I hear that Obama was being criticized by conservative Republicans for not thanking God during his Thanksgiving speech. I am sure it was an oversight because no president would intentionally forget to mention God in one of his speeches even though there is suppose to be separation of church and state. Does it not seem that every presidential speech ends with "May God bless the United States of America."? I think that Obama simply forgot to thank God because he has so many other people to thank but cannot thank them during his speech. Couple of examples:

Obama wants to thank 7 Republican candidates who have no chance of winning but stay in the race to give Romney trouble and force him to act more conservative than he really is.

Actually Obama does want to thank God for telling the Republican candidates to run. Several of them have claimed that he or she is running because God told him or her to do so. If indeed God had wanted anyone of these people WIN, He would have only told one of them to run. Based on that logic, I think God is a Democrat!

Obama wants to thank Romney for the blueprint of his healthcare plan.

Obama wants to thank Gingrich and Perry for ideas on immigration.

In this time of Thanksgiving I think some other people have obvious reasons to be thankful:

Rick Neuheisel gives thanks for USC being on probation and hiring Lane Kiffin. This was the only possible way for UCLA to catch up to USC.

Lane Kiffin is thankful that UCLA hired Neuheisel ensuring that UCLA cannot catch up to USC.

UCLA is thankful that the PAC 10 became the PAC12 thus split into 2 divisions. So UCLA, after losing to USC tomorrow, can go to the conference championship game with a 6-6 record. They can also become the first team to go to a bowl game and finish the season 2 games below .500.

The SEC gives thanks to all the incompetent major conferences to ensure that they will be the only ones playing at the BCS championship game.

The NHL is thankful to the NBA owners and players for giving them their share of the winter sport spotlight.

Many people from Wall Street and the mortgage industry should be thankful that they are not in jail. One major figure convicted of wrongdoings after three years?

Well, I am getting tire and sleepy from all the eating the last two days. So I am thankful that I don't have to write anymore for now!

I always believe that one's moral standing is judged by what he does when nobody is watching and not by what he says. Politicians are often exhibit no. 1 for my point on this. Herman Cain is just the latest one. Newt Gingrich and John Edwards are example of people who talked about morality and then would cheat on their wives while they are dying. A few politicians quote the Bible about the evil of homosexuality and then were caught doing those same acts. The Catholic Church not only have their pedophile priests but also bishops and cardinals who covered up the crime. So whenever someone pontificate about morality, I always react skeptically now. I mean you do not have to memorize the Ten Commandments or have a PhD in ethics to know what is right or wrong. It is doing the right thing when nobody is monitoring you that show what kind of moral you have.

The PSU scandal is latest example where you have to take it with a grain of salt when you listen to morality talk from a figure of authority. Those who worshiped Paterno have found that he is a false idol. I wish that people who tend to pontificate about morality would stop it already. They are almost certain to not meet the standard they set for themselves and others. When the truth comes out they will add hypocrisy to the list of their faults.

Each day seems to bring out more accusers against Herman Cain. I thought in the beginning he could have put it away by admitting to the settlement on first two cases. He should have said that he remembered that the NRA came to him with the allegations and after investigating decided to settle for a minimal amount to make the cases go away. In this litigious society, settling cases for $30,000 to 40,000 to avoid the cost and hassle of a trial, would not make one look guilty. Since there was a non-disclose clause in the settlements, nothing else can be said about it. Instead Cain at first denied the cases, then claim to have forgotten and then claimed that those were not settlements. This makes him out to be a liar. I don't think anyone who was sued for sexual harassment would forget the cases, unless there were a lot of cases! Then he tried to use the race card and that just made things worse.

One thing for sure the Democrats are enjoying this. Cain and his supporters, by complaining that this is a liberal witch hunt, make themselves look worse. The Democrats want Cain to win the Republican nomination. It would be easier to beat him than Romney. So there was no reason to try to bring him down. One of her accuser, Bialek, is a Republican and met him again recently at a Tea Party event. So there is no liberal conspiracy here and everyone knows it. The only thing in Cain's favor is that Bialek used Gloria Allred as her lawyer. This diminishes her credibility. But given Cain's implausible denials, I don't think most people are going to believe him.

Having said that, it is interesting in the Republican debate tonight, the audience booed the questions about Cain's allegations. Even at a Republican event, it is hard to believe that such a big majority support Cain. Even if they believe he is not guilty, the way he handled the whole thing does not make him look presidential. Of course, Rick Perry took him off the hook a bit tonight when he forgot the third cabinet department he promised to cut as president. When Paul suggested EPA, Perry agreed. Later on he remembered that it was the Dept. of Energy. Being from Texas, how can he forget energy? This debate and others show that he really has not think things through and is totally unprepared to run for president. As a result, this makes Cain looked better. I noticed all the candidate were against the bailouts. Romney was against the auto bailouts in the past. Obviously he has to stick to this position now as he tries to get the nomination. Michigan is one of the states that he can take from Obama but I wonder how going against the auto bailout will affect him in the general election?

When Warren Buffett said that rich people pay too little, a lot of Republicans blasted him saying that he is so rich, it does not matter to him how much he pays. They said that it is the small business people who make between $250,000 to $1,000,000 that would be affected if the Bush tax cut were to be reversed. They argue that if the top bracket would have to pay more, these small business people would be less likely to expand their business and thus hurt the economic recovery. I find this argument is absurd.

Let's look at the math. The top tax rate during the Clinton years was 39.6%. The top rate with the Bush cut is now 35%. So basically the top bracket people will pay 5% more after the first $250,000. So the guy who makes say $300,000 with pay 5% more of $50,000, ie $2,500. I don't think that any business person will make a decision on hiring more employees or expanding his company base on $2500. Even the guy who makes a million will pay 5% more of $750,000 or $37,500 more. Would a guy who makes a million from his business make a hiring or expansion decision on $37,500? I don't think so. People who want to build their business would not let a few thousand dollars stop them from achieving what they want. Anyway if tax cuts increase hiring and business expansion, then how come that didn't happen after the Bush tax cut?

If people say that Buffett can be generous because he makes so much that it does not matter, then I think you can say the same for the other 400 plus billionaires in America. Why aren't many of them stand up and say the same?