Critics want the BCS to switch to a playoff system

Well, it looks as though the President has weighed in with a request from Republic Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.

" the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch’s request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.".

I have pretty much stayed out of this discussion even though I would like to see a playoff system. The mountain is too high to climb. This is an old boys network at it's worst making sure the 'premiere' conferences have the guaranteed bowl bids regardless of their records and the rest are left to fight for the scraps. Truly it is all about money.

What changed my mind and tune on this subject was a statement from Bill Hancock, executive director of the BCS. Mr Hancock stated, “The consensus of the schools is to go with the BCS,” Hancock added. “We feel strongly the people in higher education are the people best equipped to manage college football.”

Did you read the final sentence? Talk about arrogant, narcissistic and elitist!!!

Basically he is saying that only those who are well educated and connected are the best folks to decide what is best!

Ooops. The President graduated from Columbia and Harvard and a constitutional lawyer. Cannot get much higher than those credentials, especially the 'Mr.President' part.

Tell ya what, why don't the rest of us morons who actually pay to go to the games, who buy the products hawked shamelessly by the promoters of the bowls, boycott them all?

I am all for that. I mean, I don't have to bank at CitiBank or eat Tostito's. There are other options available. By the way, what is Citi doing promoting the Rose Bowl? Didn't they get bailed out by the taxpayers?

I digress.

The President vs the Republic Party

Wow!! The exchange yesterday in the lions den of the Republic Party was one for the ages. As I was watching a cable news channel, the word came across that the Republic Party had agreed to allow the cameras to remain after Mr. Obama's speech and I thought, OMG this is going to be good. I was not disappointed.

I wonder why the Republic party keeps underestimating the President. I guess they actually believe their talking points because no one in their right mind would have asked the questions they did if they actually believed they were dealing with a Bush clone.

After the 83 minute exchange it was clear by the response of the GOP, they had made a terrible mistake. The President was able to answer and deflect the main criticisms which directed to him and his policies. The President did not respond with rhetorical responses, he actually brought out the facts of the cases, which could not be denied. I think the main message the President sent was a simple one. He has listened to the GOP and their ideas and found them lacking in substance and demonstrated this fact. That the GOP has taken the stand that they want him, the President to fail, so how can they ask to be part of the solutions if they have told their constituents that they want him to fail. So any attempt to work with the President will come back to bite them. Since the GOP has boxed themselves into this corner, to complain that there is no bipartisan attempt by the Dems is a red herring. The President was very clear, how can you work with us if you have told your voters that you are against all of the President's policies.

The GOP did not look very good. Virtually every question was answered with clear and concise rebuttal. This President knows his stuff.

I personally liked the exchange regarding jobs. The statement was made that we could have created twice as many jobs with half the money as the GOP had wanted to do. The President responded clearly, who would not have wanted that sort of plan, if it was workable. He said that he had the GOP plan scored by an independent group with both the Dems and GOP have agreed to score these things and turned out not to be workable as written. So the idea that the GOP was ignored was total crap. It was a faulty plan that was considered and rejected on rational grounds.

Maybe things will change for the better now.

The Senate votes to kill the deficit task force

Have I missed something here?

The Republicans and Tea Baggers want to reduce the deficit and reduce taxes, they have also complained that there has been no bi-partisan invitation to help resolve national issues. President Obama proposed a bi-partisan task force to to find ways to cut taxes and reduce the ballooning deficit. The Senate voted the plan down, which was sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

This is absolutely unbelievable to me. What is wrong with having a bi-partisan task force to find solutions?

As an American interested in trimming the budget, especially unnecessary projects and pork barrel projects, I find this sort of behaviour incomprehensible. The President himself proposed this task force, yet he could not muster enough Democratic votes to make this a reality.

Business as usual I am afraid. Too bad there is not enough public will to change things. I am not speaking of the Tea Baggers as an answer. I am not suggesting that these white trash, racists with a third grade education have the answers. I am saying that the rest of us, the ones who supported our candidate for President rise up and howl.

Supremes give corporations same rights as real people.

Well, in my last blog one of the suggestions I made, with Constitutional issues in mind was limiting corporate meddling in politics. The day after I made that suggestion, the Supreme Court made it official, corporations now have the same free speech rights as individuals, throwing out nearly 100 years of precedent. Now I could whine and complain about the decision, but it would be a waste of time since it is the law of the land, same as Rowe v. Wade. So we grin and bear it.

The consequences have been pored over by the talking heads on cable 'news', how now corporations can spend as much money as they like for or against a specific candidate for public office. If this is not scary enough, the one issue none of the 'news' personalities has touched is, what of foreign companies? I will site Anheuser Busch as one example. Let us say the government wants to add a liquor tax or limit beer advertising. Budweiser can pull out all the stops with political ads against such measures and target specific candidates or politicians if they choose to. Or can they? Budweiser is wholly owned by Stella Artois, a Belgian company. What of foreign owned drug companies? It is not inconceivable that foreign companies can actually influence American politics and elections directly. Now one may say if the foreign company sets up a US company as a wholly owned entity, the money for the adverts would actually be spent by this shell company even though the cash would be coming from foreigners.

I don't think anyone could have envisioned this sort of possibility with this decision. The idea is you cannot give a corporation 'citizenship', although it appears the Supreme Court ruling may have just done that.

Here is a tidbit that makes my point more clear.

Consider EADS, a European Consortium based in Holland, with Spain and France holding shares indirectly in the company. EADS North America is a holding company for North American activities. EADS is THE European Aerospace giant, which includes Airbus. EADS was awarded a $35B contract via Northrop Grumman to build the KC-45 Tanker. Boeing cried foul and the contract is being reviewed and may be rebid. Now what happens with corporations being able to target politicians outright? Would it be fair if only Boeing could create adverts and not Northrop Grumman because of their ties to EADS? On the other hand should an European company with foreign government ties be given the same 'citizenship' as a US company? To suggest that European companies with state ties are not cause for concern is ludicrous.

I am afraid this ruling is going to create a quagmire in US politics.

My suggestion? Tax the spending these companies will make on political ads at 99%.

They shoot lobbyists don't they?

If asked I am reasonably sure that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that their interests are not served by the nationally elected officials primarily because of lobbyists and special interest groups. For purpose of this discussion, I will use the term lobbyist for any person or group who is paid to peddle influence to Capitol Hill.

The American people should demand to take back their government from those on K Street. K Street is a street is Washington DC where most of these 'fronts' are located, usually law firms whose sole purpose is to set up a program whereby they 'hire' ex-public officials because of their connection to the system. There are laws which limit who and when a public official can become a registered lobbyist, but generally speaking there are ways around these limitations.

I would suggest the movie The Distinguished Gentleman to get an idea how the system works.

Here is an idea that may solve the lobbyist problem. Lobbyists must be registered as they are now. Lobbyist will be made up of principals, not paid mouth pieces. In other words, A primary corporate executive of a company, lets say Pfizer can be a registered lobbyist, not a former Congressional aide or government employee. There would be a list of these people who those in government can ask advice from in an on demand capacity. No lobbyist will be able to make their own appointment to peddle their influence, but they would be available in a consultant capacity. Realistically, no member of Congress can know the nuts and bolts of every industry, so access to real experts is necessary. Lobbyists don't vote, so the priority should go to constituents who may wish to drop by to see their elected officials.

The second part of the solution is to do away with 'fund raisers' set up by lobbyists. Fund raisers are a back door bribe to grease the wheels. If there are limits to the amount of money a person can raise to run for office, the need for fund raisers are irrelevant. The solution is fairly simple. Since each congressional district is essentially the same because of apportionment, simple limit the amount of money that can be raised to say $1.00 per person for a primary, $2.00 for the General Election. Limit who can actually donate to those people or business who are actually in that district, no money from outside the district at all. No money from the national parties or special interests. The Senate is a little different since each state is different, but say for states a certain limit in funding, but again, only money derived from those who live in that state or companies actually headquartered in that state.

There would be no attack ads by those outside the campaigns, which could raise constitutional issues.

The idea is simple. There are so many hours in a day and for every hour not spent on dealing with lobbyists and fund raising is an hour that can be spent representing those who actually voted for them. We need a level playing field for our elected officials. It's seems crazy for someone to spend millions of dollars for a Senate campaign and we end up with the guy who spend more than the other guy and is less qualified. Lets make these folks run a fair campaign and force them to come to us and ASK for our vote rather than intimidating use NOT to vote for the other guy with attack ads.

Dems lose majority in Senate

Well, the Dems blew it. After months of needless bickering and backroom deals one of two things will happen regarding health care reform. We will get stuck with a less than perfect solution so complex that lawyers will spend years unraveling it with the loopholes no one considered. In the mean time, the reform we need will end up being a joke. The other possibility is that the Congress will dump this white elephant and do the simplest of solutions, medicare for all. Give us the option to buy into Medicare and be done with it. Everything President Obama wants to accomplish can be done with this option. I pray for the gods to instill some semblance of logic to this project.

Let us be honest about one thing, we are all racists.

Today the Republicans are hollering for Sen. Reid's removal from office about candidate Obama for saying, "light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,'". Now, Sen. Reid has apologised to the President and President Obama has accepted his apology.

The rationale the Republicans are using is because Sen. Trent Lott made a racially charged statement in public about Strom Thurmond, the nation would have been better off if Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. Thurmond was an ardent segregationist and the Democratic governor of South Carolina when he mounted his third-party campaign. Lott later apologised and he resigned as Senate leader less than two weeks later. Lott resigned from the Senate in 2007. Reid is from Nevada, Lott from Mississippi.

Republicans are crying foul because they see this a double standard, yet if you put the two in context they are no where similar, the intent's completely different.

What Se. Reid said is in fact true, President Obama is light-skinned and he does not speak with a Negro accent. If we apply the same standard to Sen. Lott, that he honestly believed that Sen. Thurmond would have made a better President as a segregationist, then this is indeed a terrible thing to say to all Americans, Negroes especially.

Lets be real here, if Mr. Obama spoke like some rapper gangsta do you really think he would have been elected? Of course not. Impressions are everything. Personally I don't know what Sen. Reid had to apologise for.

Look, we are all racists in one form or another. It does not matter what color we are, what our heritage is, we as people tend to live and associate with those of 'our kind'. Sure there are exceptions, but not that many. Blacks aren't thrilled with Caucasians, Cubans don't like Mexicans, Mexicans don't like Spaniards. The list goes on and on. I don't know, maybe it is the word Negro? To be honest, growing up in the South, they were Coloreds. The "N" word was reserved for use by uneducated folks, both Negro and Caucasian. First it was Colored, then Black, then African-American. Honestly I choose not to keep up. As long as someone is going to call me a 'white guy" instead of Caucasian, then I will choose my choice of terms. You cannot expect respect unless you are willing to give it. Let me put it this way, how ridiculous this all is. Tiger Woods is half Thai and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Thai? Hines Ward of the Pittsburgh Steelers is half Korean and half Negro, so what is he? Negro. Why Negro instead of Korean? Who makes up these rules? The whole concept, system is racist. What it boils down to is this, if you are not perceived as anything but Caucasian, you are something else. As I recall, in Louisiana if you were 1/32 Negro, you were in the eyes of the state a Negro.

So what of the Cuban baseball player? He looks like an African American, but we are insulting HIS heritage by pigeonholing him. He's a Cuban-American just as much as a Cuban of Spanish decent, right? The thing is we don't see him as such.

As far as Blacks or African-Americans are concerned, I refer them as Negro. It simplifies the process without the possibility of offending anyone on rational grounds. After all, what is the Spanish word for black? Negro.

My preference is to call anyone who is not Caucasian a POC. Person of Colour, if we are to segregate our society as we do. When filling out a Federal questionnaire that has racial questions, I refuse to answer as it has nothing to do with anything.

Nothing gripes me more than listening to talking heads on TV saying, well this percentage of Blacks will vote this way or Hispanics that way. That to me IS racist.

The new Tea Baggers, Tenthers and Birthers are all racists. ALL I SAID. They won't come out and say it, but listen to their platforms. It's the same states rights argument, repackaged. Look at the kinds of people who flock to these groups, ignorant white trash who either don't or won't use their own brains. By their own admission, they are all white.

My own brother is a Tenther/Tea Bagger. He's is teaching his 14 year old son to be a sniper just in case. In case of what? Just who is he going to shoot? We know full well who.

So instead of complaining about a double standard, especially since by his resignation the Republicans would be getting their wish, killing off any hope for any reforms the President is asking Congress for. The Republicans have gone on record as saying they want the President to fail. Now why would they want that, after all, aren't they American's too?

The President made a profound statement last week about ending partisanship, instead practicing citizenship. Good words to go by.

OBTW, I am speaking for myself.