Well, now we have a race in the Republican nomination process! Just a week ago Romney was on the verge of winning the first 3 states, unprecedented for someone who is not a sitting president. Now in one week he loses Iowa where he was declared the winner couple of weeks ago, and he gets stomped by Gingrich in South Carolina. I am thinking that the evangelicals who voted for Gingrich must think that he is Jesus. After all he has risen from the dead! How else can you explain that people who claim that they see moral values as very important can support a man who was accused by his ex-wife for immoral behavior. Even if you think that the ex-wife is unreliable, since she did cheat with him when he was married to someone else, the fact remains that he cheated at least twice. His supporters will say that Clinton cheated. Yes, and as I said before; if you disqualified everyone who cheated, you have eliminated half of the population. But to cheat when your wife is dying, like Gingrich and John Edwards, that would be a much lower low. Now by blaming the media, Gingrich gets more support? I think I have said this before: Whenever someone claims moral value or moral authority, you have to take their words with a grain of salt.
In fact I think I might have said that above when the PSU scandal came out. I did agree with the firing of Paterno because I think as the idol of the university he should have done more when he found out about the abuse. To those who said he got the raw deal, I say that they would feel differently if their brother or son were to be abused by Sandusky after Paterno had found out. Having said this, I felt very sad to hear of Paterno's passing this morning. I think it is extremely unfortunate that his legacy will be tainted by this episode. I also think the burden of this made his illness much worse and led to a much faster death. I think for most of his life, he lived it with integrity and did a lot to help many young men. I think the situation with Sandusky was something that people of "old school" really never had to deal with. If Paterno had retired when he was 70 years old like most coaches, he would never had to deal with this scandal. Unfortunately he stayed too long and being a basically good person, this had to have tormented him to the end. May he rest in peace and hopefully history will be kind to him.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
9 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, you and I have been saying that politicians are hypocrites and there is probably none greater than Newt.
ReplyDeleteHow can I have faith in my fellow man when they are making decisions to choose Newt for reasons that make no sense?
If you want to say you're voting for him because he will work both sides of the aisle, fine. But to do so because he's a moral leader makes no sense.
I really could care less if he cheated on his wife, but I don't go around preaching morality either.
As far as JoePa goes, I've been struggling with how I view him. A part of me wants his statue taken down and his name taken down from the library at PSU. Another part of me feels that he was a good man and he just made a mistake.
As I said previously, I think his reaction to the Sandusky thing was probably normal for someone from his generation and I also think he did it to protect the school and the program.
What ended up happening is by not taking it further, he's forever tarnished his legacy and the school. It doesn't take away from what good he has done in his life, so I side on forgiving him.
When you get a chance, could you write about what you know of Solyndra and the other solar companies that are the focus in some TV ads I'm seeing?
I understand that the Obama Admin. backed funding for these companies and they went bankrupt. Now was this an old boys deal or were these companies legit and just could not make it due to falling silicon prices?
I mean, I think we agree that alternative energies must be looked at and invested in. We are always going to have failures. I would assume that big oil was opposed to these companies too.
Speaking of big oil, what are your thoughts on the pipeline that got turned down by the Obama Admin. last week?
Not sure how I feel about it. I would think that if it were to somehow help with gas prices, I'd be OK with it. But we all can see that the jobs created were small and only temporary.
Happy New Year!
-LBOAYM
You give me two tough topics! I will try my best but these are more opinions than hard, indisputable facts!
ReplyDeleteWith solyndra I believe it was a case of over eagerness of the Obama administration to tout a green energy firm with hope of increasing employment. I think the money Obama got from the company was not the reason he went with the loan. The people who researched the company for the government were the same people who started the process under Bush. They were going to approve the deal but told the administration that the work isn't completed. So basically Obama jumped the gun.
Solyndra did have better and newer technology. But as in many businesses the better product does not always mean you beat the competition. Otherwise Wal-mart would not beat everybody else. The Chinese had older technology but they were way cheaper. If you are putting panels on your roof, it costs a lot to do it. It takes a long time to make your money back. So if the newer technology takes a lot longer to break even, then you are going to buy the cheaper one. I mean, you don't know how long you are going to live in the house and you don't care if the person after you have the newest panels or not, right? Also after they got the loan, I think Solyndra got complacent and that is never good when you are competing with China. So yes, in this case government did not help and possibly hurt. Obama made a mistake but everybody wants green energy to succeed right?
Keystone is a no win for Obama. Go along with it the environmentalists are after him. Oppose it the Republicans and oddly enough, unions who want high paying jobs, will be after him. That is why he wanted to postpone the decision until after the election.
There are two environmental issues here. One is the risks of the pipeline going through the heartland of America and there are areas in Nebraska, for example, where a spill would be devastating for water to millions of people and crops. I think this can be addressed by moving the route and I think the company is willing to do that. If this is done, I think Obama might change his mind.
The second issue is the effect on the environment from using this type of fossil energy. There are pros and cons on this but I understand most of it will not be used in the U.S. but will be transported elsewhere. I understand that if Keystone is not built, it won't hurt us energy wise but Canada will then build a pipeline to British Columbia where it will be put into oil tankers there. These fuel will be used whether we build Keystone or not. So the environmental effect will not be different. Until better energy sources are found, countries like China, Japan and India will buy these fuel when they are available. So I don't think the environmental issues should decide this. I would rather that we make the money on transportation and the shipping ports than BC. So unless Obama eventually change his mind after the route is changed, I would disagree with Obama on this one.
Thanks for clearing some stuff up on my questions. Pretty much what I thought too. Though as far as the pipeline goes, I didn't realize that we would not get to keep the oil from it and that it would be going overseas anyway. In which case, to me, it doesn't matter if we build it here.
ReplyDeleteThe economic impact is small and the risks outweigh the rewards. Now, if you're telling me that shipping oil out of the U.S. is good for the economy, then I may have to reassess but the temporary jobs created won't mean much.
Canada is talking about shipping to China from the west coast of Canada anyway if this thing isn't built. Why would they want to lose a cut in the shipping if it's such a money maker (by having the U.S. ship)?
Now hopefully the amount of oil exported will help the global supply and lower prices, but this won't happen for years anyway.
-LBOAYM
I had the same thought when I read before about the alternative pipeline to BC. You are also right that the job created is not 20,000 as the company and the Republicans are touting but only in the hundreds to a couple thousands. I think Canada does want to sell to the U.S. because it would be more profitable than to ship overseas. The U.S. do want to have access to at least some of the oil because you never know when a crisis may arrive. Also at the Gulf there are lots of refineries which can produce end products to be shipped, thus may help the Texas economy. I also think the environmental issue isn't as important as the green people say because right now oil is being sent from North Dakota and Montana via rail which I think is more dangerous than by pipeline. But yes, this is a difficult issue and I don't envy Obama having to make the decision in an election year.
ReplyDeleteDidn't get a chance to watch much of the State of Union address so I will have to read about it tomorrow even though I don't expect any surprises. Did you see it? If so, any thoughts?
I had the State of the Union playing in the background but didn't really pay too much attention to it.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, I vaguely remember talking about it last year and saying on your blog that they should get rid of the speech and just have him do it in the oval office without the members of congress, justices, defense, etc. there.
I'm convinced that the opposite side doesn't listen to the president and his words never make a difference. So really all the president is doing is pandering to the public.
So that brings me to last night. I thought the speech was OK. I guess if I were a fan, I would have loved the speech, but to me being unbiased, I thought it lacked substance.
I liked that he was trying to rally the country and trying to force bipartisanship, but I fear that it will fall on deaf ears.
Example of this are interviews with Gingrich and other right wingers this morning who a still spewing the same rhetoric.
I thought Indiana's governor did an OK job with the rebuttal last night, though I almost fell asleep with his slow speaking style.
The speech was vague and he did not go into detail about his ideas, so to me it was more of a campaign speech.
I liked having Warren Buffet's secretary in the audience, but would have been more impressed with having Mr. Buffet there, right next to her.
The GOP will not answer the question raised last night about the 30% tax rate and if it is fair that the secretary pays a higher rate than he does. It just goes to show who's side they're on.
So I realize I went off on a tangent there. Overall I gave the speech a 7 maybe 6.5.
I thought his speech last year was better. Anxious to hear what you think.
-LBOAYM
Well, not much reason to be anxious to hear what I have to say. I agree with almost all of your points, including the grade you gave him and that this was not as good as those in the past. Instead of audacity of hope, it is fairness in opportunity. It is obvious which one is more inspirational. Obama cannot sell hope for change after 3 years so he has to compare himself to whoever the Republican nominates. It is not about envy but about fairness.
ReplyDeleteThere were some issues where he put himself near where the Republicans stand. He called for new drive to attract manufacturing jobs back from overseas, something Santorum insists it is possible. In reality, it is not and Obama knows it. He wants to get tough with China, something Romney hammers at all the time. In truth there is little we can do without going on a trade war. He also called for more production of domestic oil, a favorite of Republicans. He said everything is on the table to stop Iran from getting nukes. In reality there is nothing that can guarantee that short of all out war. I hope he is not contemplating that! Sticking near the Republicans on these issues won't lose any votes but won't win any either. Notably not much about green jobs after the Solyndra scandal! He was glad to talk about an old industry: cars. He touted the success of the revival of GM and Chrysler. Not so subtle of a jab at Romney who was against rescuing the auto industry.
But ultimately it is the stark contrast of the haves and have nots that Obama is using to attack the Republicans. All of these is to be expected but he got an unexpected boost. Romney happened to release his tax returns the same day! I don't know who has been advising Romney but he has been running since 2008 so the need to release tax return should not be a surprise. Even if he did everything legally, the fact that he had accounts in the Caymans and Switzerland raise red flags. If there are really no problem, why all the secrecy? And what about the returns before this? As a result this helps Obama's rather unremarkable speech.
Wow, I did not hear about Romney releasing his statements. His handlers must be scared after Newt won SC.
ReplyDeleteThere's no way, if I am working the Romney campaign do I release them now. I mean, he's been dodging the issue forever and there's no point to do it now, especially if he's got potential skeletons. It just makes things worse. I can almost see this as a turning point in the campaign by releasing the records.
I've got a feeling that Newt will take Florida and Obama's got to be grinning.
By the way, I found it interesting that the governors of Arizona and Louisiana came out and bashed Obama for scolding them as soon as he got off Air Force One, when he visited their states. We will probably never know what was really said but apparently Obama was on the offensive as soon as he deplaned and criticized both governors over things they said about him publicly.
I'm also surprised that the White House didn't over do the successful hostage rescue mission this week. As far as I'm concerned, Obama needs to milk these things as much as possible.
-LBOAYM
Everybody assumes that Brewer was wagging her finger at Obama. Maybe she was just saying Obama #1! She is controversial to say the least. But by doing this she is selling more books than she could ever hoped for.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if Obama could have milked much out of rescue. I personally think it is too risky for navy seals to go on a dangerous operation to save one American (and a Dane). This is the best and probably only good outcome possible. If any seals or hostages are killed then there would have been a debate and backlash against Obama.
Watched a big part of the debate tonight. I thought Santorum came out looking the best. He did a much better job than Gingrich of attacking Romney. Gingrich looked unprepared tonight. I guess he can only look good by attacking the media. But he can't just do that every time. Romney did well most of the night except when he tried to block Santorum's attack on his health care plan. He tried to make his success in investment a positive instead of a negative. For the most part it worked, Gingrich could not attack him on it. But he was still saying things like "my trustee" or "my investment is in a blind trust to prevent conflict of interests". This may all be good legal arguments but how many of us have a investment trustee or a blind trust? He still comes across as a rich elitist.
We've had some long dialogue on this one. I happen to catch a few minutes of the debate. Mind you I'd rather be watching other things on a Thursday night, but because of this discussion, I almost felt compelled to watch.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few good one liners in this one which I liked. Newt, I thought, screwed up, when he attacked Romney on his investment in, I believe, Fannie May. Romney had a good come back and said that it was part of his investment portfolio and that he does not get to choose that. Romney also asked Newt if he had investments and said that his portfolio also probably had Fannie May in it.
All Newt could do was say yes.
The more I hear Santorum speak, the less I like him. I don't know if he's just not as polished as the other guys (which usually is a plus in some cases) but it doesn't come off very presidential to me.
I felt awkward when he talked about his connections in Puerto Rico and wasn't sure where he was going with that. Overall, I thought the candidates seemed to avoid a lot of the issues/questions that were asked by the audience.
I am also not sure if I like Romney's policy on Israel. I personally don't see a good or evil in the conflict with Israel and Palestine. I think both sides are at fault and to me, it's a tragedy that neither wants to work toward peace.
As far as Obama goes. I was surprised that he made the order to go after the hostages on the same night as the state of the union. I admit that it took balls to make the call. Now that it worked, I still think he should have milked it. He didn't even mention it at the state of the union.
We're seeing a push for more coverage on it now, so maybe someone is paying attention to my ideas!
Obama is in Ann Arbor today. Interesting that he would stop here and not in Chicago or even Florida. I have not heard his speech but I'll probably listen to the sound bytes later.
-LBOAYM