MBLOG

BloggeRhythms 3/2/2012

2012-03-02T09:07:00.000-05:00

I can't believe that a blurb I saw as I flipped past Neil Cavuto's news show on Fox Business channel last night wasn't headline news anywhere on the dial. Not only that, I didn't see it mentioned anywhere this morning. And worse yet, I not only had to Google for the information I wanted, but found that candidate Gingrich was the only one who'd commented on the subject.

But anyway, here's what practically blew me through my own ceiling. Apparently, according to Gingrich, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said yesterday that he had no intention of trying to get gasoline to be less expensive and his goal was to get the American people to go to alternatives "and wants American prices to be about the European level, which would be $9 or $10 a gallon.”

After I read through Chu's comments again, I had to sit back and wonder about exactly what it takes to make people realize that this isn't some kind of glitch or joke, but that lunatics have actually taken over the asylum. Because the current president and his cohorts are steadfastly determined to reduce our nation to third-world status.

And without-re-listing the examples I've typed about for quite time now, its obvious that step-by-step, and according to plan our economy's being ruined. Because you don't have to be an economist, you don't even have to understand much about math to grasp the fact that at present, THERE ARE NO MASS ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS AND THERE LIKELY WON'T BE FOR YEARS TO COME. Aside from that, from what's happened so far to the Solyndra's of the world, and many other's like them, there may never be a viable alternative to go to.

So then, I think folks have to ponder what the real situation is here. Because beyond what seems like blind-eyed ignorance and abject stupidity, I think it's highly unlikely anyone could be vapid enough to diligently look for ways to sink a nation's economy and keep trying to dampen the public's hopes for no reason at all. And I, for one, haven't a clue as to what their actual goal is. But what I do know is, if these insidious slimes aren't stopped soon, the American economy's over for good.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 3/1/2012

2012-03-01T10:54:00.003-05:00

I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter, because frankly, her style gets on my nerves and I find her to be more of a screechy pest than a pundit, but there's no doubt she's pretty bright. That's why this morning I clicked on an article on her website from a link posted by Drudge, because the subject's one I frequently write about also -the demise of higher education in the U.S.

And it seems she has problems with Rick Santorum, because she believes he frequently fails to state his points clearly, or trips himself up by misstatements or mistakes in interviews and debates. She also apparently thinks he's often set up and prone to falling in traps designed by interviewers, because he doesn't always remember his own prior writings and statements.

However, what set her off regarding higher education was a comment Santorum made in response to the president's stating that "everyone should go to college." Upon hearing that, Santorum said, "What a snob!"

In this case, Coulter thinks Santorum's response was incorrect because he missed the point. Since, according to her, "It's not snobbery that compels liberals to promote college for all; it's a scam to manufacture more Democratic voters, much like their immigration policies." And that's where I agree with her absolutely and completely, because I keep making the very same point in many ways myself.

But the main reason I'm writing about her today is that she posted some examples of what a joke college curricula have become that I think are perfect but hadn't found myself. And here's how she put it:

"This isn't the '20s, when only the upper classes went to college. These days, every idiot who can scratch an "X" on his checkbook assumes hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to make himself less employable by taking college courses in - for example - "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" (University of South Carolina, Columbia), "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender and Identity" (University of Virginia), "Arguing With Judge Judy: Popular 'Logic' on TV Judge Shows" (University of California, Berkeley), "The Phallus" (Occidental College), "Zombies" (University of Baltimore), "Comics" (Oregon State University), "Harry Potter: Finding Your Patronus" (Oregon State University), and "Underwater Basket Weaving" (University of California at San Diego).

Now, although I 've reached my own conclusions about the devaluation of education, primarily in public institutions, and am convinced it's mainly due to the dumbing down of "teachers" protected by thuggish unions...today's illustrations take my argument one step further.

Because I've thought all along that the subject matter taught remained pretty much consistent, such as courses in grammar, sciences and math, however kept at minimal difficulty levels due to deteriorating skill levels of the instructors. But today, thanks to the homework of Ann Coulter, I've learned that today's "educators" are too dumb to even do that.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/29/2012

2012-02-29T15:37:00.002-05:00

I didn't find much of interest in the news today, but when perusing Drudge I found a reprinted article from The Hollywood Reporter titled What Ever Happened to Ted Turner? by Stephen Galloway.

I read it because it brought back a memory regarding a transaction I handled while in the equipment financing business, and the tale of that sales presentation is something I'll never, ever forget.

At that time, I think it was somewhere around 1980 or so, Turner owned the TV broadcast station TBS, and also the Atlanta Braves baseball team. The company I was with at the time arranged financing for businesses wishing to lease or finance equipment they were acquiring, so we primarily worked in conjunction with equipment suppliers who brought us in as needed by their clients.

Shortly after a broadcasting equipment trade show in Las Vegas where one of the most prominent suppliers of mobile TV studio equipment displayed its wares, I got a call from them saying that TBS was interested in acquiring a full-sized tractor-trailer equipped with the finest state-of-the art technology available at the time. This production studio on wheels was not only capable of shooting, transmitting and taping any kind of remote event, it could also produce a finished reproducible recording.

The TBS plan, as I recall, was to produce and air Atlanta Braves away games around the nation and also to broadcast, record, and preserve all kinds of other events in outdoor venues such as big-name performers concerts in stadiums and arenas.

Now, naturally, the equipment involved was very, very costly and thus I was invited to make a presentation of my financial offerings by visiting Turner's headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

The morning I flew in from New York, I hopped in a cab outside Atlanta's airport and gave the cabbie the street address of my destination. Upon hearing the building number, the cabbie said something like, "Gonna see Ted, huh?" And then I quickly learned from him that almost all Atlantan's at the time tried to stay abreast of everything Ted did, whereas to them he was a hero far bigger than life. A few minutes later the cabbie said, if you get a chance, "You ought to ask them why they fired the Brave's manager, Joe Torre, this morning."

On my arrival in my prospective customer's headquarters, I was ushered into one of the largest offices I'd ever seen. The room was not only immense, but perfectly appointed and although not austere, considering whose business I was visiting, it was extremely intimidating. As was it's occupant, the CFO, a financial wizard and exactly the type you'd expect to be acceptable to one of the world's foremost business geniuses and successful entrepreneurs. This man had a financial calculator in his head.

Now, despite my own experience and considerable accomplishments to date, my host and his surroundings threw me off my pace to the extent that no dazzling opening statement came to mind. Consequently, being unable to display genius, I simply stuttered all I could remember at the moment, "H,h,h,how come the Braves let Joe Torre go this morning?"

Upon hearing that, my potential client whirled his chair around to face the largest custom phone console I'd ever seen. There must have been more than a hundred buttons on it. And he started pushing them, one after another, speaking quickly and curtly to whoever answered each of them.

Then after what seemed an eternity, but was likely only five or ten minutes or so, he turned back around to me. He then said he'd called everyone he could think of in the baseball organization, from the GM, to the manager, to the coaches and even the bat boy and none of them was aware of the managerial firing. So, what he asked me to tell him was exactly where I'd gotten my information, because part of his responsibility was over-seeing employees contracts so he had to get started on handling this one immediately because he hated being the last one to find things like this out.

It was then that I fully understood the meaning of that old comparative, being between a rock and a hard place because I didn't have the nerve to tell him that a cabbie had mislead me just a short while ago. After a further little hemming and hawing, I finally told him I'd seen a news headline in the NY airport which obviously had been wrong. Within a short time later, calm returning to the room, we finally got down to the purpose of my visit and discussed what alternatives I had to offer.

My own professional standards prevent me from telling you whether I finally made that sale or not. But, in retrospect, simply getting out of the hole I'd dug for myself and staying in contention long enough to present my suggestions to a consummate professional such as the one I faced taught me two things I've never forgotten. Don't ever give up no matter the situation -and always stay out of cabs.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/28/2012

2012-02-28T13:19:00.001-05:00

Haven't seen Warren Buffett around for a while, but yesterday some comments from his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. annual letter were posted on Drudge via Bloomberg, such as: “Large numbers of people who have ‘lost’ their house through foreclosure have actually realized a profit because they carried out refinancings earlier that gave them cash in excess of their cost. In these cases, the evicted homeowner was the winner, and the victim was the lender.”

I thought his present position was interesting because he now controls the biggest shareholding of the largest U.S. mortgage lender, Wells Fargo & Co. which is owned by Bank of America Corp. in which he invested $5 billion last year. In 2010, which was before his BOA investment, he also publicly defended Goldman Sachs against accusations it mislead clients.

So I guess his belief is that if someone like him buys into a floundering bank, taking advantage of their weaknesses, that's perfectly alright because he's a good guy. But if borrowers profit from a market opportunity, they're not. And that seems odd to me because Buffet seems to me like a guy who'd kill anyone for a quarter and not even think about it.

I also can't help but remember that he apparently got a sweetheart deal on the B of A via an inside track provided by the White House, and then went out and said that the wealthy should willingly pay higher taxes because they can afford it.

And what's more interesting than that is the fact that the mortgage industry's facing criticism from Democrats, including the president who said in his State of the Union address that bets by lenders prompted the 2008 credit freeze and “left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag.”

However, as I've mentioned many times in the past, it was the president himself and Project Acorn, along with guys like Dodd and Frank, who forced bankers to lend to credit-less wannabees and deadbeats in order to level the home ownership playing field. And after causing that debacle which he's completely walked away from, he now blames the very same banks he put into financial turmoil himself.

So, I guess when it comes to politics and money, it's always the same old, same old. It doesn't really matter to certain types of folks how they amass as much as they can for themselves, but nonetheless they really don't want that known by anybody else.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/27/2012

2012-02-27T09:32:00.001-05:00

According to Chris Stirewalt of Fox News, in a speech yesterday in Florida, the president said that "while he favored increased domestic production of some fossil fuels, he believed that higher taxes on producers were imperative in order to finance federal subsidies for green energy initiatives."

I mention it because politics aside, maybe it's just me but I simply don't understand what he means. Because the last time I looked, this country ran on a free enterprise system where open competition reigned. And what that means is, people and providers vie for business and it's customers who decide where and what to buy without outside interference, so long as providers remain within the law.

But apparently, this president believes that successful operators have an obligation to fund their own future competition which to me is so far past ridiculous, it's almost beyond comprehension. Especially when the new ideas have yet to be proven and are odds-on unlikely to ever work. What's more, I truly believe that if today's energy providers thought any of these hare-brained future schemes had a chance of success, they'd fund the projects themselves.

Along the same lines, Tim Geithner remarked that successful people should gladly pay higher taxes because of the opportunities provided them in our nation, which I think also misses the mark by miles. Because its those successes that already fund the government at present, while those in the administration find ways to waste, mis-use and steal what they already take while doing nothing to help earn it.

Therefore, as for me, I think both of these guys are so far out in left field (pun intended) they either keep pushing the same buttons to appeal to their biased base or are truly demented. But whatever the case, it seems neither of them understand nor care about the fundamental freedoms that made this nation great, but are only interested in how much they can rip off and don't even have a clue as to how to spend it.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/26/2012

2012-02-26T11:51:00.001-05:00

I saw a headline on Drudge that sent me to a short article I had to read a few times, to be certain I understood it. According to the author, Alexander Burns of Politico, the United Auto Workers union is going to fly a banner at today's Daytona 500 auto race which says, "Mitt Romney: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"

The purpose is to highlight Romney's belief that U.S. automakers shouldn't have been bailed out by taxpayers, but instead simply have filed for bankruptcy and reorganized on their own.

Now naturally, the unions despise Romney for his audacity in believing that businesses should succeed or fail on their own, which from a union's perspective is blasphemous. Because if you remove a parasites source of nourishment it's likely to soon expire. And that's what caught my eye about this article in the first place.

Because here we have a group (the union) which does nothing productive at all. However, by banding workers together, they mass enough influence and strength to hold labor for ransom, enabling them to continually increase demands. So much so, that in the particular case of manufacturing vehicles they almost single-handedly closed the whole U.S. industry down.

And what's most incredible to me about today's plan for the banner display is the level of audacity reached by a band of leeches who bled almost a whole industry dry and now turns around to point fingers at someone who had the gall to mention that fact. To me this is like a large gang of bank robbers carrying signs protesting the hiring of guards.

On the other hand, the good news for Romney is that it's likely that very few NASCAR fans know how to read.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/25/2012

2012-02-25T11:58:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I have to wonder exactly who it is a guy like Mitt Romney listens to for advice. Because, at the moment, he's the only candidate who has the capabilities to repair the nation's major ills, and yet he reduces himself to argue about social issues that really have no place in the campaign in the first place.

For example, at the moment he's working hard to establish himself as a true Conservative because he apparently feels quite threatened by Rick Santorum. However, Conservatism isn't the issue that's on the minds of most of the voting public. What's of most concern to them is the slow employment rate, an educational system that's in reverse, rapidly declining health care, and the rising cost of fuel.

What's more, for every vote that's gained by appealing to strict Conservatives, two or three others are likely lost from moderates and independents without whom an election can't be won.

So, the best thing Romney can presently do for himself is to start looking presidential on the major issues, which he happens to be very good at, and let everyone he's running against keep scaring the majority of voters off by themselves.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/24/2012

2012-02-24T11:45:00.000-05:00

The older I get and the more I see, hear and read, the less impressed I become with myself. And that's because for practically all my business life, and in many personal cases too, I was generally more successful than most others I encountered.

But, now I realize that whatever it was that I thought I'd accomplished handily due to my capability, actually had nothing at all to do with my prowess. It stemmed from the fact that most others are either intellectual vacant lots or card-carrying morons.

Proof of that comes every day as I look at the news and see that a huge section of the voting public are willing to watch their hard earned dollars go to foreign sultans and princes because a puppet in the White House continually sells them out without a hint of guilt or caring. And simultaneously he allows the medical profession to deteriorate because doctors can no longer afford to remain in business under his socialistic guidelines.

Couple that with unions killing our educational system and many manufacturing operations and you have economic disaster which really isn't news.

So, in light of the fact that in spite of an uptick in employment the economic growth outlook still remains bleak, what do Republican and independent voters do? They worry about social issues that aren't really even a president's bailiwick. And consequently, by pushing a social agenda that really should be hammered out locally or perhaps even by individual states, they're killing themselves election-wise and taking everyone else with them.

But as I said at the outset, I'm finding out that I'm really not very bright because I always the American dream included economic success and independence. But obviously that's not really the case. Because now I see that the goal really is to become the most socially conservative person in the poor house.

That's it for today folks

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/23/2012

2012-02-23T08:04:00.001-05:00

I've never bothered to rank the various stages of stupidity when commenting on someone's behavior, because I generally just use the first word I think of when I make a comment about it. For instance, I might say something like, "Boy that guy is dumb." Or perhaps, "That guy's not bright enough to tie his own shoes" However, whatever the ratings are for gross moronics, there's a bozo judge in Delaware who's off the charts.

According to the Associated Press, "A Delaware bankruptcy judge has approved close to $370,000 in bonuses for certain employees of Solyndra LLC, a solar panel manufacturer that received a half-billion dollar loan from the federal government before declaring bankruptcy." And let's all remember, this is taxpayer's dollars he's authorizing paying out.

Apparently, he approved the request after a hearing Wednesday because the company has failed to find a buyer to operate the company as a going concern and says it needs to retain key employees with the expertise needed for an orderly liquidation of its remaining assets.

Now, I don't think you need an MBA from Wharton School to realize that no one wants to buy the business because it's worthless and there's nobody imbecilic enough to purchase this dead horse. However, this isn't an uncommon occurrence and happens to many failed, hare-brained entrepreneurial schemes. But in most cases, when these situations occur there are all kinds of experts who expressly specialize in maximizing the values of whatever assets are left in closed concerns.

Naturally, in this case I don't know precisely what kind of machinery, tools, equipment, furniture, fixtures and rolling stock and other such things this company has left. But I do know that quite often, existing employees are still there because they can't find other employment. And that means it might be tempting for them to work out asset sales having some kind of value to themselves. Consequently, even though there might be no reason at all of suspicion, the wisest and most prudent step is to take them out of the selling phase completely by bringing in outside liquidation experts.

And in this particular case there are already indications of management feathering it's own nest at the public's expense, so that in itself should be some kind of warning of a fox in the henhouse. Which brings me back to my original observation that I can't even think of a word that describes the level of idiocy this bankruptcy judge has reached, unless perhaps, he's in on the deal himself.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/22/2012

2012-02-22T14:12:00.001-05:00

As I've stated in several prior entry's, I don't know very much about presidential candidate Santorum. But here are some quotes I found on the Drudge Report, excerpted from comments he recently made to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.

"Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" and "Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."

He supposedly also said, "This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"

Now if this stuff is true, this guy is probably a certifiable case. However, in his defense, quite a few years ago when the great Flip Wilson played as "Geraldine Jones," Geraldine would state when caught doing wrong that "The devil made me do it." And although I think Santorum's a totally vacant lot, I still have a high regard for Flip. And so perhaps, we all ought to go out and stock up on garlic before it's too late.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/21/2012

2012-02-21T13:42:00.000-05:00

I saw an item on Fox News website this morning that indicates to me the presidential incumbent's re-election campaign Policy Director, James Kvall, is making a huge mistake.

According to Fox, the director sent out a memo on the "deficit-exploding budget and tax plans" by Romney and Santorum. In it, he says that while both candidates "champion spending cuts deep enough to cut taxes and balance the budget," they have, in fact, "proposed irresponsible and reckless tax plans that would drive up the deficit by trillions of dollars."

Now, I have no clue as to whether this guy's correct or not in his comments. But, I don't think he's very wise to mention Rick Santorum at all, for any reason on earth. Because Santorum’s exactly the guy the incumbent needs in the race, since he not only hasn't a prayer in the world of winning a presidential election he likely couldn't beat an egg.

On the other hand, Romney would probably win hands down, due to his appeal to independents that are critically needed by both parties.

So, at this point I think the best move the incumbent's team could make would actually be to support Santorum’s nomination clandestinely, doing everything they can to help him succeed. Because far and away, he's their best hope for keeping the White House and practically guarantees them a win next November.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/20/2012

2012-02-20T14:56:00.000-05:00

Since there's not very much new going on today, I just thought I'd mention that according to CNBC, gasoline prices have never been higher at this time of the year. At $3.53, they say it's already up 25 cents a gallon since January, while experts say it could reach a record $4.25 by late April.

As a reminder, the president recently stopped progress on the proposed new pipeline from Canada, saying his people needed more time to analyze the environmental situation although they've had the information for more than three years. Similarly, there've been no real steps taken to re-opening drilling in the Gulf.

So, I just have to wonder once more, because I've written things like this up often before...just how long are people going to sit still and let this administration literally take money from their pockets due to political pandering? Because from my perspective, there's not much difference between permitting price gouging like this by foreign providers and outright theft.

And that means perhaps the times come for not only for electing someone else, perhaps charges should be considered for aiding and abetting stealing.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/19/2012

2012-02-19T12:42:00.001-05:00

Watching the recent blurbs go by on my TV screen, I've more or less resigned myself to the fact that there's little doubt the incumbent president will be reelected. Because the only hope the Republicans have is Mitt Romney and so-called Conservatives are making every effort to sink his campaign and gaining ground every day.

And I'm pretty sure of the outcome in the presidential race, because I know how I feel myself. And although I'm quite conservative in economic matters, I not only couldn't care less about all the social stuff, I feel very strongly that my personal beliefs are none of the governments damn business.

Consequently, I think if someone like Santorum runs who has no business capabilities whatsoever, I'll simply sit the presidential race out and cast my vote only for Congress. What's more, since I believe the Republicans will likely take both houses, the incumbents policies and plans are basically cooked anyway.

In the meantime, since despite the fact that the majority of the nation's woes are economic and that the current administration's trying to socialize the population, I got to wondering exactly how many voters on the other side think it's worth watching themselves and their country go broke by making their religious beliefs the only things that matter.

Here are the statistics I found: A website called beliefnet.com estimates that 12.6% of voters are in the group referred to as the Religious Right. Meanwhile, a Pew Research Center recent study indicates that an estimated 34% of all voters say they are Democrats, 28 percent claim to be Republicans and the biggest group contains 37 percent of all American voters who now call themselves independents or unaffiliated voters.

Consequently, you don't have to do much arithmetic to realize that what most political pundits are saying is absolutely true. Presidential elections now heavily depend on independents because neither party, Democrat or Republican, has enough voters to carry an election.

And since logic says its the independent swing vote that will determine the next president, I think its reasonable to assume that rigid believers such as the Religious Right will scare off most of them, which pretty much gives the incumbent a win. But what's most remarkable to me is, that a mere 12.6 percent of those who vote can sink a country as powerful and successful as the United States used to be.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/18/2012

2012-02-18T10:53:00.000-05:00

I saw a blurb crawl by on my TV screen this morning indicating that Rick Santorum believes government should not be involved in redistribution of wealth, but instead people should be urged to make the best of themselves economically and improve themselves on their own.

In that regard, I agree with Santorum completely and think government should absolutely stay out of people's way altogether, and the proof of that belief is what folks have done primarily on their own to build the greatest economy the world's ever seen. While on the other hand, it couldn't be clearer that the more government gets involved, the worse things become for the nation as a whole.

But what I also find interesting about Santorum's position is that his attitude about meddling seems to only apply to economics, because in every other aspect of people's lives, especially regarding social issues, it appears he believes government should not only have significant power...but legislators should tell folks how to live.

And here we have in a nutshell what's wrong with what politics and government have become. Because I couldn't care less about what a politico like Santorum's social beliefs are, he can go out and swing on trees if he thinks it's the right thing to do for him. But as for me, I've been deciding what my own beliefs are for my entire life and it not only doesn't matter to me what any electee thinks, since I have no intention of listening to them -now or ever- Santorum can go take a hike.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhytms 2/17/2012

2012-02-17T12:20:00.001-05:00

Quietly watching the crawlers go by on several news stations this morning, a thought popped into my mind about pipelines.

On one hand, the jobless rate is slowly creeping down, the stock markets are rising again, and so are the costs for food, gas, and clothing. And as far as the commodities go, the higher prices are likely due to more expensive fuel and transportation.

So, my vision consisted of more and more Americans working, others perhaps even getting minimal raises, and then all of them turning around and paying outrageous prices to drive their cars and despite the mild winter, to heat their homes.

And here's where the pipeline part comes in. Because indeed their is one and it's huge, and it isn't full of oil...it's carrying cash. The pipeline starts right here in our nation, from shore to shore, and then goes in two directions. One tube to the Middle-East, and the other to South American neighbors. Because as every indicator clicks up to the good side, the increase gets siphoned off by foreigners literally picking our pockets...and we in the middle are actually working for them because they're happily ripping off the profits from all our labor.

And what's most incredible about it is that most folks feel the effect of this travesty every single day while trying to pay their bills and keep their heads above water financially. Yet, the politicians responsible for this obviously have no problem accepting the situation, and keep voting for legislation that lets this happen over and over again.

So, I have to ask one more time again: Just how broke to folks have to get before they absolutely refuse to pay for the ridiculous beliefs of the far left? And when will they start demanding that we receive the benefits of our own resources instead of continually making other nations rich benefactors of our labors?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/16/2012

2012-02-16T14:27:00.002-05:00

Browsing around sites this morning, I came across a blurb on National Review Online about Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Two things in the short write-up caught my eye.

The first item said that if the Dem's win back the House, she'll be chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee. And to me, that's like making Bugs Bunny president of MIT. Then she goes on to call Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor “demons” who “would rather do whatever they can to destroy this president, rather than for the good of this country.”

And although I really don't know all that much about her, I've seen her enough to realize that she's one of those old-time political hacks that lives in a world that no longer exists. Furthermore, she's got the picture upside down. Because, I think if you want to see what demons are really all about you might want to consider people who've been selling their nation out for the past five years by passing ridiculous legislation that might have sunk it altogether if not for a couple of tough guys, Boehner and Cantor, who did their best to try and save it.

Out of pure curiosity I just looked her up on Wikipedia, which I grant you isn't the most reliable source, but they do gather a lot of details, and here's what I found out: She worked in a garment factory and as a telephone operator before being hired as an assistant teacher with the Head Start program at Watts in 1966. She later enrolled at Los Angeles State College (now California State University, Los Angeles,) graduating with a sociology degree in 1970.

In 1973, she went to work as chief deputy to City Councilman, David S. Cunningham, Jr, entering the California State assembly in 1976. While in the assembly she worked for divestment of state pension funds from any businesses active in South Africa, a country then operating under the policy of apartheid and helped pass legislation within the guidelines of the divestment campaign's Sullivan Principles. She ascended to the position of Democratic Caucus Chair for the Assembly.

Upon the retirement of Augustus P. Hawkins in 1990, Waters was elected to the House for California's 29th Congressional District getting over 79% of the popular vote. She's been re-elected consistently, with at least 70% of the popular vote, in the California's 35th Congressional District after significant parts of the pre-1990 29th California Congressional District were folded into the newly defined 35th California Congressional District when California gained seven additional seats in the House following the 1990 United States Census.

And now, having read the preceding, I fully understand why she does little more than call names and make ridiculous comments about those who she dislikes. Because just like a kid in a schoolyard who's clueless about how anything really works, much less the financial affairs of the most prosperous nation on earth, she has nothing in her knowledge base to draw on so she simply taunts and verbally assaults those who oppose her.

I also think I typed too soon before, when comparing her acumen to Bugs Bunny. Because now that I know how little she actually knows about finance, I think I insulted Bugs whereas it now seems to me that he likely grasps a lot more about it than she does.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/15/2012

2012-02-15T13:08:00.000-05:00

While unemployment still remains at about 8.5% and the nation's economy is barely limping along, the president's making a speech in Milwaukee, then moving on to attend eight fundraisers for his re-election campaign in the Los Angeles area, San Francisco and Seattle.

According to Fox News, two events will take place in L.A., the first one an outdoor reception at the home of soap opera producer Bradley Bell and his wife, Colleen, featuring a performance by the rock band the Foo Fighters. 1,000 supporters are expected to attend, with tickets starting at $250 apiece.

Next comes a dinner at the same place, co-hosted by actor Will Ferrell and his wife, Viveca Paulin for about eighty people with tickets costing $35,800 each. The fundraising will benefit the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

In contrast to these extravagant affairs, raising millions of dollars for the gain of one individual, the incumbent, CNS News.com reported about a speech he made today in Milwaukee. In his remarks he listed rising gas prices as among the many reasons to extend the payroll tax. He said individuals face losing $40 per paycheck for the average American worker if the tax cut is not extended at the end of this month.

So, if my math is correct, while only two of the events he'll attend in the next few days will raise three million one hundred fourteen thousand dollars for him, individual taxpayers face losing two thousand eighty bucks per year apiece. Somehow, I just think there's something inconsistent in that.

What also struck me was his reference to the rising price of fuel, because as the Associated Press reiterated yesterday, last month the incumbent's administration denied a permit for the TransCanada oil pipeline. He did this to appease environmentalist factions in his party while having just about everyone else watch a huge portion of their incomes and savings go to people who hate us in South America and the Middle-East. And I don't about you, but I think there's also something hugely wrong about that as well.

In the meantime though, the clock keeps ticking and as I keep mentioning, I think folks are really pretty fed up with this administration and are about to try to fix it. Then again, perhaps it's worth paying a fortune for fuel if the alternative is having Big Brother tell me that I have to live my life by their social rules, which I'm absolutely certain is none of their GD business and I absolutely won't comply no matter.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/14/2012

2012-02-14T10:43:00.000-05:00

I read an article by the editors of, National Review Online, which I really don't agree with. Their contention is that, Newt Gingrich, should bow out of the presidential primary race mainly because he isn't doing too well and Rick Santorum's picking up steam.

However, as I've written here often before, I truly believe that the longer that Republicans contend with each other they're still making their individual points to the public, but they're also leaving the present incumbent pretty much alone. And the way things are going for him lately, he's not only proving to be a totally incompetent "leader," his mistakes are alienating voters in droves. Consequently, without any help from his rivals he's very likely to simply self-destruct.

What was also interesting to me in the article was a paragraph containing the things they believe Mitt Romney stands for. And, here's what they wrote: "Romney is a transactional politician rather than a charismatic one. Maybe he should make the most of it: Tell conservatives what they will get out of a Romney presidency. Entitlements brought under budgetary control. A more market-oriented health-care system. Judges who know their place in the constitutional architecture. Fannie and Freddie extinguished. The defense budget protected. Tax reform, and tax relief for families."

Now, as far as I'm concerned that sounds like a pretty sound agenda, and I agree that it should make most conservatives happy, and I'd also add another couple if items. Because I myself am aware that Romney wants to push for using our own energy resources, such as oil, and stopping the erosion of our military strength.

And the funny thing about it all is that it's likely his agenda isn't all just political smoke and hype but will actually get accomplished. And if that really happens, we'll all get our nation back.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/13/2012

2012-02-13T09:58:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney got good news and bad news yesterday from Sarah Palin. On the plus side, she said she wasn't sure he's "conservative" enough to merit the Republican presidential nomination, and I think that's the good part. Because, to me, she's the empty skirt that cost John McCain the election last time around and she's also ninety-nine percent noise and one percent proven performer herself. Therefore, not having her in your corner's a plus.

On the negative side, despite my poor opinion of her and the fact that she has no real accomplishments or credentials, there are plenty of folks who really like her, which means she'll have significant influence over those sheep. And that, of course, weakens Romney who's the only one with any kind of chance of beating the incumbent next November.

So, once again, in Palin we have someone who'd rather pick up a cleaver and slice her own nose off to spite her face by questioning whether someone meets her standards, than to simply take the best shot at winning a general election.

And the worst part of her self-serving, ridiculous statements is that conservatives will surely vote for Romney, regardless, should he win the nomination. However, if he were more rigid, independents wouldn't, and they're the ones who are needed most. Consequently, as I've said many times before, positions like her's are likely going to cost Republicans the next presidential election which to me seems light years beyond merely stupid.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/12/2012

2012-02-12T09:13:00.001-05:00

I've mentioned many times recently, my belief that the most critical need for the nation right now is repairing a totally mismanaged economy. Because that paves the way for all else. And I've also stated that in my opinion, the best candidate for accomplishing that, in either political party, is Mitt Romney. However, this morning in an article on Fox News website Romney presented himself far better and more succinctly than I've been able so far.

Here's what he said, "I am the only candidate in the race who has never served a day in our broken federal government. The voters of Maine have sent a clear message that it is past time to send an outsider to the White House, a conservative with a lifetime of experience in the private sector, who can uproot Washington's culture of taxing and spending and borrowing and endless bureaucracy."

Along with Romney's win in Maine, he was also declared winner of the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 38 percent to Rick Santorum’s 31.

To me this was a considerable victory for Romney, because many in his party don't consider him conservative enough for them. But, if he can capture a win in the most important conservative gathering there is, I think that goes a long way to debunking that theory.

And since I'm practically certain that the only one running who has a chance of defeating the incumbent next November is Romney, I hope the voters in the remaining primary's realize that also and give him their support.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/11/2012

2012-02-11T09:53:00.002-05:00

As the Republican presidential candidates keep blabbering at the CPAC convention, I think they're making some huge mistakes. Because while trying to outdo each other in proving how conservative they are, they're likely alienating more and more of those who aren't.

In my own particular case, I have no use for any politician, regardless of their affiliation, because I truly believe they're all self-serving, egotistical, frauds. I also think they're in it for the power while serving, and then the paybacks after leaving office. Nonetheless, I do cast a vote and because I have interests in business, Republicans appeal to me most often. But, all of that notwithstanding, as far as all their other moral and life-style pontificating goes, I couldn't care less. In fact, my personal beliefs or proclivities are none of their GD business and I resent any intrusion by anyone.

And that's why I think that as far as their party goes, they're very wrong in loudly touting how "conservative" they are. Because they're already going to get each and every conservative vote, no matter which of the Republican candidates gets the nomination. But although that's a given it simply isn't enough to win an election which should be a slam dunk. Because in order to succeed, they need to win over the majority of independents.

Consequently, by trying to prove how "conservative" they are, I think they're scaring off more folks in the middle than they're winning. And that's really a shame because what the country really does need right now is a reversal of fiscal policy, a beefing up of military strength and a repeal of health care legislation. But, if in order to get those things, folks are going to have to swallow the rest of what conservatives want to do to their personal choices, I think most independents will likely vote for the present incumbent.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/10/2012

2012-02-10T07:34:00.001-05:00

The big news for Republicans at present is the CPAC conference in Washington, DC where the presidential candidates, and many others, are making speeches. This meeting is rated as the most important event for Conservatives. However, perhaps it's just me, but I still don't get it.

To me, I think it's more than obvious that what the nation needs more than anything else at present, is a leader that knows what he's doing regarding governance, the economy and recapturing the faith of all those who are either workers or, especially so, those who own or operate a business. Because, as I've stated many times in the past, it's the private sector economy that provides the wherewithal for every other endeavor there is.

And if the economy is truly issue number one, and significantly more important than any other, all the speeches in the world aren't going to fix our problems if those who make them have no real clue as to what they're talking about. That fact gets proven every single day by the present presidential incumbent who talks a mile a minute, yet not only hasn't a whit of capability to fix the economic morass but is primarily responsible for its creation.

Consequently, I have less than zero interest in what any politician ever tells me, I only care about the results of what they've already done. And that information doesn't come out of their mouths, it comes out of their dossiers.

That's why, as far as the present presidential contenders are concerned, in all political party's, there's only one guy who has any successful governing experience or business acumen at all, and that's Mitt Romney. All the rest of these guys are motor-mouth politicos who are all talk with no substance, except for Ron Paul who practiced medicine until 1976. But even that was quite a long time ago, and doctors aren't usually very good businessmen at all.

Now, as far as my previous thoughts are concerned, I'm not sitting here typing all this because I'm completely sold on Mitt, because to me he's also just another politician. Nonetheless, the nation's in a very deep fiscal hole that has to be fixed as quickly as possible or there will truly be nothing left. And since he's the only one in the bunch with any chance of getting that done, I simply don't understand why anyone with a brain would care about anything coming out of anyone else's mouth in speeches.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhytms 2/9/2012

2012-02-09T10:47:00.003-05:00

In keeping with the president's program of ignoring Congress, and just about everyone else in pursuing his own agenda, this morning, Fox News, reported that he's set "to give 10 states a pass regarding an approaching deadline under the No Child Left Behind law, after the states struggled to meet the proficiency standards for reading and math."

Originally passed under the George W. Bush administration, the law requires all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Today's action strips away the fundamental requirement for the 10 states, who've sought flexibility in the law, provided they offer another viable plan instead.

The first 10 states to receive the waivers are Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Another, New Mexico, applied for the flexibility but didn't get it, however it's said to be working with the administration to get approval.

Beyond that, another 28 other states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, "have indicated their intent to seek flexibility," an official said.

So, here we have continuing proof that the educational system across the U.S. is in dire straits and without going into all the detail I've harped on in many prior entries, I believe the reason for this travesty primarily rests with teachers unions that harbor practically illiterates, and continues to force letting them teach. That factor in turn leads to reducing curricula to nearly zero value, because anything more complex or difficult is simply beyond the capabilities and comprehension of the "teachers" themselves.

However, on the other hand, this very morning I received a newsletter email from my own alma mater, a public school in Manhattan, Stuyvesant High. One of the items listed follows:

Two Intel Science Talent Search Finalists of the forty that have been invited to Washington, DC to compete for scholarships and other awards in March are:

Angela Fan '12 (Root Nutrient Foraging: A Morphometric Approach to Quantifying the Developmental Plasticity Space of Arabidopsis Ecotypes in Laboratory and Natural Environments)

Mimi Yen '12 (Characterizing the Behavior and Genetics of Headplugging in C. elegans)

I mention this because here are two high school students attending a public school and, obviously, receiving an excellent education. And although they're perhaps above average intellectually, their accomplishments still illustrate what can result from public schooling. What's more, their achievements point out that there's a huge gap between the extremes of these two individuals and teachers across the nation who can hardly spell their own names.

So, maybe it's really time to stop all the political posturing and tons of BS from the administration and actually start addressing the real problems. And step one would be the biggest leap toward educational improvement...eliminating the teachers unions completely and beginning the real process of education again.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/8/2012

2012-02-08T09:47:00.003-05:00

As each day goes by, I realize more and more that despite almost anything else, the American people are individually responsible for just about every one of their problems. And it really doesn't matter which political party they support. The proof of my conclusion rests in the results of yesterday's primary contests in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota.

We live in a nation which has become the best on earth, primarily because it's economy affords it's population the freedom to pursue practically any goal they desire. All that's generally required for success is some personal capability and a willingness to work toward attainment.

And, as we can clearly have seen over the past five years, when government hampers and hamstrings economic freedom and oversteps it's bounds through interference, misguided policies, overbearing legislation and absence of business knowledge...economic reversal results.

Consequently, it should be obvious to all that what's needed now, above all else, is a return to economic and business levels that provide the freedoms that have been lost to governmental controls and overbearance. And there's only one individual with the experience and proven capabilities to do that in either party -Mitt Romney.

And regardless that the forgoing is true, and that most Republicans certainly know that, yesterday in three states they voted for someone who not only has zero business acumen, he was formerly a lawyer, meaning he not only has no real economic experience, he was a parasite to boot.

As for me, I don't think it takes too much foresight to realize that the coming presidential election's going to be a close one. And the Achilles Heel of the incumbent is that every single one of the nation's fiscal woes result from huge errors and horrendous legislation enacted by himself and his cronies and cohorts. Therefore, battle lines have to be drawn, economic issues have to be on the forefront and that should go a long way toward helping a Republican win.

So, in spite of all that's obvious, what do these so-called social conservatives do? They vote for an inexperienced lawyer who hasn't a prayer of out-debating the incumbent, because Santorum knows nothing about curing our economic ills at all, while leaving the nation's best chance for recovery out of the race altogether.

And that brings me right back to my original point. Because, once again the voting public's not only moving toward shooting themselves in the foot, this time around they're likely going to blow it off altogether.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/7/2012

2012-02-07T12:05:00.001-05:00

During the last few days, I've mentioned how it seemed to me that the president's changed his strategy as he scrambles for votes in the coming election. He now seems to be open to accepting ideas and positions that he'd vowed to never support, if he thinks it will help him keep him in office.

But what I sense is a huge problem for him is that the game of politics has changed quite a bit. Primarily because it's not like the old days where what one said was soon forgotten, or buried in some archive that only political junkies would bother to look up again.

Today, thanks to technology, continuous media coverage and especially the Internet, almost anything said by politico's is virtually kept forever and accessible instantaneously. Which is why I'm able to remind myself and readers about the horrendous mistake that was made when the president and his side-kick, Nancy Pelosi, loudly touted their new health care bill.

In that regard, practically the whole Catholic population was aghast a few days ago when Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, stated that the administration was overreaching by knocking down the wall between church and state via employees who can receive insurance covering contraception.

Furthering that furor today, according to Terence P. Jeffrey of cnsnews.com, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, leader of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, "wrote a letter to be read at all Sunday Masses for U.S. military personnel around the world that said that a regulation issued by the Obama Administration under the new federal health care law was 'a blow' to a freedom that U.S. troops have not only fought to defend but for which some have recently died in battle."

So, what all this adds up to me is that the president's painted himself into another corner as far as his health care law's concerned, and Nancy Pelosi's right alongside him holding the bucket of paint. Because, as mentioned earlier, with today's technology's to help with recollection, I don't think folks are going to forget it was Ms Pelosi who told us we'd all love the new health care law -even though she hadn't read it before passage. And from all the backlash the legislation's created, I think the president's likely sorry he either didn't read it or understand it himself.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/6/2012

2012-02-06T11:18:00.003-05:00

The president must have read the first paragraph of my entry for yesterday, because he now says that the U.S. will stand together with Israel to confront the nuclear buildup in Iran. And, since that's another change in his political posture, it got me to see something I should have noticed before. Because I now realize he's taking what I'd call a, Henny Youngman, approach to speechmaking.

The late great Henny Youngman was one of my all-time favorite comedians. His forte was one-liners, as they were called, and he'd stand behind a microphone with a never played violin in his hand and toss out joke after joke. It was said that some of the clubs he played were so small that he'd answer the reservation line himself. And when a caller asked what time his act went on he'd ask: "When can you get here?"

Typical gags included one's like the auto mechanic seeing a psychiatrist for the first time. The psychiatrist said, "Okay, get under the couch." Another was the guy who came home and found his wife's car in kitchen. When he asked how it got there, she said, "I drove through the back of the garage and made a left in the living room." Then there was the man stopped in the street by a guy who asked "Have you seen a cop around here?" When the man assured him he hadn't the guy said 'Okay then, stick em' up!"

Henny had hundreds of gags like those and just kept throwing them out, one after another. Then, over the years he kept the audience favorites in his routine while adding new ones all the time. Some of his staples included the guy who said, "Got a mink coat for my wife. Not a bad trade."

And it was Henny's routine that popped into my mind when thinking about the president's recent few months. Because although he's always yammered, 24/7/365, to any audience he can find, lately the incumbents been throwing out ideas and comments regardless of long-held, so-called rigid beliefs. And all that seems to matter to him now is re-election, whether his base agrees with him or not. So, he'll promise anything to anyone if he thinks it'll get him a vote.

However, there's one major difference between Henny and the incumbent. Henny made people laugh for a living as a stand-up comedian and folks loved him for it. The incumbent on the other hand has turned the most serious, responsible position on the planet into a very bad joke.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/5/2012

2012-02-05T12:16:00.000-05:00

Not very much in the news this morning. Although the clock seems to be ticking louder in the Middle East, which leads me to think that it's likely that Israel will soon blow up Iran's nuclear bomb facilities, either by infiltration or outright attack.

As far as the Republican presidential nomination race is concerned, Romney won big in the Nevada caucus yesterday, getting about half of the total vote. Gingrich finished a distant second. But, what I thought most interesting was how Gingrich looked.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought Gingrich looked quite disheveled after the Nevada vote results. Sort of like an absent minded professor or rumpled philosopher wandering through the woods. And from I've read so far today in the news, he sounded that way to reporters too. It seems many think he's put himself in a quandary regarding how to continue his campaign. Because on one hand he says he wants to stay above the infighting, and focus on the issues, while on the other he keeps slinging all the mud he can scoop up with both hands.

So, what that all leads me to conclude is that with each primary success, Romney appears to be more presidential in demeanor and style, adding to his appeal, while Gingrich lately seems to be disoriented and possibly unravelling under pressure. And, as for me, I know I'd rather have someone in the oval office who truly looked qualified to be there, than one who seemed like he was lost and had just entered the wrong room by mistake.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/4/2012

2012-02-04T10:53:00.000-05:00

Indiana just passed a so-called right-to-work bill, which has the unions there steaming, especially AFL-CIO President, Nancy Guyott . And although they've cancelled plans to disrupt the Super Bowl tomorrow, Greg Lambert, of Occupy Indiana, said in a statement, they'll rally at the Statehouse on Sunday to call attention to "a war against working people" being waged by "the corporations and banks who buy and sell America's politicians."

Ms Guyott went on to say that union labor built Lucas Oil Stadium and Hoosier union members have made the Super Bowl possible by staffing the restaurants, cleaning the hotel rooms, building the stages, keeping the electricity on and protecting the hundreds of thousands of football fans attending Super Bowl events. "Unlike Gov. Daniels and the Republican leadership in the General Assembly, we aren't interested in doing anything to impede those workers' ability to put food on their family's table."

And it was those statements that got to me because they imply that without unions the work wouldn't have been done and the project never completed, which is totally ridiculous and patently untrue. In fact, I believe that not only would have the work been finished, it likely would have cost far less and been completed sooner, because the only things unions do is add expense and block completion due to crippling work constraints placed on builders.

But, it really doesn't matter what I believe, because I don't live in Indiana. But the folks who do reside there apparently agree. And as far as Ms Guyott and her unions go, she can moan and grouse about elections all she wants, however the citizenry of the state's got her number now and chances are -her unions are never going to recover because their total worthelessness' been found out.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/3/2012

2012-02-03T16:15:00.002-05:00

Busy day today, so I didn't get a lot of time to scour the news. But I did find an article about Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, in the Fiscal Times on-line by David Adams of Reuters.

I really don't know very much about Rubio, but do understand that he's held in high regard by the Republican party, especially Romney and Gingrich, even having his name mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential candidate next November.

The gist of the article focused on what might be construed to be the senator's personal financial problems because "Despite his reputation as a watchdog over federal spending, Rubio, 40, has had significant financial problems that could keep him from passing any vetting process as a potential vice presidential choice, Republican and Democratic strategists say."

And, without going into great detail, I read that he's battling with an underwater mortgage, among other things like college loans, that have forced him into significant additional debt and even suspected overuse of his party credit card for personal use, which he later reimbursed the card company for about $16,000.

Since Rubio campaigned on reining in government spending, Brannon Jordan, of the Florida Democratic Party said, "His own personal spending is out control. He says one thing but is doing another."

Now, from my point of view I don't think Rubio's financial woes are a political problem at all. In fact, I think they're an asset. Because here we have a guy in the middle of government himself who's getting killed financially like 40% of his state's population because Democrats like Chris Dodd and the president himself worked together and started the real estate lending debacle. So, with horrendous lending mistakes like Project Acorn, these two guys and others like them helped spark a fiscal crisis that's still hamstringing nations across the globe.

So, if I was Marco Rubio, I think I'd welcome the chance to go head to head with this Democrat mudslinger and all those others who are concerned about his debt. Because that would be the perfect platform to highlight how and why it exists, and that he surely now knows better than most precisely how financially misguided the whole Democrat party is. And it's due to them, and like thinkers, that most of the world's now broke, including members of Congress.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/2/2012

2012-02-02T10:16:00.002-05:00

The Romney campaign may be about to receive some very bad news today. Because according to, Maggie Haberman, of Politico, Donald Trump is supposed to announce his endorsement of Mitt this afternoon. And, if you measure knowledge and capability by past performance, to my recollection except for appearing on TV as a show business caricature of a businessman, Trump's been wrong in every endeavor he's ever attempted. In fact, after all his bankruptcies and failed investments, I sometimes wonder if he's still got any of his dad's money left. So, having him say he admires must be like getting the kiss of death.

However, there might still be some hope for Romney because some sources still think Trump will back Gingrich. And if that happens it should make for an interesting combination. Because it might very well create a logistics problem in the future. And that's because I can't think of many places on the planet that are big enough for those two egos in the same room. Yet they do have a lot in common since when it comes to BS, blaming others for their failures and influence peddling, neither has an equal.

But maybe the Romney administration might have a use for Trump after all, by using him as an ambassador. And that way, by sending him to China to advise folks there about business, he'd likely tank their economy completely in no time at all. And then we'd be rid of a potential enemy altogether and they'd have solid gold faucets in every rest room in their nation.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/1/2012

2012-02-01T10:05:00.001-05:00

There was good news in the Republican party yesterday, because although Gingrich lost severely in the Florida primary to Romney, he vowed to stay in the race. And what that means is, the Republican candidates will keep on hammering each other and leave the president alone which is perfect for their party.

And that's because, little by little and step by step, the incumbents upsetting voters wherever he goes thanks to his steadfast adherence to legislation and policies that haven't worked yet, and likely never will. So, by letting him rant and rave by himself, his opponents just have to be patient. Because the odds are that by next November, except for a handful of hard-core steadfasts and hippie protesters, there'll be nobody left he hasn't alienated completely.

As far as today's executive gaffe goes, now it seems he's ticked off a whole religion via his health care law. Because, according to Fox News, Catholics are fired up over rules in the new law forcing Catholic universities, hospitals, and charities to provide insurance for their employees covering contraception -even though that violates church teachings. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League said,"When you push people of faith and you tell them the government is going to knock down the wall of separation of church and state and overreach like the Obama administration, you've got a war on your hands."

So, here we have a guy in office who's hamstrung the economy, let high unemployment continue unbridled, left the citizens to pay prices they can't afford for foreign oil, ruined the finest health care system in the world, removed a U.S. military stronghold in the Middle-East, and recently forced the Canadians to sell their petroleum products to China, just to name a few of the most ridiculous decisions since Ford decided to build Edsels.

Therefore, as far as the Republicans are concerned, the best thing they can do for themselves right now is stay out of the way and let the loose cannon in office keep going just as he is. Because if he keeps shooting himself in the foot as regularly as he is at present, he hasn't an iota of hope for re-election no matter who runs against him next time.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/31/2012

2012-01-31T10:42:00.000-05:00

I don't know why it took me so long, but last night while talking with friends it finally dawned on me as to why staying in the primaries is so important to Gingrich.

And it wasn't until then that I realized I'd been looking at him from the wrong angle, and been buying the same BS he sells continually, which is that he's a politician who wants to be president of the U.S. And while that might be true, I think deep down even he knows that his chances are less than slim and probably not worth all the campaigning. However, his real business surely is.

Because today Gingrich isn't really even a politician anymore in the truest sense, he's actually an influence peddler. And in that regard, if he was able to take in three million bucks for using his insider's track in D.C as a failed Speaker of the House, then what would a failed presidential candidate be worth? Perhaps two, three or ten times as much. Although I doubt anyone knows the answer to that one, it's surely a lot of bread.

And perhaps that also explains why his speeches and comments are all over the map. Because he likely doesn't even care very much about theories, ideas or positions he won't even have to worry about since he'll likely not be elected. And if by some fluke he is, that will be something he can deal with like the present incumbent who's proven that you can survive four years whether you believe in what you're doing or not.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/30/2012

2012-01-30T10:37:00.000-05:00

I mentioned the other day that the Gingrich assault on Romney's business success was a ridiculous approach, and in its own way a seemingly un-American premise. Because, if nothing else, this country provides practically unlimited opportunity, however it also requires that you figure out how to accomplish your goals for yourself if you want to get to the top.

And in that regard I also wrote that since earnings are generally the measure employed in determining who's best in the U.S. in most endeavors, at present Romney's head, shoulders and body ahead of everyone seeking election in 2012, regardless of party or former work experience.

Then today I read a blurb that said, Charles Schumer, was "relishing a push on some kind of Romney rule, I mean Buffett rule, " that the president's advocating regarding the inequity of laws letting Warren Buffett pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

But, what they left out was that Buffett takes no salary from his position as head of Berkshire Hathaway because he doesn't need the money, since all of his real income derives from investments and dividends. And the last time I looked, if I'm not mistaken, the last several years of his Berkshire's returns are in dispute with the IRS, going back to 2002, because the company refuses to simply pay the taxes due as assessed by law.

So here we have Democrats continuing their drive against successful Americans and a bogus Buffet confirmation of their plans for higher taxes on the "rich," bolstering their desire to extort every cent they can from those who have some. However that's no surprise since class warfare's been the cornerstone of their party for the last fifty years.

Nonetheless, regardless that Democrats have an inborn resentment and hatred of financial acumen, I still find it surprising that the only candidate the Republicans have with the ability to return the nation to true economic success is apparently despised by Conservatives like Gingrich too.

So, what that leads me to ask is: That although political ideology may be a wonderful thing for true believers of various causes on both sides, while they're pursuing their lofty ideals, who's supposed to support them financially and pay the bills?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/29/2012

2012-01-29T11:57:00.000-05:00

One of the things taught to me early on in my career in financing equipment was the basics of contract negotiation, because although I wasn't an attorney, prospective customers frequently asked questions about legal terms and conditions of proposed written agreements.

In that regard, I clearly remember an experienced contract lawyer explaining to me that he believed there were basically two kinds of contract negotiators. One type was extremely specific, very carefully dotting every "I" and dutifully crossing every "T", to make sure that every possible contingency was fully addressed, precisely covered in writing, and doubtlessly agreed by all parties to every agreement which was reviewed by them.

The other type of counsel took a more general approach. Their thought was that if the gist of an agreement was covered in writing, that was enough. They believed business was business and that, as a practical matter, most disputes or disagreements could be hashed out between the parties involved by themselves, without the need for attorneys or courts. Furthermore, they also felt it was practically impossible for any attorney, no matter how prominent or famed, to anticipate events that might possibly take place in the future.

The reason I mention this today is, I get the sense that in his own way, the president's done the same things in his approach to his governance as a rigid attorney would. And by doing so, he's made very specific promises, the majority in writing, recorded speeches or addresses, and has promised his "clients" (those who voted for him) he'd not deviate from what he swore to uphold, no matter.

However, as realized by most practical people, the real world fairly often doesn't really work as expected, even by the most wise among us. And what's more, there's no way on earth to predict slews of future outcomes in almost any case imaginable. Thus, the incumbent's had to do some bending and shaping of his positions.

So, as a result, since recent polls show the incumbent needing additional votes next November, he's inching towards the political middle to close that gap. However, for just about every new vote he picks up by easing rigid party stances, he loses one or more by breaking a former promise that he would not do so, still leaving him short of target.

And the oddest thing about the situation is, that now we have a specifist who very carefully built a platform, slat by slat, and then found out that that rigidity doesn't work. But, he did such a good job of selling his undeliverable product in the first place -his customers no longer want it even though they never got it.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/28/2012

2012-01-28T09:37:00.001-05:00

I find the extent that double-standards can be taken to in politics is astounding. Because the anti-war policies of the current administration seem to be falling by the wayside as the U.S. Navy's now working to place a 'mothership' for Special Operations Forces in the Middle East, as confirmed by Fox News.

The USS Ponce, scheduled to be decommissioned in December, will now be transformed into a flotilla for use by Navy SEALs which, I believe, can only be confirmation that a military intervention or war's now expected regarding Iran and its nuclear weapons buildup.

And this issue got me to remembering a list I saw posted on the Internet about eight years ago, comparing decisions made by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as far as the U.S. press was concerned.

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad

Clinton spends $77 billion on war in Serbia - good
Bush spends $87 billion in Iraq - bad

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad

Clinton bombs Chinese Embassy - good
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad

No mass graves found in Serbia - good
No WMD found in Iraq - bad

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad

Clinton refuses to take custody of bin Laden - good
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad

Milosevic not yet convicted - good
Saddam turned over for trial - bad

So, I guess what we have here is the same old, same old. Because the actual effect of decisions doesn't seem to really matter where politics in the press is concerned. All that counts for them is the promotion of a biased agenda, with no regard whatsoever as to what's good for the world.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/27/2012

2012-01-27T09:45:00.002-05:00

I saw a news blurb go by yesterday that practically got me out of my chair in disbelief. Because it now seems, according to the incumbent's State of the Union address, that the administration plans to let the nation's biggest banks pay out billions to compensate for a raft of mortgage foreclosures. And, according to Fox News, the president's supporters credit him for his announced plans to investigate abusive lending via the Justice Department.

The other side, however, claims the administration is trying to fast track a deal amounting to extortion of banks that followed federal government rules to expand access to loans. Additionally, Judicial Watch announced this week it's suing the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development "in an effort to get more information about the settlement offer and the audits that purport to prove the banks defrauded consumers."

What I found so incredible though, is that I think I remember quite clearly how the mortgage lending crisis began. And, as I recall, it was the president himself, along with the likes of Chris Dodd and others who demanded that banks reduce their credit requirements to practically nothing for mortgage approval.

Their claim at the time was that everyone's entitled to financing even if they had no proof of ability to pay back at all. And in that way, they stuck the banks and other lenders with countless numbers of deals that went bad, to the extent that the public's still paying for their mistakes and moronic policies in what's now a worldwide financial crisis in the trillions. Consequently, the incumbent should actually have the Justice folks investigating him and his pals.

So, here we have once again an arrogant bunch of politicians who believe they can keep on bilking and fooling the public by simply moving their mirrors into different corners and shining different colored lights. But, this time around I'm not sure their scams going to work. And what would be the greatest comeuppance imaginable, is that the Feds actually did a real job of investigation and threw the incumbent and his cohorts into the slammer for so grossly insulting the intelligence of the voting public.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/26/2012

2012-01-26T13:51:00.000-05:00

I've mentioned the sudden surge by Gingrich a couple of times, and also how I can't figure out why voters would give him any support at all, considering his miserable past performance. However, in the last few days there's been a showing of negativism about him in the press, pretty well summed up by this article by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in a special to the New York Sun.

According to Tyrrell "Newt Gingrich is conservatism’s Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire." Tyrrell goes on to say, "Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 -all would be unmoved by Newt’s juggling of conservative shibboleths."

In another example, the author says "Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee."

I listed the preceding for a couple of reasons. First because it succinctly confirms my own opinion of Newt, making some excellent points. And also because it's written much better than I could do myself.

So, in closing, I'm very pleased to see more of this kind of stuff in the press and can only hope that's lots of voters read and understand it. Because, obviously, if the general election comes down to the choice between the current incumbent and a Clinton clone, as far as any kind of hope for real recovery goes; the nation is over.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/25/2012

2012-01-25T09:21:00.000-05:00

Yesterday's name must have ended in a "Y," because the president gave another speech. This one was called "State of the Union." And although I didn't watch it, I read several recaps that tell me it was basically the same old, same old with a couple of twists.

What it all boils down to is the "rich" must be made to pay more taxes, folks need jobs and government needs to control just about every aspect of the economy and people's lives. So, in summary, he still hasn't learned an iota about what makes the economy run and spouts policies and ideas that are just about totally upside down.

One of the surprises though, if I read the information correctly, was that he suggested increasing production of domestic oil which says to me that he may be more interested in re-election than in pleasing Soros, his boss.

And if that's the case, he just might have given himself a real boost, because adding that to a likely run against Gingrich (who has no prayer of national election) practically guarantees the incumbent another four years in office.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/24/2102

2012-01-24T09:46:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney released his tax records for 2010 and 11 yesterday, and gee whiz, what a shock. He made a lot of money. The information also shows he paid a 14% tax rate and gave $3 million to charity.

As for me, I was actually surprised by the information. Because in today's day and age, where kids on Wall Street, or in high tech businesses or in Hollywood regularly make hundreds of millions of dollars, Romney didn't do all that well. And from the all the preamble noise that was made, I expected his earnings to be much higher.

But now that the data that everyone's been clamoring has been seen, and seems to be in order, I think perhaps it ought to be viewed in a different way. Because we live in a nation that thrives on all kinds of competition and measures winners and losers on a regular basis, in any kind of endeavor. From sports MVP's to the Emmy's, or guys in a bowling league, or shooting pool in a tavern, people compete by nature and winners generally rise to the top. And as far as business goes, it's usually those who earn the most that are deemed best.

So, if money's the standard for measurement of ability and success, now we have a clear winner in that regard. Because Mr. Romney outpaced Gingrich by about seven times, and completely blew the incumbent out of the water regarding the last time that guy was in the real world regarding income. Because the incumbent's earnings were chump change by comparison.

Consequently, perhaps Gingrich ought to pick another subject to sling mud at Mitt Romney, because this one looks like it backfired in spades. Because I thought Gingrich was a vacillating weasel whom I had no regard for, even before I found out that he was seven times less than a guy like Romney.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/23/2012

2012-01-23T14:09:00.005-05:00

According to an article on, NewsCore, yesterday, the aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, "completed a regular and routine transit of the Strait of Hormuz, Jan. 22, to conduct maritime security operations as scheduled and in support of requirements set by the combatant commander." a statement from Naval Forces Central Command said. The carrier was also escorted by the guided-missile cruiser, USS Cape St. George, and two destroyers.

Aside from our ships, "a British Royal Navy frigate and a French vessel also joined the carrier group in what was being seen as a show of strength directed at Tehran about the West's resolve to keep open the route into the Persian Gulf, which lies between Iran and the United Arab Emirates"

The article caught my eye because I'm aware that Iran has repeatedly warned that it could close the strait if increased Western sanctions halt Iranian oil exports. And the US Energy Information Administration calls the waterway the "most important chokepoint" for the world's oil tankers.

Now, I've seen photo's of the Iranian naval vessels lately, and they look like rowboats hauling a machine gun with a handful of camel jockey's aboard. So how exactly is this armada of tinker toys going to stop anyone from doing anything at all?

But, maybe if this situation comes to a head, it will provide the chance to shut these Iranian clowns down handily. And perhaps the situation can be expanded to blow up their nuclear weapons sites as well. And, although I'm no military expert by any means, I think it might be possible for our fleet, along with some well-aimed drones to finally fix a huge festering problem in the Middle-East.

However, I suspect our current president will search everywhere he can for an excuse not to get us involved, and just put his head in the sand (pun intended) and let the Israeli's fix the problem themselves.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/22/2012

2012-01-22T11:40:00.000-05:00

I have to assume that there are Democrat victory party's taking place all over the nation today, and especially in the White House. Because if historical precedent is repeated, the president of the U.S. is practically guaranteed another four years in office, thanks to Republican primary voters in South Carolina.

Somehow or other, supposedly astute possessors of political knowledge went out yesterday en masse and bought the BS of one of the world's biggest phonies, and actually cast their votes for Newt Gingrich. And in doing so, in one fell swoop they likely wiped out the support of independents in the general election, which is very bad news for them in the long run. Because that guy hasn't a prayer in the world of winning the office of POTUS without the independent's votes.

In that regard, my wife expressed a thought last night which made absolute sense to me regarding how the vote was won. She suggested that, somehow or other, George Soros perhaps spent considerable sums backing Gingrich and trying to insure his win, thereby protecting his investment in the incumbent. And that was done especially to sink Romney, who'd have an extremely good chance at the top spot whereas Gingrich doesn't.

And all of this seems quite probable to me, because I have no political affiliation myself, but always vote for the candidate that seems most beneficial to me at the time. And frankly, since a significant part of my life is spent doing business, I tend to lean toward those being most helpful to me in that regard.

Therefore, in an Obama/Gingrich race for the White House, since neither opponent knows diddly squat about how the economy really runs, that means the nation's salvation will then rest in Congress, where we can only hope all the damage of the last five years will be overturned after a huge turnover in members.

But as far as the presidency goes, both choices would be so repulsive I simply won't bother to vote, and I think most independents will do the same. And in that way, the devil we do know will stay around for four more years, and the one we don't may as well go back home right now because the rest of the scenario's a joke, albeit a bad one.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/21/2012

2012-01-21T10:17:00.004-05:00

I've mentioned it here before, and current circumstances are causing me to do it again, with one slight change.

PT Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute," and I agree with his conclusion completely, except, I think it's got to be more than just one. From the stuff I read about in the news, nitwits must arrive in droves.

Because, at the present time we have a president in office who's taken the country down about as low as it can go, and is extremely vulnerable in the next election as a result. Folks everywhere are more than fed up, and it's believed that independents likely will make a huge difference, because if they vote Republican it almost assures a victory for that party.

So, what are the primary voters in South Carolina expected to do today? The answer is; It looks like they're going to come out strongly for Gingrich. And I believe that that's a considerably bigger mistake than shooting themselves in the foot, it's more like blowing a whole leg off. Because this self-serving, pompous ass couldn't beat Pee Wee Herman in a national election, much less an incumbent with a billion dollars to spend on ads and hype.

I'm sitting here typing all by myself and have quite little access to inside information, yet I know all about Newt and his unstable character and his propensity for vacillation, much less his tendency to sell out for cash. I also know his own party was fed up with him when he was Speaker of the House. So, if that's the case, and I find him obnoxious, what will happen when the incumbent starts exposing him nationally in ads and let's the public see what a disaster he'd be as leader of the free world. (just typing that last sentence, and thinking of Newt at the helm makes me cringe.)

So, I'll sit here like everyone else and wait for the results of today's primary down South. And if it comes up Gingrich, I'll scratch my head and wonder once more why anyone who had the chance to help themselves would willingly do something that close to suicidal, by giving the incumbent a gift of four more disastrous years.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/20/2012

2012-01-20T09:10:00.000-05:00

Reading an article this morning about Newt Gingrich releasing his income tax information although Romney hasn't, I once again think the media, and everyone else, is focusing on the wrong aspect of the issue.

Because, if Mitt Romney really made however much more than Gingrich and legally used the benefits of off shore banking to maximize money management, that alone makes him wiser, more astute, and a far better businessman than any of his other opponents, and certainly head and shoulders better than Gingrich. Because, Romney didn't write the tax law, but obviously he read it and used it to his own advantage, which seems pretty clever to me.

And also, as far as business goes, Gingrich made money too last year, over three million dollars. Which means he's got no right to talk about other former politicians earnings, and it seems to me the only issue here is that Romney's clearly superior.

But that's still not the major point. Because what jumped off the page for me was the fact that Gingrich apparently paid considerable sums in alimony, and has had two prior wives. So that means he can't even hold his personal life together, yet thinks he can run a whole nation. And what's made very clear is that he doesn't try to repair his mistakes and fix problems, he divorces what bothers him and simply walks out which to me is the sign of a wimpy loser who turns tail and abandons what he started, regardless of vows he made.

So, what this all boils down for me is, that if a vote came down to having to choose between two card-carrying losers like Gingrich and the present incumbent, I'd bet that countless numbers of folks won't even vote because the choice would be so repulsive.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/19/2012

2012-01-19T09:47:00.004-05:00

A major news item is the president's decision to block the Keystone X oil pipeline from Canada. And although the plan's been in place for about three years, he blamed Republicans for imposing a "rushed and arbitrary deadline" which he said did not give officials enough time.

And, according to Fox News, "GOP lawmakers immediately excoriated the president for the decision. House Speaker John Boehner said the president's "selling out American jobs for politics," and that Republicans in Congress would continue to push for the pipeline.

Now that I've read several accounts of the matter, and seen a few blurbs go by on TV news shows, I'm wondering why, so far, nobody's mentioned what I believe is the real truth. Because I think what it really comes down to is that the president still reports to George Soros, who got him elected in the first place via investments in moveon.org, and whose oil company, Petrobras, in Brazil was also the recipient of an Obama induced $2 billion loan guarantee.

Consequently, if Canadian oil reduces or eliminates the need for Soros' oil, how will Soros profit or pay back as likely promised? Beyond that, how will he afford to buy 2 or 3 million books that the president will write upon leaving office to cover his kick-back?

Thusly, this deal's likely no different than those put in place by president's for years, such as ex-school teacher Johnson winding up with huge acreage in Texas, and the Clinton's writing best sellers, though I'm pretty sure it's hard for Bubba to spell. What's more, as far as authorship goes, I've heard the books are awful.

Therefore, I guess, this veto is simply business as usual by Washington standards. And as has been proven by the current administration continually, the very last thing considered, if ever, is the welfare of the American people. Because when it comes to greed and striving for personal gain, the Democrat party leadership has no equal and makes even Madoff look like a saint.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

Bloggerhythms 1/18/2012

2012-01-18T11:22:00.000-05:00

There's a lot of comment in the news about Saturday's upcoming Republican presidential primary taking place in South Carolina. In an article by Chris Stirewalt on Fox news, he mentions Newt Gingrich's having done well in the Fox News/Wall Street Journal/South Carolina GOP debate, seemingly giving him new life in the campaign.

Yet, as far as debates go, I've mentioned them often before, but still can't figure out why anyone would put any stock in a candidates words when they have a proven track record that clearly illustrates their deeds and beliefs. And, in Gingrich's case, while he delivers perhaps perfect rhetoric, his history makes his uttering's a blimp-sized balloon of very hot air.

However, if on the other hand you want to use actual deeds as the measure of a candidate's beliefs, it might be helpful to look at the president's recent performance. Because lately, by using selected examples and slightly blurring the lines, he's been billing himself as a tax-cutting, oil-drilling, government-shrinking, terrorist-killing moderate, thereby taking away many Republican objections.

So then, what's the best way to determine the real probability of a candidate's future performance? I think it's the same answer as ought to be done in every aspect of life. Ignore what people tell you about themselves, gather all the hard information you can about the subject by yourself. Digest it thoroughly, making absolutely sure you understand it. Then, make your judgement based on documented fact.

However, if in actuality most people really did that, candidates like the current incumbent or Gingrich wouldn't have a prayer of election to any kind of office, much less the presidency of the United States.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/17/2012

2012-01-17T09:34:00.002-05:00

As usual, I didn't watch the debate last night because I don't understand what talk-fests have do with governance ability or leadership capabilities. However, from the few headlines I've seen, It seems everyone else heartily attacked Mitt Romney, and apparently, Gingrich did quite well.

And what that says to me is, if the ability to sling unlimited and erudite sounding total BS is the quality employed to determine a leader, then the present White House resident is without doubt the greatest president the nation's ever elected. However, for me, I'd rather look at someone's actual record in office and job resume to see how they've really performed in the past, because that tells me what they're actually all about.

So, in this case, it's likely that a debate between the incumbent and Gingrich would be filled with awesome verbiage, perhaps even sending folks to their Merriam-Webster's to look meanings up.

But, as far as running the nation goes, the one in office right now makes even Jimmy Carter look good economy-wise. And the other, if elected, would make the incumbent look like a business genius, because other than taking huge fees for selling insider influence, he knows zip, zero, nada about real-world economics.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/16/2012

2012-01-16T11:27:00.000-05:00

Almost every day, I write about things politicians say, so I'm pretty used to the hype, spin and absolute extremes of fabrication these worthless dregs are capable of concocting. But, every once in a while, an inane or misleading comment will surprise even me, who expects to read nothing but biased gibberish from them. And just yesterday, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, was quoted in making some absolutely ridiculous statements.

In preparing for Congress' returning to Washington this week, he warned Republicans to leave what he called, Tea Party extremism, "behind and learn what legislation is all about." Going on to say, "I would hope that they understand that everything doesn't have to be a fight. Legislation is an art of working together, building consensus, compromise. And I hope that the Tea Party doesn't have the influence in this next year that they had in the previous year."

As I read those remarks, I almost fell off my chair. Because I'm not a big Tea Party fan myself, whereas I think many of their issues aren't even governmental and should be disputed somewhere else. I also believe they stand a very good chance of sinking Republican chances to regain the White House due to their rigidity. But that's not really the point.

What got to me was, that Harry Reid of all people, who headed the ramming through of some of the worst legislation this nation has ever seen, and passes bills in the middle of the night hoping they won't be scrutinized, thinks that simply because folks disagree with him and his party of stooges, that they're obstructionists. He's also the guy who says "No" to every Republican suggestion well before he even knows what it is. You couldn't find a more biased, uncooperative party hack anywhere on the planet.

But, in the meantime, thanks to him and his cohorts, we're watching the world's greatest health care system disintegrate, we're paying three times a gallon more than we should for gas, twenty percent of the work force is un or under-employed, our educational system is practically worthless, unions, the NLRB and EPA are shutting down factories and plants, and we just left a foothold in the Middle-East that will come back and bite us for years to come.

So, whether or not the Tea Party's the best way to combat a misguided stooge like Reid, I really don't have the answer. But, since right now they're pretty much the only roadblock to preventing more legislative disasters as we've seen in the last five years from the Dem's in Congress, it seems they're actually doing some good.

However, taking a step back and looking at the whole legislation picture, the best way to save the nation in the long run is to vote them all out -whichever side they're on and starting at the top.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/15/2012

2012-01-15T10:34:00.001-05:00

Sometimes I regret the fact that I'm not a gambler. But, I fortunately learned a long time ago that betting my hard-earned money on what I thought other folks were going to do, such as sports teams, horses and jockeys or card dealers, was something over which I had no control and didn't really make much sense. Consequently, I don't ever do it.

Nonetheless, sometimes things work out almost exactly as I expected, such as yesterday's playoff game in New England, my forecast of which I explained in yesterday's entry. However I still didn't bet though I should have.

For me, there were only two surprises in the whole game. I thought Denver would score less points then they did, I actually expected them to be shut out. And New England scored less than I guessed, so maybe the frigid conditions tired them out, or perhaps they just got bored facing such a weak defense and recording six touchdowns.

But for me, the most important thing was that the game demonstrated that while dumb luck and hope sometimes appear to accomplish things in the short run, when push really comes to shove, the proven, poised and most experienced generally rise to the top. And in that regard, there was no comparison between the two contenders.

Tom Brady's led his team to many important wins by applying his vast experience and skills, and did that again last night. Tebow, on the other hand, appeared to spend most of the game looking lost and confused, especially while wondering how he could be hit simultaneously by so many defenders. There were times when he must have felt like a pinata, but that's what happens when you try to play a team sport by yourself.

In closing, I have to say that for a lifelong Jet fan -going all the way back to the first time they suited up as the Titans- I've always despised New England, and rooted against them fervently to this day. However, curiosity got the better of me, or I never would have even watched the game. But hatred is one thing, and respect is another and therefore, I've got to say that by any measure it's going to be a long, long, long time before Tebow gets to the level of Brady, if ever, and yesterday certainly proved that point.

Nonetheless, in the coming Super Bowl, Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay will prevail over New England and get me off the hook for temporarily rooting for Brady for the first time in my life.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/14/2012

2012-01-14T09:12:00.002-05:00

Like almost every other aspect of life requiring particular skills and expertise, a very small percentage of people ordinarily possess the necessary traits, yet others in the population often still strongly voice opinions, suggestions and comments, even though they have no real clue or experience regarding what they're talking about. And two professions heading the list where almost everyone, everywhere, has a strong opinion about how things should be done, regardless that they have no first-hand knowledge themselves nor have they ever been personally involved, are politics and sports.

In that regard, I write about politics all the time, and especially about the economy where the vast majority of politicos have no skill, real knowledge or experience to draw upon, yet make decisions frequently that do significant fiscal damage. And since their constituents are in the same boat, knowing nothing either, they support those they like and agree with them, even though by doing that, they're actually self-destructing. I guess that's why Barnum believed there was a sucker born every minute.

But, since today there are playoff games in the NFL, I also want to comment on fan reaction because, to me, there are not only many similarities to the political world, but whole businesses have been built that appeal to the huge majority of talentless and incapable sports voyeurs who are simply hangers-on.

And naturally, that brings me to Tim Tebow who's become an icon overnight by appealing to the scads of folks who've not only never suited up, athletically they probably can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

As for myself, frankly I didn't play a lot of football, but enough to know that it's truly a team sport and that there's no way that one can succeed continually alone. There are eleven defensive players across the line every time the ball is snapped, and on every play the quarterback's a prime target for huge defensive linemen, linebackers, and often for backfield players trying to shoot the gap. And that means, for a guy like Tebow who prefers to keep the ball himself whenever he can, rather than utilize his team-mates, simple probability says that sooner or later a couple of thousand pounds of defense men are going to land on him and break something major.

So, while the media's in a frenzy because they've found someone who's ignited the horde's of clueless fans, I just wanted to set down my thoughts before today's Denver game against New England's defense. Because, although you never know when a new phenoms going to be slammed down to earth really hard and perhaps not ever come back, today just might be the one for Tebow.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/13/2012

2012-01-13T13:29:00.003-05:00

I think a problematical factor in the process of campaigning for Republicans is that the primary's begin almost a year before the next presidential election. And during that time, while dueling with other candidates, contestants not only promote their positions with significant details about their platforms, but also disclose considerable information that can be used by rivals in the other party.

In that regard, it seems to me that by watching the Republicans debate and make speeches, the president may finally be coming to the realization, for the first time, that the majority of voters are very concerned about the economy. And in that regard, he's likely noted that business plays a significant role in the process and perhaps ought to be considered. Because, so far, he's acted as if commerce was a foreign word and that if additional money's needed, more will be printed by the Federal Reserve.

But now, with ten months to go before the election, he's announced that he's elevating the head of the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level position, and is also urging Congress to grant him permission to consolidate that and other federal agencies in an attempt to make government more efficient.

So now, as a practical matter, if the president's really trying to finally take steps in the right direction, economy-wise, actually wanting to help business grow and try to cut out some waste, would it really hurt if he were to be re-elected? Because, the purpose of the top job in governance isn't supposed to be one of particular political persuasion, it's to support and protect the entire U.S. population. And, in that regard, if the tasks being completed as it should be, why would anyone care about the politics of the matter?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/12/2012

2012-01-12T12:07:00.007-05:00

There's another significant indication in the recent news that clearly demonstrates why pure politicians should have nothing to do with the economy, business in general, and the financial well-being of the United States. Because, apparently Newt Gingrich went after Mitt Romney, saying that while running Bain Capital, Romney was responsible for the layoffs of thousands of people. And that presents a perfect example of how little a windbag like Gingrich knows about how to create or manage wealth.

First and foremost, Bain Capital was a venture capital organization, and as such it's primary goal was the creation of new business entity's, investing in others, and doing it's best to maximize the performance of it's holdings. So, if that meant decreasing the staff of an over-employed or poorly performing business in an attempt to make it more profitable or efficient, so-be-it, because Bain's goal was to do an effective job economically as opposed to fostering bloat and waste.

On the other hand, in the cases of businesses that ran well under Bain's guidance, thousands more were hired, increased taxes were paid and the overall results were for the considerably better, all the way around.

Beyond that, venture capitalism isn't a textbook exercise designed to test baseless theories, it's a risk-filled endeavor where only the best managed operations have any chance to survive. And that's because the real income earned comes from performance of the entities invested in and their growth, because venture capitalists can't simply go to a captive tax-paying base for funds when they're wrong, wasteful, or incompetent as do politicians and governments. And that means a lot, because the tax-paying public isn't financing their mistakes, capitalists must do that themselves.

So, what this scenario goes to underline is that, as I wrote at the start, I think politicians ought to learn a little about the things they criticize before they shoot of their mouths. But, desperation causes hare-brained reactions quite often. However, since Gingrich took the gloves off and tried to land a couple of really cheap and inaccurate shots, he's now put his own sordid past in play which is just about the same as willingly jumping into a shredder.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/11/2012

2012-01-11T09:36:00.000-05:00

I think that for the most part, except for particular issues that are repeated continually day after day, folks tend to forget most of the things politico's say. That's why I want to mention that recently, Democrats have been spouting that unless Mitt Romney were to win definitively in New Hampshire, they didn't consider him a serious threat. Well, now the primary's over, and Romney not only won by a wide margin, he blew almost all of his competition away at the polls.

I also think that, like Bre'r Rabbit who begged and pleaded not to be thrown in the brier patch, Dem's have been down-playing Romney as a serious candidate and implying he's a light-weight because he's the one they fear the most. And that's because it looks like the key issue this time around is going to be the economy, wherein Romney's vast experience and success versus the incumbent's is like comparing Bill Gates to Daffy Duck.

To that extent, the Dem's also have recently been setting the stage to reinforce their claim that the incumbent inherited a much worse economic state then he expected because his predecessor saddled him with horrendous financial woes. And that, they say, is why it's taken so long to recover. But what they seem to forget, or most purposefully avoid, is that it was two years of Dem control of the House and Senate that caused most of the nation's fiscal woes at the end of the Bush Administration. And, to that extent, I think Mr. Romney will help folks recall names like Dodd, Frank, and Project Acorn.

So, I guess after yesterday's results, the presidential battles going to heat up, and Mr. Romney's already started to turn his campaigning aim toward the incumbent rather than his own party rivals he's likely to beat for the nomination. However, if the remaining Republican candidates decide to either band together, or worse, form some kind of third party presence to promote their so-called "conservative" issues, they're not only totally giving up any chance of winning the next election, they'd be killing Romney's almost sure thing against the incumbent themselves.

That's it for today folks.

Adios.

BloggeRhythms 1/10/2011

2012-01-10T11:28:00.001-05:00

I had to go searching to confirm an item I saw crawl by on a news station last evening, but I was able to find what I needed on the website of the New York Post. According to columnist, Charles Gasparino, the banking firm, Goldman Sachs, is endorsing Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.

Gasparino's lead paragraph set the tone for his column: "Goldman Sachs may be the most hated firm on Wall Street, vilified by protesters and banking rivals alike, but one reason the firm has so many detractors is envy of its uncanny ability to bet on winners."

But what I thought most interesting was the writer's assumption that Goldman CEO, LLoyd Blankfein, has apparently found his pick and the reason why. According to friends, Blankfein’s bet is that Romney will win the nomination fairly early, not only putting him in a decent position to win the presidency, but once in office to do his best to water down some of the more insane aspects of the Dodd/Frank financial-reform law.

This move is practically a complete reversal of Goldman's position in 2008, and what makes it so striking is just how far to the left it was in 2008. The Goldman "community" gave more than a $1 million to the president's campaign, beaten only by the ultra-liberals tied to the University of California. However, this time around through September, Goldman-linked givers barely crack the top 20 of Obama donors, with a little more than $50,000 toward the re-election effort.

Furthermore, Goldman-linked donors are presently Romney’s leading source of corporate campaign cash, $367,200 so far, which is nearly $127,000 more than the firm put up for 2008 GOP nominee John McCain.

So, I guess that here we have another indication of what's to come, because a firm like Goldman Sachs isn't in the politics business, but makes every effort to do what's best for itself, like all well-managed enterprises should. And their position change stems from the fact that they've been legislated out of billions by an over-zealous, ill-informed and anti-success administration who'll likely do far more damage if allowed to continue. However, it appears that it's not going to be so easy for them next time around, because folks everywhere are awfully tired of watching their assets and equity shrink with no return for their investment.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/9/2011

2012-01-09T14:51:00.000-05:00

In almost any walk of life, you can tell when folks are in trouble when they become incoherent and grasp at straws simply hoping to stay in the game. And that certainly seems to be the case with Newt Gingrich, who's down to slinging any kind of mud he can dream up.

Apparently, during a debate on, Meet the Press, Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich found fault with Mitt Romney after Romney quoted his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, who said, "never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay the mortgage."

Gingrich said, "When Governor Romney made the comment that you shouldn't run if you have to win in order to pay your mortgage, I thought that that was very much the opposite of the American tradition historically. We want every day, normal people to be able to run for office, not just millionaires."

After reading Gingrich's comment over several times, I'm not sure it makes any sense. First of all, Romney didn't say anything about having to be a millionaire to have a mortgage, and I haven't checked the statistics but I believe that most homeowners who are current on theirs aren't millionaires either. Consequently, I think what Mr. Romney actually meant is that if folks are having trouble paying their debts; they likely aren't the best candidates for public office.

Nonetheless, as I sit here and type about the subject, I can think of quite a few folks who arrived in the White House damn near broke and made zillions after they left. Names like Clinton, Johnson and Nixon readily come to mind.

But, going back to Gingrich's cheap shot (pardon the pun.) As a practical matter, governance is a profession that comes with considerable responsibility and need for knowledge and experience. And, as the last three years have clearly illustrated, the presidency is especially not the place for folks who need training wheels because they haven't the skills or abilities to handle the tasks.

Therefore, since in our society money earned is usually the sign of success, its absence demonstrates the reverse. So then, why should someone who can't even handle their own obligations properly be given responsibility for the well-being of others, be it financial or anything else?

In the end, however, I think Gingrich has given us all some valuable insight. Because if he's happy with mediocrity, and giving folks a chance who've proven they're not worthy, I'd suppose that he'd select his cabinet and staff exactly that way. Which says to me, here's a guy who'll gamble with everyone else's security and future because it's apparently wrong to him to expect superior performance from others, even one's at the very top of the ladder.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/8/2012

2012-01-08T10:05:00.004-05:00

I came across an entry on Fox News this morning that had me scratching my head. It included some comments from a debate, where Rick Santorum apparently went after Mitt Romney.

He "dismissed" Romney as a "mere manager," and said, "Business experience doesn’t necessarily match up with being commander in chief of this country. Being a president is not a CEO. You've got to lead and inspire.” He went on to say, Romney’s tax plan is too meek to get the country's economy moving again.

Since I knew nothing about Santorum's background, I went and looked him up and here's what I found out. He's a lawyer and politician and member of the Republican party who represented Pennsylvania in the House from 1991 to1995, and in the Senate from 1995 to 2007. As senator, he chaired the Senate Republican Conference making him third-ranking Senate Republican from 2001 to 2007. And that's it as far as experience of any kind goes, which leads me to believe that as far as management's concerned, this guy knows less than zip.

After I re-read the item a few times, to be sure I'd understood it correctly, I went right to my desk to type because I don't think I could find a better example of what's wrong with empty suit politicos, and lawyers to boot, than Santorum's ridiculous statement about business management. Because, if nothing else, the best CEO's understand clearly that success in business means winning, and winning is all about leadership, setting examples, and inspiring others above almost everything else.

In fact, from his obviously ignorant comments about business success and what strong, successful top managers are all about, I think he ought to read Rudy Guliani's book, "Leadership." Page after page, Rudy clearly describes and illustrates how vitally important it is to think like a Commander-in-Chief while working together with those around you, maximizing the value and talent of all your resources.

But, then you can also look at the complete reverse of what true leadership is all about, and examine the traits of self-serving, stand alone, me-first slimes and pigs. And you couldn't find more perfect examples of selfishness and grasps for personal reward than politicians and lawyers, who don't have a clue as to what team-work is. So, I guess from his ill-thought out comments, Santorum's described himself as being just about as dense about leadership as our current incumbent.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/7/2012

2012-01-07T10:48:00.001-05:00

I don't know if you'll agree with my opinion or not, but I've been laughing since yesterday when I saw this blurb go by in the news.

Apparently, this 16 year old girl named, Jakadrien Turner, ran away from her home in Houston a year ago where she had lived with her parents. They hadn't seen her since. According to Houston police, she was arrested on April 2, 2011, for misdemeanor theft in that city and claimed to be Tika Lanay Cortez, a Colombian woman born in 1990. They also said, it was unclear if she had been living under that name. After running the name through a database, to determine if she was wanted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the results were negative so they turned over to the Harris County jail and she was booked on the theft charge.

A sheriff's office employee recommended that an immigration detainer be put on her, and upon her release from jail she was turned over to ICE where U.S. immigration officials insist they followed procedure and found nothing to indicate that the girl wasn't a Colombian woman living illegally in the country. An ICE official said she claimed to be Cortez throughout the criminal proceedings in Houston and the ensuing deportation process, in which an immigration judge ultimately ordered her back to Colombia.

An ICE official said its standard practice before any deportation to coordinate with the other country in order to establish that person is from there, which they did. The Colombians then followed procedure, ultimately not only helping get her there but putting her in a program called, "Welcome Home" after she arrived. According to the agency, she was given shelter, psychological assistance and a job at a call center.

Sometime later, the girl was located by the Dallas Police Department through her Internet use, with help from Colombian and U.S. officials, after prodding by her grandmother, Lorene Taylor, and then returned here.

And now, folks on all sides are jumping up and down, pointing fingers at each other for allowing this fiasco to happen because the girl's so young. And, as usual, nobody wants to accept the blame which means with the family on one side, the cops on another and the immigration people in the middle, law suits will file, the press will blow the whole thing out of proportion and the situation is likely to escalate.

But it sees to me that nobody wants to sit back and consider the facts which are quite clear. A wayward girl stole or bought a passport belonging to someone else, then committed a crime and got caught. Then, for whatever reason she never disclosed the truth to authorities when questioned, and as a result got deported. Which to me is the same thing as a lame-brained thief stealing a suitcase from some stranger, not knowing the guy was a terrorist. However, the case actually contained a bomb and when the thief later opened the case, he blew himself to bits.

So, my question for today is: Why are any of these folks upset about what this apparently dim bulb did to herself every step of the way?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/6/2012

2012-01-06T10:45:00.004-05:00

While the candidates beat each other up in the Republican primary race, the news stories focus on the fact that the factions are warring, but don't necessarily detail specifics of the battles. That's why readers pick up phrases such as "Romney vacillates," but don't always learn that while an opponent may use a word like vacillate as a negative description, it simply may be that Romney learns from his mistakes and consequently, changes his mind when he believes he's been wrong on a subject. And, if that's the case, he's doing the right thing by altering his opinion, after gaining knowledge from less than desired results.

Along those same lines, if I were advising Mitt Romney, I'd tell him to not only keep on improving himself by applying the knowledge he's gained to adjust his viewpoint for the better as he learns from his mistakes, I'd use it as a campaign theme against the current incumbent. Because that guy not only hasn't learned a thing in three years in the White House about how to make himself better, he's steadfastly stuck to his guns to the extent that his rigidity has led to phenomenal failure in every aspect of his responsibility as a supposed leader. Consequently, here you have a perfect example of how bad a mistake it is to never change your mind, despite the fact that everything you do every day glaringly proves you were absolutely wrong in the first place.

Aside from the benefits to Mr.Romney himself of what can be gained by learning from one's errors, I believe there's also a lesson here for the whole Republican party. Because if they truly allow Rick Santorum to win their nomination, they may as well concede the general election right now. Because the special interests of the hard-line conservatives in the party aren't acceptable to the nation as a whole. Therefore, they're painting themselves into a corner and also taking the more moderate Republicans with them as they shut off any chance for beating the opposition at the polls. So, I guess that's where the phrase "lunatic fringe" really applies, because all these folk are really good at is shooting themselves in the foot.

Consequently, as I've suggested here many times before, if you want to get anything done at all, the first objective is to get your foot in the door, And all these hard-liners will be far better off with a nationally acceptable moderate Republican in office to work with than they will with any Democrat who will never give them a thing or a chance. So, maybe it's time for these rabid rebels to back off a bit, simply shut up and let Romney win. And if they do that, at least we all know one thing. The guy in office right now is well on his way out the door.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/5/2012

2012-01-05T10:08:00.000-05:00

As every day goes by, politicians prove that they either live in a world of their own which has no connection to reality, or have absolutely no regard for the intellect of those they address. Today's example comes from the president's campaign manager, a guy named Jim Messina.

According to Messina, Mitt Romney must "win by 30 points or so" in New Hampshire to build momentum for his campaign. The quote came from an item on the Fox News website, which went on to say that the president's campaign is "trying to raise expectations for Romney for the Tuesday primary after Romney's narrow victory over former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum."

What intrigued me about Messina's statement, and the fact that Fox thought it worthy of posting, is that I can't figure out for the life of me how or why the inane words of an opponent has anything to do with what happens in their rival's party.

But beyond that, Romney just eked out a victory in a contest in Iowa where he didn't even really compete. He's got six times as much money as any individual rival, and New Hampshire's a state where he owns a home and he was previously governor of next door Massachusetts. Nonetheless, Obama campaign officials said the Iowa results make Romney a weak front-runner

Well, if these guys think Romney's a weak front-runner because his recent victory was close, I think they ought to spend some time looking in mirrors. Because they represent a guy who's approval rating shrinks every time he makes a decision and he's single-handedly done more to turn the country into a third world nation that even Jimmy Carter.

And what all that says to me is that by next November, no matter who the Republicans nominate to run against him...if the present incumbent's approval ratings increase by thirty percent that will likely be his total, because at the rate he's going now his own number's going to be about zero by then.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/4/2012

2012-01-04T09:35:00.000-05:00

Now that the Iowa circus is over, except for Rick Santorum's high finish, nothing's really changed much in the Republican presidential candidate race. Mitt Romney, who spent neither much time or money in the state, did better than expected and is still the most likely to eventually win the nomination.

The odds are that Santorum, who's extremely conservative, did so well because Iowa Republicans tend to be quite conservative too. He also spent huge amounts of time there, as well as lots of money. But, that doesn't usually mean much elsewhere in the nation where more moderate candidates often rise to the top.

As far as the rest of the field goes, the only item I saw of interest was that, Newt Gingrich, apparently blew a fuse because he didn't do very well and went after opponents this morning. He now says they bombarded him with negative advertising, which to my mind was pretty funny.

The reason for my laughter was that, as I've mentioned here before, Gingrich calls ads negative when they mention his documented track record, and that's what's happened here. The ads simply point out that he vacillates, supports opposition's idea when appropriate, and takes up causes of those willing to pay him but then denies he's been bought.

In the meantime, many Republican pundits are bemoaning the way this nomination race keeps producing new names at the top, suggesting a very long campaign till it all sorts out. They say, the barbs and jabs should be aimed at the current president and not each other, because time's being wasted as well as significant amounts of funds.

I, on the other hand, think exactly the reverse. Because while these folks are fighting amongst themselves they're still getting their basically similar points across to the public, and the country itself is still going in the wrong direction due to it's current leadership. These are things that can be seen by all.

But, if a Republican candidate was chosen by now, there'd be almost a year of head to head verbal competition between the two contestants for the White House, which would soon become boring and allow the arguments to burn out.

So then, I think Republican's are much better off right now by arguing with each other and not partaking in direct confrontation with someone who, as every day goes by, is further killing his chances for re-election by his incompetent self.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/3/2012

2012-01-03T10:28:00.000-05:00

I've mentioned the Iowa caucus a couple of times over the last few days, because I don't understand the purpose. And just yesterday, I wrote that these doings perfectly illustrated the world of politicians to me, where they throw away multi-millions of dollars that could be put to some worthwhile purpose on an exercise with meaning to practically no one. But this morning I read something that makes the Iowa circus look like chump change.

An article from the ,Associated Press, yesterday addressed the law the president signed just before Christmas, temporarily extending the payroll tax cut. In order to permit the law to pass without objection, the Republicans added a provision compelling him to make a speedy decision on whether to build the Canada/Texas oil pipeline.

The article goes on to say that the decision's a "dicey proposition" for the president because he enjoyed strong support from both organized labor and environmentalists in winning the White House. And in this particular situation, the pipeline's construction presents potential environmental dangers, but also offers thousands of new union jobs. So then, which way should he turn?

But, here's the part that's incredible to me. Because from the way the article's written, it seems that it doesn't matter a whit as to what's good for the failing economy, or the folks who're trying to figure out how to afford gas at the pump, or how we keep enriching Middle East sultans who are stealing us blind. All that matters is, which side offers the empty suit in office the most votes. And there's something really, really wrong with that.

Consequently, although I couldn't care much less about who wins the Iowa circus, or any other kind of primary vote, if the guy in office now isn't defeated next time around, the American economy's likely over for good.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/2/2012

2012-01-02T13:02:00.000-05:00

All today's headlines say pretty much the same thing. It's down to the wire in Iowa, and the prediction is that two of the top finishers will be Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Mitt Romney's expected to round out the top three, and perhaps might even win.

As for me, I'm still quite confused because it still seems that this whole caucus is a non-event. And the reason for my inability to grasp the importance of the vote is that I have exactly the same chance of winning the presidency as do both Santorum and Paul, and not a soul in Iowa, or almost anywhere on the planet knows who I am nor cares to find out. Consequently, since for these two, their odds of gaining the White House amount to less than zero, regardless of winning in the midst of fly-over country...what's the point?

So, in the end, since I really think this whole scenario's a huge waste of time and hasn't got much meaning at all, I think I'm finally getting the picture. Because what could be more appropriate for politicians than wasting vast hours of everyone's time, spending millions upon millions for no reason, and producing nothing worthwhile in the end at all?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 1/1/2012

2012-01-01T16:45:00.007-05:00

Best wishes to all for a Happy New Year. However, as far as interesting news goes, there just doesn't seem to be any. But I did find a short entry on Fox News website that reports that Newt Gingrich told an audience in Iowa that he prays "before virtually every speech and virtually every major decision."

I thought the subject interesting because although I didn't think that I had anything in common with Newt at all, it turns out that I do. Because I've done more or less the same kind of praying quite often myself. And without getting into specifics as to which Deity I addressed, or how I did it, I just wanted to mention the subject because it rang a bell.

Frankly, I prayed much more often when I was younger, and especially while attending school. Because I fervently hoped that help would come my way from above when taking tests I hadn't prepared for, or that a blizzard would close the schools on days that subjects like advanced algebra was discussed.

As I got older I also prayed a lot in other places, such as at water holes on golf courses, fervently beseeching that my ball stay dry and reach the green. Not to mention very long sessions on my knees before visiting the IRS.

The reason I mention all this is that over time I finally figured out that while prayer is a wonderful thing, you can't always be sure that your pleas and pledges are going to be heard or answered affirmatively. So, just to add some insurance that things turn out as they should, I found it best to do my homework, practice the things I cared about, always did the best job I could...and in that way added some insurance, just in case my Deity was busy elsewhere when I knelt.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/31/2011

2011-12-31T13:00:00.000-05:00

For the last entry of 2011, I found a blurb on the Drudge Report that really sums up the liberal mentality for me.

A "veteran" reporter, Keith Koffler, has a web site, White House Dossier, in which he says he holds the White House accountable via his postings. And today his comments address the president's Hawaiian vacation.

According to Koffler, the vacation cost $4 million, most of it taxpayer funded, and from there Mrs. Obama asked "Do any of President Obama’s supporters have $3 to spare for his reelection?" He goes on to suggest that "This is approximately like coming upon Warren Buffett on a street corner with a McDonald’s cup asking if he can have 15 cents." Koffler also reports her request was part of an email sent to the Obama 2012 list today.

As for me, I have no problem whatsoever in believing the reporting's accurate, I write about the parasitical frauds making up the Democrat party quite often. Except, my questions aren't so much about the party leadership, because it's obvious that they're all self-serving elitist thieves. The one's I wonder about are those dumb enough to buy the BS over and over, year after year, and wind up paying dearly for the self-destructive quagmire they continually put themselves in.

So I guess what it all comes down to is the same old phrase by PT Barnum, that there's a sucker born every minute, which I surely don't doubt. But I can't even come up with a description for those who are not only gullible the first time they're fleeced, but willingly keep going back for more despite how much they've been duped. And therefore I can only scratch my head in wonder that, apparently, folks really can be born with such low IQ's.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/30/2011

2011-12-30T10:31:00.002-05:00

Perusing an article on the web this morning, from the Des Moines Register about protesters, I had to go back and re-read it again. Because I naturally assumed it contained the usual incoherent, unfocused drivel these types spout, that I've never understood from the start. However, today's points seemed very clear, made some sense, and struck me to be important, but once again, I wondered why these folks were at a Republican caucus since the issues were all Democrat faults.

Then, as I continued reading, I found out that these protesters are actually anti-Obama and are seeking support from whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination. The demands they're making include:

"1. Ease the mortgage crisis by ending foreclosures
2. Stop accepting campaign contributions from Wall Street
3. Restore civil liberties by ending indefinite detentions
4. Finally step up as President and start listening to the issues of the 99% instead of the issues of Wall Street."

The reason I mention the subject is, I think it's quite interesting that the first coherent demands I've seen, whether one agrees with them or not, came from those calling themselves protesters but they aren't Democrats. And what that re-confirms to me is that Liberals generally make all kinds of noise and very loud demands, but never have viable solutions to problems other than satisfying their needs by taking all they can from somebody successful.

But now, perhaps, there's evidence that the protest issue isn't just a one-way street and that the solutions will come quite soon, in the voting booths.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/29/2011

2011-12-29T14:41:00.001-05:00

Browsing the web this afternoon, I came across a short article on the Drudge Report, excerpted from an article by, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, on a site called Big Government.

According to Mr. Shapiro, House Minority Leader and former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra, told him that her mother wants to leave Congress. In a phone interview the younger Pelosi said Nancy only remains in Washington at the behest of her campaign donors.

Her direct quote was "She would retire right now, if the donors she has didn’t want her to stay so badly. They know she wants to leave, though. They think she’s destined for the wilderness. She has very few days left. She’s 71, she wants to have a life, she’s done. It’s obligation, that’s all I’m saying."

The reason the item caught my eye was that it's right in line with a theme I've noticed recently and have mentioned several times before. Because there seem to be indications of unexpected retirement, or other types of withdrawal from office, by many well-known, and in some cases quite entrenched politicians.

The explanations for leaving vary all over the map and sound quite reasonable, except, I'm not so sure I should readily believe them. That's so because these same types of politicos have traditionally held their posts for eons, unless or until they either expire on the job or something unexpected befalls them leaving them no other choice.

However, today we have far more information available to the voting public, and similarly, incumbents get deluged with immediate feedback regarding their performance. So, what I think is really going on here is that these former life-long office holders no longer have guarantees of re-election as they had in the past, and for many of them they'd rather quit on a high than lose in a landslide when the tide turns against them.

But, when you sort it all out and look at the result, I don't think it really matters what the cause is so long as more and more formerly entrenched incumbents quit. Because the only important factor is, they're finally gone.

That's it for today folks,

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/28/2011

2011-12-28T09:41:00.000-05:00

There's considerably more evidence piling up as to why the "Occupy" protesters are idle, and have so much free time on their hands. Because if you read about why they're presently gathering in Iowa to heckle Republican hopefuls, you realize that these outcasts not only have no clue as to where the nation's problems stem from, they know nothing about politics either. But, worse than that for them, they prove each and every day that they are un-hirable, because there just aren't any jobs available for the terminally stupid.

According to the Associated Press, one "Occupy Des Moines" organizer Jess Mazour, 24, said protesters wanted candidates to address issues ranging from campaign finance reform to college debt to the home foreclosure crisis. She said the week-long set of actions marked a new phase for the nationwide Occupy movement, and would be a test of whether activists could flex political muscle as one group.

While the issues she mentioned actually do present some cause for concern, as a practical matter the protesters rarely choose to discuss them but simply disrupt every event they can instead, and most often, seem quite incoherent and confused.

Nonetheless, in this case, let's assume Ms Mazour is really serious this time and genuinely wants to make her point. So, in that regard, as I've mentioned many times before, she and her cohorts are in the wrong place. Because all of the problems she mentions were caused and encouraged by Democrats in the White House and Congress, who are still seeking more ways to fleece their constituents.

And, in the end, that's how the Dem's keep their power. They seek out masses of the weakest, least informed, poorly educated among us and then fill their heads with biased drivel, pointing fingers at all who oppose them. And in time, we all see the disastrous results of their efforts, because they've managed to take what once was the most successful nation on earth and turn it into almost third-world status.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/27/2011

2011-12-27T13:37:00.001-05:00

While scanning the news websites just now, an article on Fox News caught my attention. And it wasn't specifically the subject itself that got me typing, it was where the story was positioned...the very last item on the list.

According to the article, Kevin McNulty, was "quietly" nominated to a federal judgeship in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on December 16th. And the nominee just happens to be married to Chuck Schumer's sister, Fran. He was named to the post by the White House on Friday, December 16, because the president believes McNulty's a "distinguished individual" who "will serve the American people with integrity and a steadfast commitment to justice."

Right after that, New Jersey's two US senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez followed with their own news release heaping praise on the nominee.

But here's the part that interested me most. According to the article's author, no one mentioned that McNulty was the last-minute choice of Lautenberg, who had been leaning toward other candidates until "surprisingly submitting McNulty's name to the White House." And no reason was given for the choice, "even though McNulty had never been publicly touted as a contender for the job, which carries life tenure and a $174,000-a-year salary."

However, one person involved in the nomination process said, "No one knows why he did it. Everyone thinks it's all about 2014 and Frank making sure he has Chuck in his corner."

So, now back to my first thought upon reading the item.

Years ago, a blatant political bribe or payoff like this would have been front page news and a headline. But for the scum holding office today, such things are not only every day occurrences, they're actually expected to happen to the extent that their mention is practically an afterthought. And as you go down the list of household names supposedly leading our country, you realize that in one way or another, just about every politico's either a crook, or in some way dishonest, and we just sit there and accept their behavior as normal for them.

It's also said that many of political ilk do so because of the "power." But, I wonder if that's really true today because although they may be able to cause others some grief now and then, how much power can these self-serving frauds actually have when not a soul respects them and knows they're all lower than dirt?

That's it for today folks

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/26/2011

2011-12-26T08:53:00.002-05:00

It's the day after Christmas, but for most the holiday goes on because many businesses and banks are closed, and there's no mail. Nonetheless, the Internet is always working, 24/7/365, which means I can always get the news, even though there's not very much to report.

I did see a story on the Fox News website, however, wherein Mike Huckabee offered his opinions regarding the upcoming Iowa caucus. He presents several alternatives, because he believes that many things other than only policy have an affect on voters, such as the weather (i.e. he says a warm, dry day helps Romney.)

He also thinks folks have to make up their minds as to whether they want to stand firm on social issues at a time like the present, or vote their pocketbooks, which he thinks will over-ride many other factors. But, regardless, on sentiment alone...the real front runner here, Huckabee says, is Ron Paul, and has been for quite some time.

Now, after I read all this stuff I sat back and asked myself the same question I have every time the Iowa vote comes up. My simple query is: Who cares about what happens in Iowa?

The caucus itself isn't even a real primary election, and even if it was...the winner rarely becomes the candidate because Iowan's tend to prefer hard core conservatives with little national appeal. In fact, last time around, Huckabee won it himself and shortly later dropped out of the race altogether and became a commentator on Fox.

And now having typed all this, because there's nothing else going on at the moment I have to say that I guess the caucus does have some value after all. Because if I hadn't found the article about it this morning, my blog page for today would be blank.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/25/2011

2011-12-25T09:38:00.000-05:00

I've mentioned this phenomenon before, but today's a good opportunity to bring it up again. Because I always find it amazing that on major holidays, newsworthy events just never seem to happen. And I guess that simply goes to reconfirm that in reality, nothing really worth writing about happens most of the rest of the time either -but on all the other days the press keeps scrounging around and tries to make headlines out of basically meaningless drivel.

As for me, I've tried to avoid writing about sports because my readership drops off dramatically whenever I bring up any kind of athletics. However, today being Christmas and with absolutely nothing going on anywhere that caught my eye, I came across a blurb about Tim Tebow.

I mention him because I've been a University of Florida football fan for many years, thanks to a close friend who graduated there and drafted me into the legions who root for the Gators. However, as much as I love the team, and former coaches, Steve Spurrier and Urban Meyer, I never had any kind of respect for Tebow.

My primary reason for disliking Tebow's because I think he's a one-way street and act's like the game's all about him. In that way, he's a lot like Bret Favre who took full credit for every win and spread all kinds of blame on teammates for losses. In Tebow's case, it always seemed to me he handed off the ball or tried to pass it, only when he couldn't find an opening for himself, so he had no other option than to try to get the ball to somebody else.

When Tebow got to the NFL, and in recent weeks when he became the Bronco's starter, there was all kinds of noise made in the press because of his style, which was dramatically different than just about all other quarterbacks. Because most of them, and especially the best ones, are generally very adept at hand-offs and passes, confusing the opposition by their play calls and getting the ball to intended receivers. But not Tebow, who continued to keep the ball, choosing to run it himself as often as he could, and likely would have passed it more if he'd been able to find a way to catch it too.

During those few weeks after Tebow took Denver's helm, I spoke to friends and said that I thought his style -which was loved by the press and was said to be setting a new trend for mobile QB's- was sooner or later going to do him in. Because when thousands of pounds of opposition lands on your back repeatedly, it's got to be quite wearing, and after once around the league, defensive coaches are going to prepare for his style of play and simply eradicate him. However, I thought that the planning would take until sometime next season.

Now it seems, the result's what I expected, because he's been figured out and is losing games, but it happened much sooner than I thought. In fact, yesterday he was intercepted four times which may be why he tries to keep the ball in the first place. But now it seems, everyone's got him figured out and he's either got to change or go back to the bench, which leaves me with only one last question.

Now that he's shown all these imitating fans, and especially kids, that perhaps his kneeling ritual after good things happen doesn't always guarantee complete success, what's he going to do or say next? Because lately it seems to me that many, if not most of the rest of the folks in the league have just as much, and some maybe even more, clout upstairs than he does.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/24/2011

2011-12-24T15:13:00.001-05:00

'Tis the night before Christmas and all through the news,
not one thing of interest for anyone to muse.

So, I thought I'd mention a holiday related item I just read in a book by, Amanda Kyle Williams, a new novelist. The heroine in the story, The Stranger You Seek, is a private investigator who'd previously been employed by the FBI.

Told in the first person and filled with anecdotes, heroin, Keye Street, mentions her mother who in discussing her husband regarding something he did which she thought was foolish says: "Damn fool. It's not enough that he spells out Leon on the roof every year in Christmas lights. Now this!"

She then explains that her father was dyslexic but wouldn't admit it.

I went back and re-read those sentences three or four times and laughed out loud each time I did it. What's more, I thought the whole novel was quite good. You'd probably like it.

And with that, wishing you a very Merry Christmas, and to all a good night.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/23/2011

2011-12-23T07:39:00.000-05:00

Both parties did a great service for the American people during the past few days. Because, by blowing a payroll tax-cut that in reality could not be adjusted in any way -because there wasn't enough time to implement the changes technically- they've once again proven that everyone presently holding office should be voted out ASAP, regardless of affiliation.

The most interesting to me was that this childish demonstration, which further proves how far politicians have sunk, had very little to do with what was good for the country or its population. The primary concern on both sides of the aisle was simply how the situation could be used for their own political advantage. And, as each new situation arises it seems more attention is paid to appearance than to substance.

Proof of the political bias and absolute disregard for those they supposedly represent becomes blatantly clearer every time legislation is negotiated, because plain, everyday common sense illustrates how moronic and self-serving incumbents have become -starting right at the top. Because how stupid do you have to be not to realize that being economically victimized and stolen from by foreign oil producers has harmed more of our population than have world wars. Yet, for political and personal gain, the thievery's allowed to go on.

We've stood by and watched politicians kill the world's greatest educational system, destroying whole generations chance for personal improvement and financial success, simply to protect worthless union members because of their united voting strength. The same can be said about the likely ruination of our health care status, because votes are more important to low-life political slugs than the health of the nation. And what's worse is the legislation that passed a stacked Congress was based on mis-information and blatant lies.

As the list of totally inane decision-making by legislators goes on, it becomes increasingly obvious that there are only two possible explanations for the magnitude of the malfeasance. On one hand, perhaps political survival does in fact far outweigh simple logic for incumbents and they choose to self-serve rather than govern honestly, or perhaps, which is more to my thinking, they're too dumb to grasp their mistakes.

But, I think either answer doesn't matter as much as it used too, because the voting public's finally waking up. So, regardless of the motivation for those holding office, whatever side of the aisle, all of their days are now likely numbered because I think we've all had more than enough.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/22/2011

2011-12-22T08:21:00.001-05:00

Since I write a considerable amount of the time, words, language and phrasing are quite important to me. So, consequently, when I read I often analyze text more carefully than others might. And that's why some things, Newt Gingrich, said recently got me to thinking.

As I understand Gingrich's campaign, he's made a promise that he won't permit "negative"comments or actions, either from himself or anyone else involved on his side. And as a result he claimed to be upset when, Mitt Romney, had some things to say about him that he felt weren't very nice That's why I looked up what Romney actually said, because I was curious about it.

What I found out was that Romney simply repeated facts which demonstrated that Gingrich has flip-flopped fairly often, sold himself out for cash and had a mercurial performance record when in office, to list just a few things from his past. And that's when I had to laugh.

Because if stating the facts, taken from public record, is taking a negative approach, what's an opponent supposed to do? Are they supposed to help their contenders hide the truth?

And that's when it hit me that it's exactly what Gingrich wants to do. He wants to run a campaign based solely on whatever his spin is today, as if his past never happened. Primarily because he knows that his record will sink him were it to be exposed.

However, right now he's trying to sell the idea to the wrong opponent, because Romney's going to keep on disclosing information documenting Newt's actual past. So that means the only likely one to accept Newt's ground rules is the current president. Because the only prayer the incumbent has for re-election is some miracle happening that expunges his entire disaster of a record in office, which is even worse than Newts.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/21/2011

2011-12-21T13:41:00.002-05:00

I've often heard it said that when it comes to the nation, there are two worlds. One lives inside the Beltway in D.C. and is made up of those holding national political positions, along with those connected to them. Then there's the rest of the country, where the real people reside.

The reason I mention it today is, there's this ridiculous war going on between Republicans in the House and Democrats in Congress regarding a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut bill. The reason it's ridiculous is, the extension itself not only has no meaning, because it isn't long enough, but according to the Treasury Department, it can't even be implemented because it takes more than two months to program the equipment that prints the paperwork.

However, when it comes to doing things right, such as sitting down and negotiating a real solution for businesses that will give them some sense of stability in legislation so they can make real plans and financial forecasts that can be relied on, office-holders ignore them, preferring to use the problems to try and score political points.

However, as I've been predicting for quite some time now, I think this time it's different for incumbents because, regardless of political preference, folks are tired getting whip-sawed by legislation that's designed to help someone's agenda instead of the public at large.

And that's why next November a lot of office-holders are going to find themselves unemployed, making it extremely ironic for them because -its highly likely that the very same market they killed via their short-sighted self-absorption will preclude them too from finding new jobs like almost 20% of the public does now.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/20/2011

2011-12-20T17:04:00.000-05:00

With the news headlines just about as boring as I can remember them ever being, I actually read an article regarding the presidential polls. I usually pay them no attention because they've never made much sense to me. Especially because professional pollsters can slant their questioning to prove any point they choose. With years of behavioral science experience regarding personal and public sentiment, by now a good pollster could devise a series of questions to prove that Pee Wee Herman will win next year's election.

Regardless of bias in polling techniques though, I thought the article's author, Chris Stirewalt of Fox News highlighted some interesting points. First and foremost he noted that according to the, Associated Press, citing a Gallup Poll released on Monday, 52 percent of all adults thought the president should be voted out of office, up 9 points since May and leads the percentage of adults who think he deserves a second term by nearly 10 points.

However, when asked whether he'd win a second term, the gap evaporated, 49 percent saying he'd win and 48 percent saying he'd lose. But, says the author, that's not a paradox but simply reflects the Republican's conclusions that all of their candidates are duds.

The same poll also showed that, Newt Gingrich, after front-running for four weeks, dropped 15 points since the beginning of the month and is now tied with Mitt Romney at 24 percent. It's said Gingrich's fall is due to his history surfacing, and although it's believed Republicans had forgiven him of the sins most offensive to them individually, they've also been "inundated with reminders of the breadth and variegation of his past transgressions." So, if you had come to terms with the personal stuff, you get reminded of his ethics problems, and if you’ve gotten past the non-lobbying lobbying stuff, you get reminded of the mercurial leadership from his days in the House, and so on.

But, here's the part where the author loses me. Because he says that an "irony for Republicans is that the more formidable they believe Obama to be, the less satisfied they are with their own party’s offerings." And that "the rest of the contenders have withered or stayed stunted as Republicans have imagined them confronting a $1 billion, scorched-earth campaign by Obama backed up by boosters in the establishment press."

I, however, believe that all the gyrations to date within the Republican nominating process are all part of the game. Candidates come, candidates go and the polls go up and down as that happens. But, the presidential contest really begins after the nomination. Consequently, to date the Republicans have been battling each other and leaving the president alone. So, what that means is, without even having a firm candidate, and without taking any steps toward him, according to Gallup, he's still currently tied with "any" contender they offer.

What all this comes down to then is, when all the so-called frustration subsides amongst Republicans and they finally have a nominee, their guns will unite and turn outward instead of inward. And when that happens, I don't think it matters at all how many billions the president has to squander on ads and hype. Because any one living here during the past three years knows precisely what he's all about, and no rational voter will willingly go down that same road again. And to me, that's means he's over, no contest, regardless of who runs against him next year.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhytms 12/19/2011

2011-12-19T14:02:00.000-05:00

Scanning the news a few minutes ago, I had to read the following item three times before I was sure it actually was a comment from, Eric Holder, Attorney General of the U.S.

However, according to, The Daily Caller, this morning, Holder "accused his growing chorus of critics of racist motivations" in a Sunday interview published in the New York Times. The paper went on to say the Department of Justice provided no evidence to support the Attorney General’s claims that some unspecified faction -what he refers to as the “more extreme segment”- is driven to criticize both he and the president due to the color of their skin. He didn't elaborate on who he considered making up the “more extreme segment.”

He went on to say, "This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Now, I agree, there's plenty of criticism about, Eric Holder, and even more about his boss in the White House. In fact, almost every day, I've listed plenty of things they both do I disagree with myself. But the reason I had to re-read Holder's comments was, until he brought up the subject of race, I'd actually forgotten about it. Because these two guys could be black, white, blue, green or plaid and they'd both still be doing lousy jobs in my opinion, no matter what color they are.

Aside from that, the president rolled into office on a tidal wave of praise from every corner of the country, regardless of color, and was not only given huge support across the racial boards, he had both Houses of Congress on his side to boot. However, it's his policies that are in dispute today and the disastrous state of the nation in almost every respect, which has nothing to with anything except a continuous flow of bad decisions.

Consequently, reading Holder's comments really took me aback because if I understand him correctly, and I think I do, that if a person of color makes horrendous mistakes and performs poorly on a continuing basis, anyone who finds fault with the miserable results is obviously a racist. Therefore, in order to prove you're not a bigot, you've got to accept whatever you get, win lose or draw and keep your mouth shut.

But I think, aside from myself, my lifelong, all-time hero would disagree with the Attorney General too, because he was a guy whose professional survival depended totally on his performance each and every day of his career. And if I had to bet, although I obviously wasn't alongside him, Willie Mays never said anything like " he struck me out because I'm black."

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/18/2011

2011-12-18T12:03:00.000-05:00

According to the Fox news website, during the president's weekly radio address he praised our troops, then said, "Iraq's future will be in the hands of its own people."

What that equates to me is, that we spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of troop in battle, invested huge numbers of hours and resources in helping get a nation out from under dictatorial leadership and now are leaving them high and dry, because I doubt they're any more capable of leading themselves at this point than is a kindergarten class.

So, maybe that's what we should do in the future in all kinds of situations. Because it's far less expensive in just about every way to walk away from responsibility and to make the easiest choices. In fact, we can see a perfect example in another current situation Democrats support.

Because rather than trying to help themselves and get out from under, the Wall Street protesters want somebody else to take care of them instead, since it's much, much easier to carry a sign and complain than it is to go and find work.

And, as you go down the line it becomes more obvious at every turn that avoidance of responsibility and taking as much as possible from the successful is the Democrat mantra. Yet when they encounter another nation that clearly still needs significant help, their answer is something like, "Sorry Jack, you're on your own."

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/17/2011

2011-12-17T12:32:00.001-05:00

The administration's treating the troop withdrawal from Iraq as a major achievement, particularly because it fulfills a campaign promise to the leftist of supporters of the incumbent. But, as a practical matter, and in terms of how it weakens our nation's position in the Middle-East, it's a huge mistake.

There's no doubt it sounds good to say that the U.S. is a peaceful nation, and doesn't seek enemies anywhere in the world. It's also preferable to keep our troops at home and out of harm's way. In fact, it would be ideal if we had no need for troops at all.

But, to anyone aware of reality and having an ounce of common sense, it should be obvious that the world's changed significantly and there are enemies who seek to destroy us any way they can. Consequently, we put ourselves at great risk by putting our head in the sand (no pun intended) and walking away from Iraq. Primarily because it won't be long before hostiles, likely Iran, will do their best to undo all our rebuilding of the nation and reduce our gains to zero.

Beyond that, from a military and intelligence perspective we're far better off with our own foothold in the Middle-East, because the area's so volatile and subject to confrontation and upheaval. Therefore, our physical presence gives us closer access when problems arise and a much better chance of preventing disasters, and containing enemies on their own turf before they can get here.

It also might interest those who think we're doing the right thing by withdrawing troops to consider that it's about sixty years since the end of World War ll, and we still have troops in Germany, Italy and Japan. And somehow or other our presence, aid and assistance has made two of those nations among the strongest and soundest in the world, and the third may not be doing so hot financially right now but it's still a Mecca for tourists and certainly knows how to make great food.

So, I guess we can add this short-sighted foreign policy step to the growing list of poor decisions made by an incredibly inept administration. And when you add it to the ineptitude shown regarding the economy, education, trade relations and health care, to name just a few disasters, I guess we have to wonder what's left for them to screw up next, especially because there really isn't very much left.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/16/2011

2011-12-16T08:33:00.000-05:00

As noted yesterday, didn't watch the debate and from recaps, don't think I missed anything much by not tuning in. But, I did find a couple of things worth typing about this morning, because they re-confirm for me my opinion of most of the contenders, which is a very low one.

The first that caught my eye was a comment by, Rick Perry, who said, "I'm ready for the next level. Let me tell you, I hope I am the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucus." And maybe Mr. Perry believes it's good for him to be Tebow, but for the rest of us, I don't think that's what we want. Because, as I've noted before about number fifteen, he's a total one-way street. His whole world revolves completely around him and his lord and nobody else counts a whit.

While at Florida, he kept the ball more than any quarterback I've ever seen, abandoning others who had as much talent as he did at their positions, but were ignored if he could carry the football himself. And now he's doing the same thing at the pro level, except it's not the same kind of league. And once or twice around the horn and his NFL competitors will learn to adjust their defenses to his game. And when that happens, it's quite likely he'll spend a good part of his life in traction. Because when a thousand pounds of defensive lineman land on your body over and over again, something major's going to break, it's only a matter of time.

Consequently, if Perry thinks it's a good idea to be like Tebow, he's telling us a lot. Primarily that he'll do everything himself, whether it's good for others or not. And more importantly, he sounds like he thinks the presidency's all about him and nobody else.

And then there's Gingrich, who said if electability had been the question for primary candidates in 1979, Ronald Reagan would have never become president, stating that his debating skills against President Obama will "outshine any earlier fouls he has made."

To me, there couldn't be a better example of what Gingrich's delusions are all about than his own comments. Because to my recollection, personal aura, communication skills and rapport with the public were Reagan's greatest assets. In fact, many of his detractors claimed he was all flash and polish. In addition to that, debating against him was like running into a buzz saw, because he glossed over his mistakes in a very folksy manner, bringing listeners closer to him.

Career wise he'd been a movie actor, a TV pitchman and governor of California, all of which helped round out his rapport building skills as well as preparing him for a leadership role, which he performed extremely well. So, if Gingrich, who's nothing more than a political hack, truly believes he's in the same league as Ronald Reagan, he's got some serious delusional problems.

But more than that, if Gingrich also actually thinks that the presidential contest comes down to how well he can do in debate versus the incumbent, then what he's really saying is that the presidency boils down to who does best at piling BS. And if that's truly the case, and total BS production counts the most, then it's time to bring back Trump.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/15/2011

2011-12-15T13:04:00.000-05:00

Iowa debate. Iowa debate. Iowa debate. That's all I see headlining the news, and I still don't get it. For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone on earth would care a whit about a bunch of politico's hot air.

Perhaps, years ago when we didn't have instant and continuous coverage of every breath a candidate or incumbent takes, a debate might have shed some light on a participant's qualifications, beliefs and presence, but today we see these folks performing live 24/7/365 in the real world.

And I still come back to square one in terms of what politico's actual capabilities are about when it comes to performance on the actual job, because if you went to every men's store on the planet you couldn't find an emptier suit than the guy in the White House now. But boy, he sure can sure sling zillions of words.

So, to me it doesn't matter what Gingrich says, or how well he can compose and deliver a sentence. His track record tells me clearly what he is, and that boils down to loose cannon. Would he be better for the country than the guy in office now? The likely answer is: absolutely. But then, so would almost anyone who could fog a mirror.

But, as far as credentials go for the abilities required to run the country, the only one currently in contention is Mitt Romney. He may not be the Conservative's dream of a perfect candidate in regard to their platform, but that's not what the president's job entails. Presidents are supposed to do what's best for the nation, not grind the axes of particular factions.

Romney's also the only one who's not only had many years in public office, but he's also succeeded in business. And his Achilles Heel regarding health care really ought to be looked at the other way around. Because he's already been down that road, had the experience, and now knows more about what not to do than anyone else around. Consequently, it's not only not a negative, it's really a great advantage.

So I guess what it all comes down to is all these guys standing on a stage trying their best to one-up each other while looking presidential, which I find extremely boring. And I truly believe that if debate performance was something that had anything to do with someone's real capability in office, at present we should have the best president who ever lived holding the president's job. However, as we see each and every day right now, when it comes to having to really perform in office...his real world results are the exact reverse of all his BS.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/14/2011

2011-12-14T16:02:00.000-05:00

About an hour ago, the phone rang and my wife took the call, hanging up in moments. I asked her who'd called. She replied, it was a charity seeking donations for curing a disease. In fact, the disease was one I'd had myself.

Now, we don't get a lot of solicitations by phone because our number's on the "Do not call list," which works pretty well. But, every once in a while one does come through. And, frankly, I don't think about the subject much. However, today's call really frosted me.

Because it's been a very long time since I've thought about pestering calls, and was actually the first time I realized that these people are running a business based on my illness. And, I don't know who they are, don't know what they do, and really don't care except for the fact that they're calling folks up making some kind of plea and scamming all that they can, but I'm not aware of a single soul any one of them's ever helped.

When I was ill, we did research and fortunately found medical practitioners and facilities that were able to cure me. Everyone I know who's come down with some kind of affliction does the same kind of thing. So where were these organizations who say they care so much when you need them? And, if they showed up, what would they do for me? I doubt it would be very much.

Many say they're working on cures for diseases. However, I can't think of one they've stopped. But in the meantime they keep dialing for dollars and spending the bulk of what they collect on themselves. And for me, I really have a problem with folks who can't figure out any other way to make a buck than to ride the back of my illness. These folks make leeches look good by comparison.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/13/2011

2011-12-13T09:41:00.000-05:00

Came across this article in Fox News by, Patrick Summers, that says, Gentry Collins, former RNC National Political Director, "bluntly" stated that "This President has failed," when commenting about Obama. Which is why Collins believes the president has had to to go negative about the opposition while campaigning, since there are no plusses on his side.

But what struck me most was a rebuttal from, Penny Lee, a former senior advisor to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Apparently she tried to counter Collins' charges by pointing to the stimulus packages and health care law as Obama successes, saying the best advice for him at this point would be to go back to his message of hope.

So, my question for her today is: Hope for who? And about what? Because if there's one thing anyone with half an iota of sense is hoping for today it's that somebody replaces the president ASAP, and it almost doesn't matter who that somebody is.

The stimulus packages have proven to be practically worthless, doing nothing more than increasing an already out of hand national debt. Meanwhile, unemployment's still around nine percent. And as far as health care goes, the bill's such a disaster in all it's aspects it's going to go before the Supreme Court.

And as you go down the line, from the economy, to education, to foreign affairs, not to mention the unbelievable damage caused by our dependence on imported oil, there's pracatically no aspect of our lives that haven't been negatively affected since this president took office.

Consequently, as I sit here typing, I've got to wonder once again how anyone with a grain of sense and access to factual information can possibly believe that our nation hasn't deteriorated significantly over the past three years due to its leadership at the top. But what's stranger than that is, there are apparently quite a few masochistic politcal zealots who'd willingly do it all again.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/12/2011

2011-12-12T15:35:00.000-05:00

Scanning the headlines, I came across a name I haven't seen in what seems quite a while: Al Sharpton. And maybe I'm not the only one who's forgotten that he exists, because according to Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein of the The New York Post, he's got some financial troubles so the extortion business must be down.

According to documents obtained by the paper, Sharpton’s nonprofit paid him nearly $242,000 last year although it had $1.6 million in debt. And as far as his "empire" goes, including the National Action Network (NAN) and two for-profit companies, the entities were $5.3 million in the red.

But what I thought most interesting was where the debt arose from. Public records indicate that most of NAN’s money woes rest in more than $880,000 in unpaid federal payroll taxes, interest and penalties. More than another $100,000 is to settle two lawsuits, byproducts of the unpaid bills.

Aside from that, it still owes $206,252 in loans to Sharpton’s for-profit Bo-Spanky Consulting Inc. and Sharpton Media LLC.

Tax filings show that Sharpton himself drew a $241,732 salary and perks, including first-class or charter air travel. Yet he also owes the IRS $2.6 million in income tax, and nearly $900,000 in state tax.

His entity, Rev-Al Communications Inc., is defunct but still owes the state almost $176,000, and Bo-Spanky is $3,500 behind on state-tax liens. Sharpton has said he is on a repayment plan with state and federal-tax authorities

I mention him because he's another guy who has the answers to everybody's problems, and is the first to point fingers, make accusations , and slam anyone he can if he thinks there's something he can gain for himself. But when you take the screen away and see the real Reverend Al, you've got nothing but a fraud and failure ducking out from under his bills .

So perhaps the answer for him is to form some kind of joint venture with Donald Trump. They probably still won't make a quarter, but they'll likely produce an awful lot of worthless noise.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/11/2011

2011-12-11T15:10:00.000-05:00

Half-time for the Jets, who have a 28-3 lead over Kansas City. But I'm sure they'll figure out a way to let the Chiefs back in the game, so I'll write today's entry now, before my hands start to shake and my eyes aren't blinded by Jet rage.

The thing that has me confused today is partly the same old, same old, but nonetheless I simply can't understand how the Democrat party can watch the economic devastation caused by our dependency on foreign oil and still do their best to block the transcontinental pipeline.

They tout fuel and power alternatives that don't exist, pour money down drains such as ethanol projects, and watch the mainstream of their voters, which includes droves of the unemployed, practically starve to death in one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Additionally, since so many other things are dependent on fossil fuel, the costs of travel, transportation, commutation, and all the products, services in any way oil-related are considerably more costly than they ever should be.

What's more, if the environment really needs all the over-protection it's already getting, why not fix the problem the other way around. There are plenty of safeguards that can be employed to insure we have clean air and water, which can easily be paid for by petroleum producers, but first they have to be allowed to produce right here at home. And, if that happens, I think the booming that will occur in the economy will provide more than enough capital for investment in practically any safeguards the environmentalists want.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/10/2011

2011-12-10T10:28:00.002-05:00

You know there's not much going on in the world when after scouring the Web looking for items of interest, all you can find is a meaningless article in New York's Daily News about Donald Trump's planned debate.

And, as I've noted many times before, although he's really a waste of keystrokes, his brand of over-the-top self-promotion often riles me into typing. And what irks me the most is how the media in particular, give him a favorable forum without ever mentioning the fact that his track record indicates he knows less about how to run a successful business than your average Cocker Spaniel. Because almost every operation he's ever headed has either filed for bankruptcy or simply closed up, hanging other investors and lenders out to dry in the process.

What's worse, he isn't even a true entrepreneur in my view because he had a $400 million head start in inheritance from his dad, Fred. And though I could be wrong because I have no access to hard or certified information, my best guess is, the losses he's taken that are public record are far in excess of that, which logic says must be driving his actual financial worth closer to zero.

Nonetheless, I'm highlighting him again today because the News says he's considering cancelling his much-hyped presidential debate because, except for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, nobody else is willing to show up. Even Michelle Bachmann who's apparently become close, according to him, has said "nope."

But, here's the part that intrigued me the most. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have slammed the event as a circus.

So, maybe I'm not the only one who thinks this bag of hot air is worthless which makes me feel somewhat better. But, I'd still like to see him truly exposed. Because as for me and all the folks I truly respect, we've all tried to play by the book, win, lose or draw. So, when someone else tries to skate through on BS and has no respect for my integrity or his own, it makes me smile just a little to see the seams start to split and cover my ears against the coming implosion.

That's it for today folks

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/9/2011

2011-12-09T15:31:00.001-05:00

Ever since the purported Republican candidates for the presidential nomination started lining up, we've seen a parade of hopefuls appear, have their fifteen minutes of fame and then go up in smoke or simply fade away into the dust. And through all of it, so far, the only one to remain consistent throughout is Mitt Romney, who continues to average around 25% in the popularity polls.

And now another front runner's emerged due to Herman Cain's departure, as Newt Gingrich has shown a recent spurt in numbers which, for now, have put him in the spotlight. And that's likely a bad place for him to be, because his record will sooner or later be microscoped and he'll be shown up for the vacillating, pompous pile of overbearing fluff that he is.

But, for me, Newt's sudden surge poses a question that's arisen for quite some time now as to what Republican voters really want. And it seems that the conservative faction of the party may very well sink them again, by demanding that every "i" in their agenda be met by candidates and that every "t" be crossed which is unlikely to produce a contestant that can win a general election.

At this point, I think the hard core party-liner's might better be served by supporting Romney, who has considerable general appeal, and who very well might be elected handily, and then promoting their agenda points with him after he's won the White House. Because, if nothing else, for the most part, he's one of them already, and will certainly be more amenable than anyone in the other party.

But by backing a guy like Gingrich, who'll scare off considerable numbers of moderate folks, the Republicans greatly reduce their chances of a win and might just as well prepare themselves now for another four years of total hell with the present incumbent.

Consequently, it makes much more sense to me to stop standing on ceremony and reaching for unattainable goals, by instead endorsing someone with better than a reasonable chance of winning and simply taking what they can get.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/8/2011

2011-12-08T09:54:00.005-05:00

Next Thursday, Jon Corzine, former New Jersey senator and governor, plans to tell a House committee that he "simply doesn't know" the location of $1.2 billion of clients' money that vanished from his failed investment firm, MF Global. The firm's bankruptcy is the eighth-largest in U.S. history.

He also apologized to "all those affected" on the House Committee on Agriculture's website, and in prepared testimony says in part, "I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date. I do not know which accounts are unreconciled or whether the unreconciled accounts were or were not subject to the segregation rules."

Saying he was "stunned" to learn the funds were missing, he went on, "Considering the circumstances, many people in my situation would almost certainly invoke their constitutional right to remain silent -a fundamental right that exists for the purpose of protecting the innocent. Nonetheless, as a former United States Senator who recognizes the importance of congressional oversight, and recognizing my position as former chief executive officer in these terrible circumstances, I believe it is appropriate that I attempt to respond to your inquiries."

Then he added, that his involvement in the firm's clearing, settlement, payment mechanisms and accounting was "limited."

So here we have a guy who was CEO of Goldman Sachs from 1994 to 1999, then entered politics to become a senator and then governor of a state who claims he knows nothing about more than a billion bucks that somehow vanished from an investment firm he headed, an amount large enough to rank eighth in history of bankrupt organizations of its type.

Now, I certainly understand that folks like Mr. Corzine are very busy, with lots of things on their plates. And that's probably why many items get overlooked or simply fall through the cracks. Because agendas full of places to go, people to see and things to do take up considerable time and effort.

Which is why someone like the president doesn't know what's going on in the economy, and Attorney's General like Eric Holder aren't aware that millions of dollars in weapons mistakenly wound up in enemy hands. And people from the EPA can't approve new pipelines that will save citizens billions versus foreign oil.

But it still seems to me that as busy as these folks in power are, if they don't start paying attention to what's going on around them regarding other people's money...things are going to get pretty expensive for the rest of us pretty soon.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

12/7/2011

2011-12-07T15:35:00.001-05:00

According to Ken Thomas and Ben Feller of the Associated Press, the president gave a speech on Tuesday in a high school gym in Osawatomie, Kansas. The article didn't provide a head count, but my guess is that all forty town residents showed up along with a couple of cows and a wandering goose or two.

Evidently, Theodore Roosevelt spoke there too in 1910, at which time he addressed the question of whether economic opportunity for all was evaporating, saying "This is the defining issue of our time."

Apparently trying to identify with Teddy, yesterday the current president said that, "This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home and secure their retirement."

And that's the part of the article that stopped me. Because, once again, this guy who's done everything he can think of to kill the American economy and dream has the gall to yammer about middle class hopes and aspirations. And anyone who's read my entry's going back for almost two years has surely seen the list of roadblocks this administration has erected to block business growth and entrepreneurship at every turn. In fact, the only thing they haven't done is to ask Attorney General Holder for a few thousand of his stolen guns, so they can hold up any businessperson who's still got a couple of bucks left.

But the bottom line for me, as I've written here many times before, is the incredible insult directed toward anyone possessing an iota of intellect by spouting outright mistruths and deceptions as if they were fact. However, what's even worse is, there are still some brain-dead amoebae who'll believe him.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/6/2011

2011-12-06T15:39:00.002-05:00

I'm not surprised by an item I tripped over on Drudge report this afternoon, taken from the New York Post. But nonetheless, I sometimes can't believe when all the suspicions about hustlers and crooks proves correct.

Because it seems that even as Jon Corzine’s MF Global was collapsing, Teneo Holdings, a firm having Bill Clinton in a senior post was taking huge fees for public-relations and financial advice from the business.

Clinton’s office insists he didn't profit from the relationship between MF Global and Teneo, where he's chairman of the advisory board. But the company was paid $125,000 a month for at least five months in one of MF’s biggest consulting arrangements, according to sources there.

The relationship was controversial in MF Global even before the company’s financial problems became publicly known, and executives questioned why an outside firm was needed for work that had long been done in-house. One MF source said, "I don’t know what they did. It was always unclear.” Another said,“It was very controversial and other consultants we had work for us for years were upset.”

Apparently, Teneo served as a personal PR firm and political consultant for then-MF Global CEO Corzine, and also offered advice on European financial investments —like the ones that ultimately led to MF’s collapse in October.

A Clinton spokesman, Matt McKenna, said “President Clinton does not advise clients on the firm’s behalf.” Clinton does make money from Teneo, but has declined to disclose the sum.

The Post also reported that Corzine and Clinton have been close for years. Clinton campaigning for Corzine repeatedly and Corzine, in turn, became the first sitting governor to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the presidency when she ran in 2008.

So, I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. And for Corzine and Clinton its always been follow the money. So this is one more example of how they both continue to rip off anybody they can 24/7/365, using past government jobs and ties to provide them access.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/5/2011

2011-12-05T14:28:00.002-05:00

I read today that Newt Gingrich is planning to meet with Donald Trump, which immediately led me to ask myself: Why?

While it's true that I wrote a couple of blogs about Trump, fully realizing he wasn't worth the keystrokes, I wanted to note that I not only thought he was the emptiest of suits, I couldn't imagine how anyone could care about him at all. I do know, however, that he's apparently host of a popular TV show I've never watched and perhaps that makes his endorsement worthwhile. But then so would be the blessings of Pat Sajak, Vanna White, Pee Wee Herman and Monty hall.

As far as the real world goes though, I'm not sure I'd want to be touted by a guy who tanked almost every deal he ever touched including his bankrupt real estate companies, some casinos and an airline.

But, as far as the public's concerned, they often don't dig into details and readily buy the smoke, mirrors and hype which is why lot's of high profile names keep their image intact despite their travails and failures. And I guess you don't have to look much further than the Clinton's, the Kennedy's and the Obama's to understand how that works.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/4/2011

2011-12-04T07:48:00.003-05:00

I don't know about you, but for me the news of the day's lately been more boring than watching a Volkswagen rust. I suppose I could type some stuff about the hapless Jets, but even a fan like me who's been around since their inception really doesn't want to waste the effort.

So, in my hopeless scrounging around this morning, I came across an item on Drudge, reprinted from CBS Boston, regarding a 7-year-old boy who's being investigated by his South Boston elementary school for possible sexual harassment, because he kicked another boy in the crotch.

Now, in my day, kids fought in schoolyards all the time. And if you were harassed or banged around by a bigger bully, you either got some of your friends together, chased him down and got even, or else you did your very best to avoid him in the future. But, if a fight erupted, and you were caught, there'd be a reprimand, detention or some sort of penalty paid and life went on. The whole scenario lasted twenty minutes.

But not today, where we have political correctness and folks in authority who haven't a clue regarding real world events. The answer now seems to be to take everything to it's farthest limits and blow it all out of proportion.

According to the victim's mother, “He’s 7 years old. He doesn’t know anything about sexual harassment." While her son himself said, the boy he kicked had been bullying him on the school bus ride home from elementary school last week. Then the mom went on, “He just all of a sudden came up to him, choked him. He wanted to take his gloves, and my son said, ‘I couldn't’t breathe, so I kicked him in the testicles'.”

As far as the school's concerned, the mom described a call she got explaining that the case will be treated like sexual harassment, due to what it considers "inappropriate touching," putting it this way: “Your son kicked a little boy in the testicles. We call that sexual harassment.” She said she’s been asked to attend a disciplinary hearing at the school Monday.

And there we have it, a case where a kid was cornered and fought back the only way he could without a weapon, and now he's being prosecuted for it, which reminded me of an old story.

It seems that in Ancient Rome, some guys were rounded up and thrown in dungeons as heathens. Their penalty was to face unfed lions in the arena, an event that always drew huge crowds. Then one day, the guards dragged this scrawny little guy from his cell, buried him up to his neck in the arena's midst and uncaged a gigantic, very hungry lion.

And, as the lion approached the buried guy and began to circle before pouncing to attack, the guy angled his head in a way where he bit the beast in the same place as the kid hit the bully on the bus. Then, as the lion jumped up in pain, squealed and ran away, the crowd of Romans began chanting and screaming, "Fight fair, heathen! Fight fair!"

So, in that regard, I guess things haven't changed a bit since ancient times where hopeless losers banded together and ranted against the very few who wouldn't give up and figured out a way to win against overwhelming odds.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 2/3/2011

2011-12-03T15:09:00.002-05:00

Herman Cain bowed to intense media pressure today and "suspended" his run for the presidency. I don't know why he used the word, "suspended", because to me that implies he might be back again. However, his comments certainly sounded like he'd packed up for good, including saying he'd endorse someone else in the presidential primary.

As for me, the reasons for his departure, involvement with other women as a married man, haven't been proven by any means, and may never be in the future. And I haven't a clue as to whether they're true or not. In the long run, he might very well overcome the accusations in that regard. But I think, as I've written several times before and mentioned today by Fox News, "under the glare of the national spotlight he fumbled policy questions, leaving questions about whether he was ready for the presidency."

And that's the real rub. Because the nation simply can't afford another inexperienced amateur in the White House. We're all paying dearly for a neophyte's delusions right now. And although Herman Cain is light years more seasoned, competent and proven in economic and business issues than the present incumbent, the job calls for far more than that.

Therefore, as much as I'd like to see someone like Herman Cain in office, bringing a new and refreshing change to the Washington scene, thanks to the horrendous hole we're in, now simply isn't the time. And while I have no idea of what Cain's next position will be, Secretary of the Treasury under President Romney, sounds pretty good to me.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/2/2011

2011-12-02T09:14:00.004-05:00

I write a lot about politicians in these entry's because they get so much exposure in the press. And also because of the nature of their jobs, which have great effect on all of our lives.

But what I find most interesting, if not utterly astounding, is how little regard they have for the public's intellect, because they spout distortions and untruths about themselves and their doings so blatantly that one has to assume they believe either we're all mindless dunces or that their BS can undo the facts.

In that regard, the president was speaking at a small campaign fundraiser at the home of, Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress. The president's now seeking to prove his commitment to Israel, because Republicans and Jewish voters are skeptical about steps he's taken. So, here's what the president claimed: "This administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration."

He went on: "Whether it's making sure that our intelligence cooperation is effective, to making sure that we're able to construct something like an Iron Dome so that we don't have missiles raining down on Tel Aviv, we have been consistent in insisting that we don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security. And that's not just something I say privately, that's something that I said in the U.N. General Assembly. And that will continue."

And while it's true that the president demonstrated his commitment to Israel in September, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly opposing Palestine's U.N. bid for statehood, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu effusively praised him for taking that position, what's he's left out is why the Palestinians sought statehood in the first place.

One of the things the president suggested regarding the Israel/Palestinian situation was that the nations go back to the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war to establish a Palestinian state. However, when he said that he had to be aware that the idea was totally unacceptable to Israel who's invested hugely in developing and populating the land to be given back, as well as to Israel's supporters all over the world.

Additionally, he's also done nothing material whatsoever to stop Iran from developing nuclear capability when it's well known to all where their bombs and rockets will be headed as soon as they're functional. Nonetheless he's also warned Israel to leave Iran alone.

Now, while its also true that The Clinton's were no friends of Israel either, and to find a president who really stood up for Israeli's you have to go all the way back to Nixon, none of the others tried to campaign on the great friendship they'd built either. At least the others had the good grace not to try to lie.

But, now that this president's concerned about his poll numbers and knows his track record's a miserable failure altogether, he's got to grab every straw he can find. But if he thinks he's going to bamboozle typical Jewish voters with some hustle about his love for the Israeli's he ought to call Anthony Wiener, former Congressman from New York.

In Wiener's case, they wouldn't buy hype and smoke from one of their own, electing Bob Turner, a retired cable executive, instead. Which says to me as far as most Jewish voters go; the president's just about dead.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 12/1/2011

2011-12-01T13:26:00.001-05:00

Caught this item on Fox News website just now. It says that since former President George W. Bush is traveling in Africa this week to promote AIDS relief efforts and raise awareness of cervical and breast cancer, Amnesty International, is urging three nations to arrest him during his visit for "crimes under international law."

AI is the largest human rights group in the world and said Thursday that "there is enough evidence in the public domain" to justify either Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia arresting the former president during his expected visit to the region, which started Thursday and lasts until Monday. He's traveling with his wife, Laura, and daughter, Barbara. The group said, "the three nations should investigate "his alleged involvement in and responsibility for torture."

Matt Pollard, senior legal adviser for the American branch of AI, said "All countries to which George W. Bush travels have an obligation to bring him to justice for his role in torture." And he went on, the president's visit is "notable for its public awareness campaign on women's cancer," but the humanitarian nature of the mission does not "lessen the damage to the fight against torture caused by allowing someone who has admitted to authorizing waterboarding to travel without facing the consequences prescribed by law. International law requires that there be no safe haven for those responsible for torture; Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia must seize this opportunity to fulfill their obligations and end the impunity George W. Bush has so far enjoyed."

What intrigued me most, aside from just the idea of arresting a former U.S. president on foreign soil, are the nations he'll be visiting. Because the first thought to pop into mind was the famous Peter Sellers movie, The Mouse That Roared wherein the following scene took place:
Prime Minster Count Rupert Mountjoy of the tiny, financially strapped country, Fenwick, says: We must declare war on the United States.
Benter: But we can never win such a war!
Prime Minster Count Rupert Mountjoy: Of course not, but we could win the peace. I've given this a lot of thought gentlemen and I'm perfectly positive that I am right. You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated.

Another scene has the United States Secretary of Defense saying: A fine thing, the United States and the Grand Duchy of Fenwick are at war, and it takes the F.B.I. to find out about it.

So, I can just imagine any, or all, of these three little African countries arresting "W" and throwing him in the slam, and then the U.S. sending in the military to get him out. I doubt it would be done as dramatically as the Kuwait invasion and Desert Storm, but would likely be called something like Operation Flyswat and involve a Navy Seal and a Piper Cub.

But nonetheless, I think it's remarkable that folks like this Amnesty guy go around shooting their mouths off without fear of retribution and have to wonder exactly what they'd do if they ever had to back their BS up.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 11/30/2011

2011-11-30T07:28:00.005-05:00

After listening to John Gambling on WOR radio this morning, my wife suggested I read an Op-Ed opinion column in today's New York Post, which Gambling quoted excerpts from. It was written by, Leon G. Cooperman, C.F.A. Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Omega Advisors, Inc., a $3.5 billion hedge fund based in New York City.

The reason the column caught her attention was that the author voiced several opinions quite similar to my own regarding the president. And while I found it quite interesting throughout, the last paragraphs pretty much sum up the author's thoughts.

He writes: "When you were a community organizer in Chicago, you learned the art of waging a guerrilla campaign against a far superior force. But you’ve graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force. You might do well at this point to eschew the polarizing vernacular of political militancy and become the transcendent leader you were elected to be.

You are likely to be far more effective, and history is likely to treat you far more kindly for it."

As for myself, I've written about the president's background in "community organizing" many times in prior blog's myself. Except I used somewhat different vernacular, calling him a baseball bat wielding thug ala typical Chicago political hacks. And when the author states that "you’ve graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force," I somewhat disagree, because I don't think the president's graduated at all.

While it's true that the president has arrived in a position that's light years above his political origins, I don't think he's grown an iota of an inch in stature, capability or maturity and is still the same old empty suit, except that the fabric's now much more expensive.

And that's where the author perhaps gave the president too much credit, because I think he made an over-assumption based on his own success. Coming from a home where his father was a plumber in the South Bronx who emigrated with his wife from Poland, the author was the first family member to earn a college degree. He credits utilizing a good public education system, attending PS 75, Morris High School and Hunter College (all in The Bronx, NY) and his parents’ constant prodding as the foundation for his later business and personal success.

So, here we have a guy (the author) who grew within the system by taking advantage of the opportunities afforded him (such as free education,) then went out and became a success in a twenty-five year career with Goldman Sachs. He later opened his own firm, which today manages $3.5 billion in assets. He also mentions that he gives back to the community in appreciation of what's been afforded him on a regular basis, although he mentioned no specifics.

As far as the president's concerned though, I don't get the sense that he feels that anyone who has less should strive to fend for themselves, as did the article's author, but instead should resent those who succeed and demand their support, particularly through increased taxes.

But, perhaps, it's all a matter of perspective as far as the author's concerned and maybe he's assuming everyone works as hard as he does to make a success of themselves. And because he accepts hard work and dedication as givens in all of us, maybe he doesn't realize that many people don't even try at all to succeed and gladly take all they can from those who do. And the one's who do the very least and take the very most all seem to be politicians, especially the one at the top of the heap.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 11/29/2011

2011-11-29T12:14:00.003-05:00

Read an article on Fox News this morning highlighting many quips, comments and retorts Barney Frank made over the years. According to the author, Chad Pergram, Frank's intelligence and facile wit helped separate him from his colleagues, making him a unique character among them and his image was such that he needed only one name: Barney. Yet, everyone knew who he was.

To prove his point the author's first illustration of Frank's glibness came at a hostile town hall meeting about health care reform in August, 2009. A woman in the audience held up a picture of President Obama depicted as Adolph Hitler, and challenged Frank by asking, "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported?"

Frank responded "in kind" according to the author by asking, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" His response drew both cheers and jeers from the audience, and then he went on: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table!"

Now from my perspective, after reading the exchange, the article's author may think Frank's glib or clever, or perhaps quite amusing, but to me he's a political hack dodging a question from a citizen with an opposing opinion. And I believe it's also much of the story of Frank's political life. He, and many others like him, take iron clad positions on any number of issues and then cut off discussion once their minds made up.

As for me, I have no problem with politicos lining up on any side of an issue they choose, and really don't care about their opinions because I have my own. But, I don't believe disrespecting or insulting dissenters is particularly clever, in fact it's what third graders do in school yards. However, most of those kids eventually grow up.

So I guess we're back to the same old situation where a guy in Congress who has a tenth of a brain is light years smarter than the rest of the members. And the article I highlighted today just provides further confirmation that the vast majority of those holding office (and those who report on them) are dumber than stones.

That's it for today folks.Adios

BloggeRhythms 11/28/2011

2011-11-28T15:29:00.000-05:00

Gee Whiz! Today, Barney Frank who's been in Congress since 1980, said today he's not running for re-election in 2012. His reason is "redistricting has made it too strenuous to continue to campaign."

So, maybe he's the first in what hopefully be a long line of others who see the handwriting on the wall, and rather than lose in a landslide next year, bow out gracefully now. I'd list some of the legislation he's responsible for that's causing our economy to tank, but there's not enough room in this blog to even start typing out the horror show he's either directly or with others created.

But he's another intellectual elitist with a first class educational pedigree who knows what's best for businesspeole and the economy although he's never really had a real job in his life. In fact, if you let he and Dodd alone together long enough regarding financial legislation,the U.S would soon be the largest non-functional parking lot in the world.

So, obviously, I'm not saddened by his coming departure next year but would feel even better if he gave us all a holiday gift and simply left office tomorrow.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 11/27/2011

2011-11-27T17:54:00.002-05:00
Still nothing much in the news, but I caught a few minutes of Ed Wallace's show on Fox. And he must read this blog too, because the subect his panel of experts was discussing was the Gingrich/Bachmann flap over illegal immigration.

However, the thing that caught my eye was something said by Bill Kristol, conservatve founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel.

Kristol said, however the debate winds up, he doubts millions of illegals will ever be deported because they've built lives here, have homes, familys, etc. since they've arrived, which is pretty much in line with the amnesty Gingrich wants to give them.

What interested me though, was not so much the illegals themselves, because I'm sure there are plenty of upstanding folks in their ranks just like any other group in society. But my focus is on the law. Because either we have laws or we don't, and either people obey them at will or not. But, if diobedienece is alright in this case, why not in any other way you can think of?

So, I don't think illegals should be deported because of who the folks are, I think anyone who breaks laws should be subject to whatever consequences are involved. And if that's not the case, but instead people can choose which laws they want to obey, tomorrow I'm parking my car on the sidewalk because it's closer to the front of my favorite store.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 11/26/2011

2011-11-26T14:49:00.002-05:00
I think it's pretty amazing that when the holidays arrive, it seems that either nothing important happens anywhere, or nobody cares because they've all got better things to do.

And as I type this, an idea occurred to me. Why not have more holidays declared, perhaps once or twice a week. That way folks would be otherwise occupied, leave each other alone, and the world would be better for it. Simply having Congress shut down makes life far simpler and worthwhile.

But since there's not much going on, I really had to scrounge around to find something to blog about. And what I found isn't really important, but does confirm one of my earlier entry's this week in which I said now that Gingrich's topping some polls I didn't think it would be long before competitors began digging up his less than stellar past.

And just today, Michelle Bachmann stood by her claim that he supports "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, digging up a letter the former House speaker signed nearly eight years ago, after he said she was "misrepresenting."

Gingrich, who said at a Republican presidential primary debate that the U.S. should afford some illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status, has now "clarified" that he only wants to open that door for some illegal immigrants who have been in the country 25 years or more.

In an interview with Fox News, Bachmann cited a 2004 letter Gingrich co-authored supporting then-President George W. Bush's immigration plan. The letter applauded Bush's proposed guest-worker program, while endorsing "paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America." The letter, published in The Wall Street Journal, praised Bush for recognizing that "those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave."

Now, I really haven't much interest in what either Bachmann or Gingrich have to say about anything, ever. And frankly, I doubt either either one will win any kind of nomination. My only point in the matter is that the situation is evidence of my original thought, that sooner or later Gingrich's history will be exposed and broadcast, and he'll be shown as the two-bit phony loudmouth political hack he is.

In the meantime though, he'll get another fifteen minutes and Bachmann will keep milking hers. And as for me I'll just sit here waiting for something important to happen somewhere else because neither of today's subjects are worth the keystrokes.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 11/25/2011

2011-11-25T16:24:00.002-05:00
I haven't come across the reason yet, but apparently there was some kind of glitch in the protesters plan to block folks from entering major retailer's stores today.

According to Fox News, by early afternoon on Black Friday some retailers are already calling this year one of the best in recent history. Some 152 million shoppers are expected to visit stores seemingly unfazed by the slumped economy.

Additionally, unless I missed it, the protesters had no plan to disrupt on-line sales which are expected to produce another promising season this year, up 39% from last year. Mobile traffic, the number of consumers using a mobile device to visit a retailer’s site, reached a high of 15.2%, up 6.45% year-over-year, while the number of people mobile shopping grew to 11.09%, almost triple from 2010.

IBM said, “Thanksgiving 2011 proved to be a banner shopping day for online retailers.”

So I guess the protesters don't have a lot of technology in their tents, or hand-held devices. And from what I've seen, most of their hand-held devices are signs containing considerable numbers of mis-spelled words and threats to various sectors of society. However, most of the folks that are in those sectors may have missed the admonitions coming from the Wall Street anti-everything squad because they were either out buying stuff from retailers in person, or downloading deals on the net.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms 11/24/2011

2011-11-24T20:06:00.001-05:00
To provide reassurance that those protesting on Wall Street are clueless as to how the U.S. economy works they now have a new campaign idea called "Occupy Black Friday."

According to Fox News, their objective is to enlist supporters to boycott just about every major retailer, and quite a few mid-sized ones, the day after Thanksgiving. They're urging folks to demonstrate against the top retail stores,including everything from Wal-Mart to Target to Dick's Sporting Goods and Dollar Tree.

The protesters say "The idea is simple, hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts, their profits," and state that Black Friday is the "one day where the mega-corporations blatantly dictate our actions."

So, if I understand their position, protesters are saying that major retailers have somehow gained control over the minds of the public and are forcing us to line up at their stores whether we choose to or not. And if that's really true, I'm really impressed because I thought it was the price wars, special sales offers and huge selections of merchandise that brought most folks in. However, none of that seems to matter now, because that's not what does it...the answer's actually mass hypnotism.

Consequently, if I was a protester and had nothing at all to do with my time, I'd do some really intensive research and find out how all this mass hypnosis works. And then I'd apply it to get myself hired, whether an employer wanted me or not. And that way, I'd probably be still wasting time and taking up space, but at least I'd be making a couple of bucks.

That's it for today folks.

Adios