Tuesday, January 31, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/31/2012

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.


Monday, January 30, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/30/2012

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.


Sunday, January 29, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/29/2012

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.


Saturday, January 28, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/28/2012

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.


Friday, January 27, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/27/2012

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.


Thursday, January 26, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/26/2012

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.


Wednesday, January 25, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/25/2012

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.


Tuesday, January 24, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/24/2102

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.


Monday, January 23, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/23/2012

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.


Sunday, January 22, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/22/2012

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.


Saturday, January 21, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/21/2012

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.


Friday, January 20, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/20/2012

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.


Thursday, January 19, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/19/2012

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.


Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Bloggerhythms 1/18/2012

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.


Tuesday, January 17, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/17/2012

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.


Monday, January 16, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/16/2012

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.


Sunday, January 15, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/15/2012

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.


Saturday, January 14, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/14/2012

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.


Friday, January 13, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/13/2012

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.


Thursday, January 12, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/12/2012

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.


Wednesday, January 11, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/11/2012

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.  


Tuesday, January 10, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/10/2011

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.


Monday, January 9, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/9/2011

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.


Sunday, January 8, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/8/2012

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.


Saturday, January 7, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/7/2012

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.


Friday, January 6, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/6/2012

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.


Thursday, January 5, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/5/2012

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.


Wednesday, January 4, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/4/2012

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.


Tuesday, January 3, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/3/2012

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.


Monday, January 2, 2012

BloggeRhythms 1/2/2012

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.