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?

With the news today that Joe the Plumber is running for office in Ohio, it reminds me of my blog from Oct. 2008, right before the last presidential election. You remember Joe the Plumber? His first name was not really Joe and he was not a licensed plumber. The Republicans tried to use him against Obama and he eventually became a supporter of the Tea Party. I don't know if he will win but it reminded me of the blog about all the different types of Joes that Obama and McCain could have used in their campaign. I noticed that the number 9 is being used during this campaign. You have Cain's 9-9-9 plan and Romney's 59 steps and the Wall Street Occupiers claiming they are the 99% of the population. Don't forget that the unemployment rate is stuck at around 9% for a long time now. Coincidences? I think not. Obama and McCain did not use my Joe ideas but maybe the Republican candidates today will try some of my number 9 ideas:

Michele Bachmann will try to get a vp nomination by saying that John Adam was helped by a woman called 99. I don't think she will Get Smart and know it was Don Adam.

Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman will be dialing 911 soon because their campaigns are dying.

Michele Bachmann will demand equal opportunity to play because of Title IX.

In trying to get the Canadians who became naturalized citizen to vote, a candidate will claim that he is the Great One of politics, old number 99.

Romney, whose family is from Michigan, will say that he is the really Mr. Hockey by claiming jersey #9, worn by Gordie Howe.

Ron Paul will claim that he is so frugal that he does all his shopping at 99 cent stores.

Football is king in Texas but Rick Perry will declare that he likes baseball better because it is played by 9 players a side over 9 innings.

Perry will also claim that Texas is so powerful that he is responsible for gas prices always ending in .99 cents.

Cain will start offering 9 topping pizzas for $9.99 from Godfather's Pizza. It is an offer you can't refuse unless you want a horse head on your bed.

Romney will try to get rid of his Mormon image by singing "99 bottles of beer on the wall".

John McCain will get back into the race by claiming he has 9 lives.

In trying to get the Hispanic vote, a candidate will try to get the football player Ocho Cinco to change his name to Nueve Nueve.

There are 8 Republican candidates. At the end of the primary season the Republicans will likely wish there was a #9: Chris Christie.

A few days ago the LA Times reported that only about 20% of NCAA division 1 schools made a profit from the athletic department. Most have to be subsidized by the school with general funds or student activity fees. I think that would make a strong argument against paying athletes. How can you expect other students to pay more and do with less in the classroom so that elite athletes can get paid? There is an argument that since football (and maybe basketball) teams bring in most of the money then those athletes should be paid. That will create a two tier system, although one can say that this already exist as football and basketball players get more perks even now.

It is amazing to me that in this time of economic crisis that so much money is thrown into college sports. Most public schools are running deficits and tuition is rising, but there is no cutbacks in most of these schools. Cal tried to cut a few sports last year but donations poured in to reinstate them. How come there isn't enough donations to stop cutting of classes available or to lower the tuition? Oregon is improving their athletic facility because of generous donation from Philip Knight of Nike. So they have become a football power but their academics is still mediocre. Now Conference USA and Mountain West are trying to merge. I think they will have teams from Virginia all the way to Idaho. None of these schools except for maybe Boise State can possibly make a profit. Wouldn't you think that the traveling expense increase will dramatically increase with this merger? Also the long travels will cause more fatigue for the students. The original idea of collegiate sports was a sound mind in a sound body. I think we have lost our minds.

It seems that with each passing season I find less and less good programs on tv. There are a lot more channels than ever before but that only means there are more junks on than before. I am especially annoyed by all these reality shows. The Real Housewives of _______ are all terrible. I don't want to know anything about the Kardashians. How many singing competitions are there on now a days? American Idol was very good in the beginning but I don't see how one can watch so many of these copycat shows. I used to like Dancing with the Stars but this season I just can't into it. There were always annoying people on like Kate Gosselin and Floyd Mayweather, but this season there seems to be more of them. And what was that Carrie Ann crying over Chas Bono's performance? It was terrible! And Nancy Grace had the gall to say that she deserved 8s! Let's get some originality in programming!

If the above rant doesn't make me sound old then consider that I like couple of the shows that are from the 60's. Mad Men and Pan Am. Now you know I am old. To me these shows bring back memories of how I saw America when I was a young boy and an immigrant. I am sure a lot people like these shows because of nostalgia. It was a time when America was #1 in almost everything and was still rising. Everybody likes American products and want to travel in luxurious jets like Americans. But to me these shows are a reminder for those who want to go back to the good old days: it wasn't as great as you remember them to be. Everybody was smoking and drinking nonstop on Mad Men which meant that people from that era died much sooner and suffered more health problems earlier. There were not much opportunities for women or minorities. Witness the people in power were all white males then. Even for most white men life was not necessary better than today. The main character in Mad Men was very high in the corporate ladder. Yet his home would be about middle class level today. Add to the fact that there was worry about the Russians attacking us, you can see that the good old days were not as good as we think. Of course I think most people today would be correct if they rather be traveling on Pan Am with the characters from Mad Men than be on Spirit Airline with cast of Jersey Shores!

With the announcement of Christie and Palin that they will not run, the race to be the Republican nominee will be down to Perry and Romney. There is no time left for anyone else to get in the race and raise money and get an organization going, what with the first primaries and caucuses being pushed earlier and earlier. A few weeks ago I predicted that either Romney or Perry will win with Bachmann and Paul hanging on for few more months. This looks to be correct. However, I had no idea that Herman Cain would be among the top three at this time. I thought he would have been eliminated. Still there is no chance that he will win. The Republicans are just frustrated with the performance of Perry and Bachmann and they don't really like Paul and Romney. All the conservative talk by Cain, delivered much better than Perry, have gotten him this far. But now that people are noticing him, there will be more scrutiny and he will fall out soon enough.

The conservatives had pushed Perry into the race. Then they found out they don't really like his stand on immigration and the HPV vaccine! Plus they found he couldn't debate well. I still think that he has a decent chance because most Republicans still don't like Romney. But again I think if the country stays the same next fall, Romney will have even chance against Obama, while Perry would lose to Obama. Perry can win, of course, if the economy gets even worse or if there is a terrorist attack. Perry can also win if he gets Christie to be vp. But after declining so many times, I don't think Christie will accept vp either. I think if the Republicans lose to Obama again, and Christie loses 50 lbs, I will guarantee that he will run in 2016.

Couple of days ago the Republican club of UC Berkeley put on a bake sale which has the following price structure: Whites $2.oo, Asians $1.50, Latinos $1.00 Blacks $.75, Native Americans $.25. Women are given a $.25 discount. This is an attempt at satire of the liberals in California who are trying to pass a bill that would allow the UC to consider race and gender in admission as long as no preference are given. This is basically a way to bring back affirmative action which had been outlawed by a proposition a few year back. Now I don't understand this bill since logically if you do not given preference to a gender or a race, then why do you consider gender or race? The liberals respond to the sale by lying on the ground nearby in protest. It seems to me that neither side are too bright. Let me explain why.

It is obvious that the Republicans think that the group most discriminated against if there was affirmative action would be white males because they would have to pay more than anyone else. It seems to me either these Republicans have not done their research or they are mostly white males. At Berkeley there are more Asians than whites and more females than males. It is also true that Asian applicants, especially the females, have the highest GPA. So if there is less emphasis on grades and SAT, then the group that would lose out the most will be Asian females. So to say that Asians and especially Asian females have an advantage over white males is absurd.

The price structure of the bake sale shows that the Republicans are not very good business people. If a Native American female comes by, she can "buy" all the bake goods for nothing. Now the liberals are not so smart either since they could have used this tactic and make the Republicans bankrupt right away. But instead they make fools of themselves by lying on the ground. So I am thinking maybe Berkeley people are not all that smart. Weren't the hikers that wandered into Iran from Berkeley? Talk about no common sense!

The Palestinians are applying to the UN for recognition as an independent country. This is another headache that Obama does not need. If the Palestinians get 9 votes in the security council then the U.S. has vowed to veto it. I don't understand why the U.S. has to be the one sticking out its neck. Why can't Britain or France veto it? Is it because their leaders don't have to worry so much about the Israel lobby back home? Obama can't afford to lose the Jewish vote but of course if he has to veto then the Muslim extremists will say that the U.S. is the only country that stand in the way of an Arab country from forming. That will go a long way to recruiting terrorists!

Of course everyone knows that this is only a symbolic gesture on the part of the Palestinians. They would not get a country by a UN resolution. This can only happen with a peace settlement. Now Congress is threatening to cut off aid to the Palestinians because of this action. Yeah, that will really discourage the recruitment of terrorists! I just hope that they don't get enough votes to force Obama to veto.

I didn't get to watch most of the Republican debate tonight. I guess there was not anything earth shocking that occurred. The only thing that caught my attention was that Romney attacked Perry of saying social security is a ponzi scheme. Perry did not back away from that statement and reiterated it. I agree with Romney that this a major blunder that would be a big issue in the general election. Add to the fact that Perry at least did not refute the idea of Texas seceding from the Union, I think this certainly make Romney the more electable Republican candidate. I had thought that with Perry in the race, Romney would have to move more to the right to win the nomination but I think Romney realizes that he cannot out-right Perry and would instead show that Perry is too extreme. If this works, Romney will be a more formidable candidate against Obama next year.

Tomorrow is Obama's speech. I wonder if anybody will be watching with the start of the NFL! I don't have high expectations for this either. As I said before, there is not much any president can do to ensure the economy will improve. Otherwise they will all have done it and we would never be in a recession! As good of a speaker Obama is, he has not galvanize the country to his side so far so there is no reason this will be any different. Anyways, the Republican will go against whatever he says. Obviously he will use that against the Republicans but he doesn't have to announce that he will use that against the Republicans BEFORE he even spoke! This strikes as just a political ploy. So I will watch the speech but pay more attention to the football game as will most of the country.