delegates, if those two states are included the number jumps to 2209). So does that mean she slips quietly into the background and give Senator Obama the stage to himself? I don’t think so…
One word that the Clinton’s never seem to utter is defeat or quit. After the Republicans took control of Congress, President Clinton did not believe the election results were a repudiation of his Administration or policies, but rather of the Democratic leadership in Congress. While he changed some of his priorities and “triangulated” his policy priorities, President Clinton in fact became even more popular after the Democrats lost control of Congress.
Senator Clinton’s “victory” speech last night in Indianapolis included a statement that she will continue the fight until all 50 states are able to vote. “So now it is on to West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, and the other states where people are eager to have their voices heard. For too long, we've let places like West Virginia and Kentucky slip out of the Democratic column. Well, it's time for that to change and these next primaries are another test. I’m going to work my heart out in West Virginia and Kentucky this month and I intend to win them in November in the general election.”
What does this statement mean? While I can not claim to know Senator Clinton personally, we all have witnessed her over the past 17 years while he husband was running for President, was President, while she was running for Senator, and during her time as a Senator from New York. The Clintons do not seem to know when to quit and everything seems to revolve around them. Is keeping her campaign going over the next month or so a benefit? If you are a Republican it certainly seems so. The fact that the primary battle continues, means that the eventual Democratic nominee is focused on winning the primary election and not the general election.
Senator John McCain has had the past month and a half to re-introduce himself to America and start shaping his general election campaign. Republicans, across the board, are slowing starting to warm up to Senator McCain and his campaign. McCain earlier this week gave a speech on the importance of judicial nominees that appealed to conservatives, one of the groups that he needs to bring into the fold .
On the Democratic side, the continued primary battle has led to further divisions within the party. Exit polls in North Carolina show that Senator Obama won the African-American vote 13-1 and the under 30 vote nearly 3-1. Senator Clinton won the white vote and the elderly vote. These voter distinctions have held over the past few months. Once a nominee is determined, will less affluent democrats support Senator Obama? Will white democrats support Obama? As the primary campaign continues, the gap between the Clinton and Obama campaigns seems to be growing wider. This gap is a potentially huge problem for the Democratic nominee. If Senator Obama can not appeal to white, or non-affluent Democrats, he will have a difficult time becoming President.
With the election results in North Carolina and Indiana showing that Senator Barack Obama won North Carolina rather easily and Senator Hilary Clinton struggling to win Indiana, what can we anticipate happening next?
Many political pundits believe that last nights results effectively ends the game for Senator Clinton. It is now almost mathematically impossible for Senator Clinton to gain the necessary 2025 delegates to secure the nomination (this is the number not counting Michigan and Florida delegates, if those two states are included the number jumps to 2209). So does that mean she slips quietly into the background and give Senator Obama the stage to himself? I don’t think so…
One word that the Clinton’s never seem to utter is defeat or quit. After the Republicans took control of Congress, President Clinton did not believe the election results were a repudiation of his Administration or policies, but rather of the Democratic leadership in Congress. While he changed some of his priorities and “triangulated” his policy priorities, President Clinton in fact became even more popular after the Democrats lost control of Congress.
Senator Clinton’s “victory” speech last night in Indianapolis included a statement that she will continue the fight until all 50 states are able to vote. “So now it is on to West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, and the other states where people are eager to have their voices heard. For too long, we've let places like West Virginia and Kentucky slip out of the Democratic column. Well, it's time for that to change and these next primaries are another test. I’m going to work my heart out in West Virginia and Kentucky this month and I intend to win them in November in the general election.”
What does this statement mean? While I can not claim to know Senator Clinton personally, we all have witnessed her over the past 17 years while he husband was running for President, was President, while she was running for Senator, and during her time as a Senator from New York. The Clintons do not seem to know when to quit and everything seems to revolve around them. Is keeping her campaign going over the next month or so a benefit? If you are a Republican it certainly seems so. The fact that the primary battle continues, means that the eventual Democratic nominee is focused on winning the primary election and not the general election.
Senator John McCain has had the past month and a half to re-introduce himself to America and start shaping his general election campaign. Republicans, across the board, are slowing starting to warm up to Senator McCain and his campaign. McCain earlier this week gave a speech on the importance of judicial nominees that appealed to conservatives, one of the groups that he needs to bring into the fold .
On the Democratic side, the continued primary battle has led to further divisions within the party. Exit polls in North Carolina show that Senator Obama won the African-American vote 13-1 and the under 30 vote nearly 3-1. Senator Clinton won the white vote and the elderly vote. These voter distinctions have held over the past few months. Once a nominee is determined, will less affluent democrats support Senator Obama? Will white democrats support Obama? As the primary campaign continues, the gap between the Clinton and Obama campaigns seems to be growing wider. This gap is a potentially huge problem for the Democratic nominee. If Senator Obama can not appeal to white, or non-affluent Democrats, he will have a difficult time becoming President.
POPE
POPE, April 17, 2008
Pope Benedict is currently visiting the United States. He was met at the airport by President Bush, Mrs. Bush and Jenna Bush. This was the first time that the President participated in an airport welcoming reception since he was inaugurated. President Bush also hosted the Pope at an event at the White House that was the largest event at the White House under this administration. 13,000 people attended the event. At Nationals Park this morning, 46,000 people attended a two hour mass. Some people arrived as early as 5:30am.
One of the biggest problems within the Catholic Church within the United States has been the sex abuse scandal where, according to NBC News, 11,000 allegations of abuse took place within the US involving 4,400 priests over a 50 year period. The Catholic Church has spent over $2 billion in legal settlements. Over the past number of years, a number of Catholics have expressed outrage at the scandal and in particular the Church’s handling of the scandal.
I am Catholic; however over the past number of years, I have not been practicing. I am one of the many that feel the Church’s handling of the scandal was outrageous. Instead of prosecuting the sexual predators that were masquerading as priests, the Church instead just transferred the priests to different parishes. In fact, one of these predators was transferred to my hometown parish church, St. Paul’s on the Lake in Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. In the wake of the scandal, on numerous occasions, priests at St. Paul’s would ask for donations in order to cover some of the costs associated with the scandal.
On his flight to the US, the Pope stated, “We are deeply ashamed and we will do what is possible so this can not happen again in the future. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry. This is absolutely incompatible and who is really guilty to be a pedophile can not be a priest.”
While these comments are at least a start in the right direction, the Church still has not done enough to rectify the damage caused by the pedophiles. When I was going to grade school, the local monsignor was not just a priest, but also someone all of us looked up to. He provided us with guidance and direction as to the appropriate way to live our lives. He was the voice and face of the Church and as such was someone we all looked up to and respected. To have a local priest sexually abuse a member of the church is about as bad a crime as there is.
At mass at Nationals Park, the Pope continued on the Church’s apology regarding the sex scandal. He said, “No words of mine could describe the pain and have inflicted by such abuse. Nor can I adequately describe the damage that has occurred within the community of the Church.”
I am pleased that the Pope has made these statements regarding the sex scandal. However, I just wish that these types of statements had come earlier. The church needs to make sure that each pedophile is thrown in jail. I also hope that instead of allowing Cardinal Shaw, who was at the heart of the problem of transferring pedophiles in the Boston area to new parishes, to retire at a resort in the Italian mountains, he too should be prosecuted and thrown n jail. Until the Church takes a stronger position, those of us that have temporarily stopped practicing, the Church will not have the faith of its flock and will continue to have problems.
Pope Benedict is currently visiting the United States. He was met at the airport by President Bush, Mrs. Bush and Jenna Bush. This was the first time that the President participated in an airport welcoming reception since he was inaugurated. President Bush also hosted the Pope at an event at the White House that was the largest event at the White House under this administration. 13,000 people attended the event. At Nationals Park this morning, 46,000 people attended a two hour mass. Some people arrived as early as 5:30am.
One of the biggest problems within the Catholic Church within the United States has been the sex abuse scandal where, according to NBC News, 11,000 allegations of abuse took place within the US involving 4,400 priests over a 50 year period. The Catholic Church has spent over $2 billion in legal settlements. Over the past number of years, a number of Catholics have expressed outrage at the scandal and in particular the Church’s handling of the scandal.
I am Catholic; however over the past number of years, I have not been practicing. I am one of the many that feel the Church’s handling of the scandal was outrageous. Instead of prosecuting the sexual predators that were masquerading as priests, the Church instead just transferred the priests to different parishes. In fact, one of these predators was transferred to my hometown parish church, St. Paul’s on the Lake in Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. In the wake of the scandal, on numerous occasions, priests at St. Paul’s would ask for donations in order to cover some of the costs associated with the scandal.
On his flight to the US, the Pope stated, “We are deeply ashamed and we will do what is possible so this can not happen again in the future. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry. This is absolutely incompatible and who is really guilty to be a pedophile can not be a priest.”
While these comments are at least a start in the right direction, the Church still has not done enough to rectify the damage caused by the pedophiles. When I was going to grade school, the local monsignor was not just a priest, but also someone all of us looked up to. He provided us with guidance and direction as to the appropriate way to live our lives. He was the voice and face of the Church and as such was someone we all looked up to and respected. To have a local priest sexually abuse a member of the church is about as bad a crime as there is.
At mass at Nationals Park, the Pope continued on the Church’s apology regarding the sex scandal. He said, “No words of mine could describe the pain and have inflicted by such abuse. Nor can I adequately describe the damage that has occurred within the community of the Church.”
I am pleased that the Pope has made these statements regarding the sex scandal. However, I just wish that these types of statements had come earlier. The church needs to make sure that each pedophile is thrown in jail. I also hope that instead of allowing Cardinal Shaw, who was at the heart of the problem of transferring pedophiles in the Boston area to new parishes, to retire at a resort in the Italian mountains, he too should be prosecuted and thrown n jail. Until the Church takes a stronger position, those of us that have temporarily stopped practicing, the Church will not have the faith of its flock and will continue to have problems.
TAX DAY
TAX DAY, April 15, 2008
Today, as all Americans know is the day our federal income taxes are due. For many of us, April 15, is a dark day and one that if we could, we would want to avoid. With the Presidential campaign in full force, taxes are a topic that everyone in Washington is talking about.
Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) earlier today stated, “President Bush’s tax cuts, primarily the first one, but in addition to that the second one, was focused on the uh the very well off in this country and wasn’t an engine toward economic growth.” Let’s look at that statement. According to Representative Emanuel, the only beneficiaries of the tax cuts were the well off. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent earners in America pay 38.8 percent of total federal income taxes, the top twenty percent of earners, those making approximately $215,000 or more pay 86.3 percent of all income taxes, and the top 40 percent of earners, those earning in excess of $85,000 pay 99.4 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom 60 percent of American earners, those making less than $58,000 pay only 0.6 percent of federal income taxes and those Americans earning less than $37,000 pay zero federal income taxes.[1]
The two leading Democratic candidates for President, as well as the leadership on Capital Hill, have stated that there is no chance for making the 2001 and 2003 passed tax cuts that every American who pays income taxes benefited from, permanent. As a result of these tax cuts, 44 million American families with children saved an average of $2,493[2] They use phrases such as the Bush tax cuts were for the rich, but what they won’t tell you is that every single person who pays federal income taxes, got a tax cut under President Bush’s tax cuts. In other words, the Democratic leadership has decided that each and everyone of us needs a tax increase and the federal government spends your money better than you do. With the economic slowdown that we are currently experiencing, isn’t a tax increase the last thing we need? Individuals and businesses allocate capital more effectively than the federal government does.[3]
If Congress allows the President’s tax relief to expire, every income tax payer will face a rate increase.
For a single mom with two children and $30,000 in earnings, taxes would go up by 67 percent.
An elderly couple with $40,000 in income would see their taxes go up by 156 percent.
Twenty-seven million small business owners would see taxes increase by nearly 20 percent – or about $4,000 on average. [4]
[1] Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates 1979 to 2005, December 2005
[2] Department of Commerce, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez,
[3] Department of Commerce, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez speech to the Detroit Economic Club, March 20, 2006
[4] White House Fact Sheet, Taking Decisive Action to Keep Our Economy Growing , April 4, 2008
Today, as all Americans know is the day our federal income taxes are due. For many of us, April 15, is a dark day and one that if we could, we would want to avoid. With the Presidential campaign in full force, taxes are a topic that everyone in Washington is talking about.
Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) earlier today stated, “President Bush’s tax cuts, primarily the first one, but in addition to that the second one, was focused on the uh the very well off in this country and wasn’t an engine toward economic growth.” Let’s look at that statement. According to Representative Emanuel, the only beneficiaries of the tax cuts were the well off. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent earners in America pay 38.8 percent of total federal income taxes, the top twenty percent of earners, those making approximately $215,000 or more pay 86.3 percent of all income taxes, and the top 40 percent of earners, those earning in excess of $85,000 pay 99.4 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom 60 percent of American earners, those making less than $58,000 pay only 0.6 percent of federal income taxes and those Americans earning less than $37,000 pay zero federal income taxes.[1]
The two leading Democratic candidates for President, as well as the leadership on Capital Hill, have stated that there is no chance for making the 2001 and 2003 passed tax cuts that every American who pays income taxes benefited from, permanent. As a result of these tax cuts, 44 million American families with children saved an average of $2,493[2] They use phrases such as the Bush tax cuts were for the rich, but what they won’t tell you is that every single person who pays federal income taxes, got a tax cut under President Bush’s tax cuts. In other words, the Democratic leadership has decided that each and everyone of us needs a tax increase and the federal government spends your money better than you do. With the economic slowdown that we are currently experiencing, isn’t a tax increase the last thing we need? Individuals and businesses allocate capital more effectively than the federal government does.[3]
If Congress allows the President’s tax relief to expire, every income tax payer will face a rate increase.
For a single mom with two children and $30,000 in earnings, taxes would go up by 67 percent.
An elderly couple with $40,000 in income would see their taxes go up by 156 percent.
Twenty-seven million small business owners would see taxes increase by nearly 20 percent – or about $4,000 on average. [4]
[1] Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates 1979 to 2005, December 2005
[2] Department of Commerce, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez,
[3] Department of Commerce, Secretary Carlos Gutierrez speech to the Detroit Economic Club, March 20, 2006
[4] White House Fact Sheet, Taking Decisive Action to Keep Our Economy Growing , April 4, 2008
EDUCATION
EDUCATION, April 14, 2008
Much has been written and discussed over the past few years as to whether or not the Detroit Public Schools are adequately preparing its students for a productive future. As the school district loses more and more students, it is representative of not only its failure but also Michigan’s and Detroit’s. The Detroit public school system is failing its students, the City of Detroit, and the State of Michigan when it graduates only 25 percent of its high school students. This failure is emblematic of many of the problems facing the State of Michigan.
This failure of the public school system should infuriate parents, students, employers, and most importantly local and state politicians and school board members. At a time when Michigan is losing residents and has the highest unemployment rate in the country, you would think that the government, the private sector, non-profit organizations, and the citizens would try and work together and come up with some ideas as to how to reverse the current situation. However, this has not happened.
One suggestion might be the development of charter schools similar to those in California and particularly San Diego, High Tech High. The business community in San Diego realized in the late 90’s that it was seeing a decrease of college graduates that were proficient in science and math leading to a digital divide that was causing employment problems for the local community. The failure of students to have advanced science and math knowledge led to companies such as Abbott Labs, Avaya, BD Biosciences, Copley Newspapers, Qualcomm, Sun Microsystems, Tyco, Manpower, Inc., Cisco Systems, and San Diego Gas and Electric and others to create a charter school that would teach its students the importance of science and math and provide these companies its future employees. The business community recognized a problem and decided to try and fix it.
The business community and others in the area developed a model charter school program that has been promoted as a model of success by everyone from Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. High Tech High combats the twin problems of student disengagement and low academic achievement by creating personalized, project-based learning environments where all students are known well and challenged to meet high expectations. High Tech High schools attempt to show how education can be redesigned to ensure that all students graduate well prepared for college, work, and citizenship.
In its eight years of existence, High Tech High now encompasses eight schools (five high schools, two middle schools, and one elementary school) with 2,500 students. 100 percent of its graduates have been accepted to college. Students also participate in internships with local businesses to give them a head start in finding an area of interest that students can pursue as careers. For the 2006-2007 school year, there were over 3,000 applications for just 285 spots at the original High Tech High.
A charter school system that encompasses some of the ideas of successful charter schools such as High Tech High might be one of the ideas that save Detroit, Michigan and its economy. As the school district continues to fail its students, the city and state will continue to fall farther behind other states. There has to be long-term cooperation between the educational system in Michigan, the local business community, the local and state governments, as well as its citizens.
Michigan over its history has been home to some of the country’s greatest business minds. Whether Henry Ford’s development of the assembly line, Berry Gordy’s development of Motown, or Tom Monaghan’s idea of a delivered pizza in 30 minutes, entrepreneurs from Michigan have been at the cutting edge. However, too often over the past few years, our public schools have continued to fail and have not adapted to changes in the local community. The Detroit school board, the mayor of Detroit, the Detroit Federation of Teachers, and state lawmakers in 2003 decided not to accept local philanthropist Robert Thompson’s pledge of $200 million to support the creation of 15 new charter schools in Detroit. The Detroit Federation of Teachers believes that charter schools take money away from public schools since the students attending the charter schools no longer are enrolled in the failing public schools. Mr. Thompson partnered in March 2005 with the Skillman Foundation after joining forces with former Piston star Dave Bing. This example of the power that the educational special interests have in this state should be a warning to all of the residents of Michigan. Instead of fighting for the students, they seem to be fighting for the status quo of the failure of the current system.
Shouldn’t we expect that the state’s government, school boards and business community to be able work together to develop educated students? Doesn’t Detroit and Michigan need to have tomorrow’s leaders stay at home and help rebuild the state’s economy so that it is no longer at the bottom? The state’s business leaders, government leaders, and educational leaders have to work together in order to develop an educational system that will stop the current failure of public education. Detroit and the state of Michigan can’t afford to take the chance that they will continue to fail.
Much has been written and discussed over the past few years as to whether or not the Detroit Public Schools are adequately preparing its students for a productive future. As the school district loses more and more students, it is representative of not only its failure but also Michigan’s and Detroit’s. The Detroit public school system is failing its students, the City of Detroit, and the State of Michigan when it graduates only 25 percent of its high school students. This failure is emblematic of many of the problems facing the State of Michigan.
This failure of the public school system should infuriate parents, students, employers, and most importantly local and state politicians and school board members. At a time when Michigan is losing residents and has the highest unemployment rate in the country, you would think that the government, the private sector, non-profit organizations, and the citizens would try and work together and come up with some ideas as to how to reverse the current situation. However, this has not happened.
One suggestion might be the development of charter schools similar to those in California and particularly San Diego, High Tech High. The business community in San Diego realized in the late 90’s that it was seeing a decrease of college graduates that were proficient in science and math leading to a digital divide that was causing employment problems for the local community. The failure of students to have advanced science and math knowledge led to companies such as Abbott Labs, Avaya, BD Biosciences, Copley Newspapers, Qualcomm, Sun Microsystems, Tyco, Manpower, Inc., Cisco Systems, and San Diego Gas and Electric and others to create a charter school that would teach its students the importance of science and math and provide these companies its future employees. The business community recognized a problem and decided to try and fix it.
The business community and others in the area developed a model charter school program that has been promoted as a model of success by everyone from Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. High Tech High combats the twin problems of student disengagement and low academic achievement by creating personalized, project-based learning environments where all students are known well and challenged to meet high expectations. High Tech High schools attempt to show how education can be redesigned to ensure that all students graduate well prepared for college, work, and citizenship.
In its eight years of existence, High Tech High now encompasses eight schools (five high schools, two middle schools, and one elementary school) with 2,500 students. 100 percent of its graduates have been accepted to college. Students also participate in internships with local businesses to give them a head start in finding an area of interest that students can pursue as careers. For the 2006-2007 school year, there were over 3,000 applications for just 285 spots at the original High Tech High.
A charter school system that encompasses some of the ideas of successful charter schools such as High Tech High might be one of the ideas that save Detroit, Michigan and its economy. As the school district continues to fail its students, the city and state will continue to fall farther behind other states. There has to be long-term cooperation between the educational system in Michigan, the local business community, the local and state governments, as well as its citizens.
Michigan over its history has been home to some of the country’s greatest business minds. Whether Henry Ford’s development of the assembly line, Berry Gordy’s development of Motown, or Tom Monaghan’s idea of a delivered pizza in 30 minutes, entrepreneurs from Michigan have been at the cutting edge. However, too often over the past few years, our public schools have continued to fail and have not adapted to changes in the local community. The Detroit school board, the mayor of Detroit, the Detroit Federation of Teachers, and state lawmakers in 2003 decided not to accept local philanthropist Robert Thompson’s pledge of $200 million to support the creation of 15 new charter schools in Detroit. The Detroit Federation of Teachers believes that charter schools take money away from public schools since the students attending the charter schools no longer are enrolled in the failing public schools. Mr. Thompson partnered in March 2005 with the Skillman Foundation after joining forces with former Piston star Dave Bing. This example of the power that the educational special interests have in this state should be a warning to all of the residents of Michigan. Instead of fighting for the students, they seem to be fighting for the status quo of the failure of the current system.
Shouldn’t we expect that the state’s government, school boards and business community to be able work together to develop educated students? Doesn’t Detroit and Michigan need to have tomorrow’s leaders stay at home and help rebuild the state’s economy so that it is no longer at the bottom? The state’s business leaders, government leaders, and educational leaders have to work together in order to develop an educational system that will stop the current failure of public education. Detroit and the state of Michigan can’t afford to take the chance that they will continue to fail.
2006 ELECTIONS
2006 Election
The 2006 midterm elections, if you believe the popular, mainstream media was a repudiation of President George W. Bush and the Republican Party. I believe that in a lot of respects this is absolutely true. The Democratic Party ran its campaign on one issue, “They were not George Bush and any Republican running for office was George W. Bush reincarnated.” They ran on no issue or plan. They did not offer any plan for the direction they would take the country. Every DNC, DNCC, DNSC ad that I saw was based upon the same thing – George W. Bush. This post is not going to really deal with the Democrats however. It is going to deal with the incompetitence of the Republicans who ran certain campaigns.
Prior to the election, I thought for the most part the American public would not accept nor reward a campaign run on no issues. I thought that the Republicans would deservedly so lose seats in both the house and Senate, but retain a slight seat or two majority. I thought that the RNC 72 hour get out the vote program, which was so successful in 2002 and 2004, would once again save the Republicans. It would add 1-2 percentage points to enough close races to maintain a slim majority. Boy was I wrong. I should have looked closer at the personalities in a lot of the close races. My current boss went out and did “official” and campaign events with almost every Republican candidate in the target races. Many of these “endangered” Republicans are now soon to be former Republican office holders. Since I am a federal government employee, I was only able to work on the “official” events. I was amazed at how unprepared some Hill staffs are. If you are the district director for a Congressman or woman, you would think that the first two groups that you would know and continually reach out to would be the local business community and the local religious community. This is called working with the base. Anyone with half a brain understands this. Yet many of the district directors, chief of staffs, and others working in Congressional or Senate offices had no idea which businesses were important, which venues or organizations were important to reach out to. When you don’t know the folks that you need to get elected/re-elected, you deserve to and should lose. Let me give you one example. A sitting Republican from a Northeastern state had asked my boss to come visit for an official event in his district. The local district director could not come up with a business in the district that had added jobs or that had exported any of its products within the past year (and no the state was not Michigan which is one of just two states that have seen a decrease in jobs over the past few years). When the criteria are that broad and you still can not come up with an answer, you know that you are in trouble (the Congressman _______ the 2006 election _- _).
The other interesting fact after the election was that a lot of the Republicans tried to blame President Bush for their losing power. It was the President that caused Tom Delay’s problems in Texas, Duke Cunningham’s guilty plea, Bob Ney’s guilty plea, the Jack Abramhoff scandal, the Foley scandal. All of these problems were caused by Congress’s belief that the rules and laws did not apply to them. As the Democrats said, the “Culture of Corruption” was being run by the Republicans and their leadership in both the House and Senate. The Republicans became the same as the Democrats in the early 90’s. The leadership and the rank and file members thought that the rules did not apply to them. This is one of the issues that I have not yet begun to understand with respect to both the House and Senate. They write laws that don’t apply to them and then they don’t understand why people in their districts think that they are the problem. If you look at some of the national poll numbers prior to the election, the approval rating of both the house and senate was a lot lower than that of the President. Yet, House and Senate members are under the belief that it was the President who cost them the election, not their own incompetence. I saw an article recently that had Senator Arlen Specter blaming the President for why he is no longer the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee. While Senator Specter was not up for re-election this year, the State of Pennsylvania’s other Senator, Rick Santorum lost badly. Santorum had the same problem that Virginia’s Senator George Allen also had. They overlooked their re-election campaign while trying to set up a 2008 Presidential campaign. Hopefully, they now understand that before you can run for President, you better win your re-election campaign. Hopefully, both of these two soon to be former Senators will fade away so that none of us will ever have to see or deal with them again.
A friend of mine who used to run congressional campaigns was amazed when I told him the story of a Cabinet Secretary trying to come visit a local district to help a sitting member whose staff was so ridiculous that they could not think of anything to do. While this was not the Congressman’s campaign, it still goes to show that too many Congressman or Senators had become complacent and oblivious to the situation that they are facing. You would have thought that the RNC would have trained a majority of the campaign managers so that problems such as this would not happen. While a lot of Congressman have local friends and supporters running their campaigns and probably can’t afford to have professionals run their campaigns, this situation needs to be corrected. Maybe the RNC should have a stronger voice in setting up the general election campaigns of local Republicans. It seems that all too often this year, the local campaigns made mistakes that a proven professional would not have made. Would this change have stopped the Democratic tide? Maybe, but I would bet that if the RNC had a more direct role in a lot of the local races, many of them might not have been lost.
The 2006 midterm elections, if you believe the popular, mainstream media was a repudiation of President George W. Bush and the Republican Party. I believe that in a lot of respects this is absolutely true. The Democratic Party ran its campaign on one issue, “They were not George Bush and any Republican running for office was George W. Bush reincarnated.” They ran on no issue or plan. They did not offer any plan for the direction they would take the country. Every DNC, DNCC, DNSC ad that I saw was based upon the same thing – George W. Bush. This post is not going to really deal with the Democrats however. It is going to deal with the incompetitence of the Republicans who ran certain campaigns.
Prior to the election, I thought for the most part the American public would not accept nor reward a campaign run on no issues. I thought that the Republicans would deservedly so lose seats in both the house and Senate, but retain a slight seat or two majority. I thought that the RNC 72 hour get out the vote program, which was so successful in 2002 and 2004, would once again save the Republicans. It would add 1-2 percentage points to enough close races to maintain a slim majority. Boy was I wrong. I should have looked closer at the personalities in a lot of the close races. My current boss went out and did “official” and campaign events with almost every Republican candidate in the target races. Many of these “endangered” Republicans are now soon to be former Republican office holders. Since I am a federal government employee, I was only able to work on the “official” events. I was amazed at how unprepared some Hill staffs are. If you are the district director for a Congressman or woman, you would think that the first two groups that you would know and continually reach out to would be the local business community and the local religious community. This is called working with the base. Anyone with half a brain understands this. Yet many of the district directors, chief of staffs, and others working in Congressional or Senate offices had no idea which businesses were important, which venues or organizations were important to reach out to. When you don’t know the folks that you need to get elected/re-elected, you deserve to and should lose. Let me give you one example. A sitting Republican from a Northeastern state had asked my boss to come visit for an official event in his district. The local district director could not come up with a business in the district that had added jobs or that had exported any of its products within the past year (and no the state was not Michigan which is one of just two states that have seen a decrease in jobs over the past few years). When the criteria are that broad and you still can not come up with an answer, you know that you are in trouble (the Congressman _______ the 2006 election _- _).
The other interesting fact after the election was that a lot of the Republicans tried to blame President Bush for their losing power. It was the President that caused Tom Delay’s problems in Texas, Duke Cunningham’s guilty plea, Bob Ney’s guilty plea, the Jack Abramhoff scandal, the Foley scandal. All of these problems were caused by Congress’s belief that the rules and laws did not apply to them. As the Democrats said, the “Culture of Corruption” was being run by the Republicans and their leadership in both the House and Senate. The Republicans became the same as the Democrats in the early 90’s. The leadership and the rank and file members thought that the rules did not apply to them. This is one of the issues that I have not yet begun to understand with respect to both the House and Senate. They write laws that don’t apply to them and then they don’t understand why people in their districts think that they are the problem. If you look at some of the national poll numbers prior to the election, the approval rating of both the house and senate was a lot lower than that of the President. Yet, House and Senate members are under the belief that it was the President who cost them the election, not their own incompetence. I saw an article recently that had Senator Arlen Specter blaming the President for why he is no longer the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee. While Senator Specter was not up for re-election this year, the State of Pennsylvania’s other Senator, Rick Santorum lost badly. Santorum had the same problem that Virginia’s Senator George Allen also had. They overlooked their re-election campaign while trying to set up a 2008 Presidential campaign. Hopefully, they now understand that before you can run for President, you better win your re-election campaign. Hopefully, both of these two soon to be former Senators will fade away so that none of us will ever have to see or deal with them again.
A friend of mine who used to run congressional campaigns was amazed when I told him the story of a Cabinet Secretary trying to come visit a local district to help a sitting member whose staff was so ridiculous that they could not think of anything to do. While this was not the Congressman’s campaign, it still goes to show that too many Congressman or Senators had become complacent and oblivious to the situation that they are facing. You would have thought that the RNC would have trained a majority of the campaign managers so that problems such as this would not happen. While a lot of Congressman have local friends and supporters running their campaigns and probably can’t afford to have professionals run their campaigns, this situation needs to be corrected. Maybe the RNC should have a stronger voice in setting up the general election campaigns of local Republicans. It seems that all too often this year, the local campaigns made mistakes that a proven professional would not have made. Would this change have stopped the Democratic tide? Maybe, but I would bet that if the RNC had a more direct role in a lot of the local races, many of them might not have been lost.
MY OUTLOUD THOUGHTS
MY OUTLOUD THOUGHTS, Nov. 26, 2006
This website is a collection of my random thoughts on the issues of the day. These issues can be in the areas of politics, economics, entertainment, or sports. Therefore this is not solely a political website, nor an entertainment website, or a sports website. It is just a website that contains things that are of interest to me.
A little about me. I am a 34 year old that lives in the suburbs of Washington, DC. I currently work for the federal government. I have worked on and been a consultant to a couple of national political campaigns, I have worked for a small business, consulted to a Fortune 100 company. I have a masters degree in business. I am what I consider a true conservative – I believe in the greatness of America, its political system, its economic system. America is the envy of the world. The freedoms that we Americans have allow each of us to speak our minds on issues we believe, even if they are completely wrong and misguided. That’s what freedom is. Our government should stay out of the business of picking winners and losers except in the war on terror. The government should not pick which companies we all should invest in, which teams should play in the NCAA college football national championship game, which movies we should go see, or who which political party we should vote for.
I believe that that the US government should stay out of our business, bedrooms, and for the most part our lives. They should do a few things and do them well. The government should not be the answer to most of our questions. I believe that most US companies and universities are the best thing we have. We have the best education system that money can buy. Why do you think so many foreign students try so hard to come to the US and study at US universities? If you work hard, you have every chance to succeed. We do not live in a society where a few chosen individuals are chosen at birth (unless your last name is Kennedy in the Northeast) as the country’s political and economic leaders. Opportunity exists for anyone and everyone who wants to take it.
I will try and add a couple of postings a week relating to whatever is going on at the time. Some postings may be political, some may be related to sports, entertainment, economics or whatever is an issue that the general public may be talking about. These are my views, not those of any political party. I may refer to articles that I have read that interest me and will try and provide links to those articles. Please feel free to send me emails on issues that you would like me to comment on or on responses to my postings that you have. I may post some of those as well. This site is not my job, so please do not expect too much.
This website is a collection of my random thoughts on the issues of the day. These issues can be in the areas of politics, economics, entertainment, or sports. Therefore this is not solely a political website, nor an entertainment website, or a sports website. It is just a website that contains things that are of interest to me.
A little about me. I am a 34 year old that lives in the suburbs of Washington, DC. I currently work for the federal government. I have worked on and been a consultant to a couple of national political campaigns, I have worked for a small business, consulted to a Fortune 100 company. I have a masters degree in business. I am what I consider a true conservative – I believe in the greatness of America, its political system, its economic system. America is the envy of the world. The freedoms that we Americans have allow each of us to speak our minds on issues we believe, even if they are completely wrong and misguided. That’s what freedom is. Our government should stay out of the business of picking winners and losers except in the war on terror. The government should not pick which companies we all should invest in, which teams should play in the NCAA college football national championship game, which movies we should go see, or who which political party we should vote for.
I believe that that the US government should stay out of our business, bedrooms, and for the most part our lives. They should do a few things and do them well. The government should not be the answer to most of our questions. I believe that most US companies and universities are the best thing we have. We have the best education system that money can buy. Why do you think so many foreign students try so hard to come to the US and study at US universities? If you work hard, you have every chance to succeed. We do not live in a society where a few chosen individuals are chosen at birth (unless your last name is Kennedy in the Northeast) as the country’s political and economic leaders. Opportunity exists for anyone and everyone who wants to take it.
I will try and add a couple of postings a week relating to whatever is going on at the time. Some postings may be political, some may be related to sports, entertainment, economics or whatever is an issue that the general public may be talking about. These are my views, not those of any political party. I may refer to articles that I have read that interest me and will try and provide links to those articles. Please feel free to send me emails on issues that you would like me to comment on or on responses to my postings that you have. I may post some of those as well. This site is not my job, so please do not expect too much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)