The second weekend continued the exciting action that the NCAA Tournament has given us this year. Butler has continued their magical run all the way to the Final Four and their backyard. Kentucky another favor for much of the year came up short against West Virginia. Tom Izzo crafted another title contender a year after falling short in the title game and is heading back to the Final Four for another shot. And after a some time, the Duke Blue Devils are heading back to the Final Four. We had overtime thrillers and nailbiters in most of the games. My picks up to this point are 44-17. After months of games and 4 tournament rounds, the Final Four is set.
Now to chose this year's national champion.
Final Four Game 1: West Virginia vs Duke: West Virginia has been a very special team from the last couple weeks of the regular season through the Big East Tournament and has gotten it done so far. However, Duke has been constantly good all year and has gone under the radar for much of the year. The big men combined with the three outside shooters will be too much for the Mountaineers down the stretch. PICK: DUKE
Final Four Game 2: Michigan State vs Butler: Butler is not your traditional Cinderella as they were a top 20 team and have been pretty good the last few years. However, few outside of the Butler campus could have predicted they would be in the Final Four. The combination of grit and determination along with one of their best players, Gordon Hayward, have not been scared of any challenge. Michigan State is banged up and was predicted to be back to the Big Dance this year, but Tom Izzo knows how to coach a team up. This will come down to turnovers and probably the late 4th quarter. I just think the Spartans have a little too much experience for the Bulldogs, but wouldn't be too surprised if Butler can continue their dream season. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
Championship Game: Michigan State vs Duke: Duke has too many weapons when they are all firing on all cylinders. The big men will wear down the Spartans inside and open a lot of shots for the big 3 shooters. Duke and Coach K will be cutting down the nets for the 4th time. PICK: DUKE
Alternative Selections: Because I am going all out with the championship game selections, I might misfire. So with that said, if Butler wins instead of Michigan State; they will also fall to the Blue Devils. If West Virginia ends up playing Michigan State, I give the edge to the Mountaineers, but if Butler is their opponent; the Bulldogs ride the magic to the title with a last shot.
All and all the season was often hard to gauge who the top team was and the way the tournament went, it wasn't too surprising we saw a few underdogs make runs. After a couple years of chalk, the tournament returned to its "mad" nature. However, I think the season lacked a little something that we usually get with a couple of great teams. But it looks like a title for Duke will reestablish a tournament regular and championship team at the top again this year.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Republican Health Care Vote: Just Another Example of "Their America"
I try to view aspects of the political arena with the most objectivity. I obviously have stances on various issues, but find myself still staying somewhere near the center. I like to think that those who stay closest to the center are the most rational and still produce great ideas and equally great results. However, more than ever, partisanship and going as far from that center has become far too common.
In the same breath, I understand how a party wants to try to keep its members in line when it comes to voting and getting party business done "right". However, what we have seen is the Republican Party under both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner is an obstructionist type of government rule. They have decided that passing nothing is a success as is would be viewed as a failure on President Obama's part. I will say that the Democrats are "angels" either, but they certainly struggle whether in the majority or not at pulling off the same type of unity. A party that talks exactly the same is harmful and quite frank; ignorant.
This nation is made up of more than liberals and conservatives. It is independents that ultimately decide the crucial elections and are the ones parties should focus their attention towards. But I guess you cannot blame the Republican Party for their action and behavior over the last year or so. It is ingrained in part of who they are and who they were. This party is a shell of what it was when Lincoln was a member or when Theodore Roosevelt was a member.
That brings me to an article I came across recently written by Richard Cohen from the Washington Post. It has spurred the conversation thus far and I leave it below in the form of a link and also a copy of it. It echoes some of the obvious observations of the GOP of late and their history of being unwilling to accept change that will aide in the development of the country mostly on the claim that it ruins "their America". Ultimately, it comes from an unwillingness to allow progress and it only muddles public opinion from many who do not what to make of a subject.
Here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032201813.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Mitch McConnell is right. The Republican Senate leader, a man whose vision is to deny others theirs, told the New York Times that President Obama's health-care proposal was part of an attempt to "turn us into a Western European country," which, the good Lord willing, is what will now happen. I, for one, could use a dash of Germany, where there are something like 200 private health insurance plans and where everyone is covered and no one goes broke on account of bad health. It's great to be healthy in America, but for too many Americans, it's better to be sick somewhere else.
I would also take France or Switzerland, but mostly I'd like Japan, which I move to Western Europe for the sake of argument, and where medical care is as good (or better) than it is here and much less expensive. What all these countries have in common is the recognition that health care is, like food or education, a universal right. The United States, to McConnell's evident chagrin, is now moving this way.
Do not underestimate the importance of Sunday's House vote. It was momentous, and it will not be repealed by the results of the November elections. Against the hopes and insistence of the GOP, America did not reverse Social Security (as late as the Eisenhower administration, that was the fervent wish of the party's right wing) or Medicaid. The worth of these programs became evident, and thus they became politically sacrosanct.
When Americans figure out that insurance companies can no longer deny them coverage because, as it happens, they urgently need it, and when they discover that their kids can remain covered until age 26 and when they can for the first time afford health insurance themselves, this law will become untouchable. Self-interest usually trumps ideology.
This battle was never entirely about health care. The fury of the opposition -- not a single Republican vote -- is as historically significant as the passage of the legislation itself. There is something cleaving this country, something represented by the election of Barack Obama -- the change he either promised or threatened, take your pick -- and the hyper-exaggeration of the ideological threat the man represented. Caricatured as a socialist, a radical, a hard-left liberal and even an alien, he is actually the very soul of center-left moderation, cautious to a fault.
It is the same with the health-care package itself. Whatever it is, it is not socialism. For all the fulminations about the American free enterprise system, private insurance companies are retained. The government will not do what governments all over the world do -- provide either health insurance or health care itself. Does the legislation provide for a government role? Yes. But there is a government role in virtually everything -- or haven't you noticed the tag on your pillow?
The reason this fight took so long is that the culture is about evenly divided. It's not that the political system is broken. On the contrary, it's not supposed to work without consensus. It did as designed -- marched in place and bided its time until Sunday, when it moved just a bit. Consider how long it has taken. Harry Truman wanted this bill.
Anger comes from fear. What was once a white Protestant nation is changing hue and religion. It is no accident that racial epithets were yelled at black lawmakers on Saturday in Washington and a kind of venom even gets exclaimed from the floor of the Congress: "You lie!" "Baby killer!" The protesters were protesting health-care legislation. But they feared they were losing their country.
Ever since the New Deal, the GOP has been the Party of the Past. It said no to the New Deal. It said no to Social Security. Important leaders -- Barry Goldwater, for instance -- said no to civil rights, as they now are saying no to gay rights. The party plays the role of the scold, the finger-wagger who warns of this or that dire outcome -- not all of it wrong -- and then gets bypassed by progress. The GOP then picks itself up and resumes its fight -- against the next innovation. Usually, it wins some battles; usually, it loses the war.
McConnell had his point. Europe is way ahead of us in compassion for the sick. Its systems, though, are hardly perfect, and government debt is always a concern. Still, we know which way we are going. The culture wars will continue, but the outcome, Mitch, is no longer in doubt.
In the same breath, I understand how a party wants to try to keep its members in line when it comes to voting and getting party business done "right". However, what we have seen is the Republican Party under both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner is an obstructionist type of government rule. They have decided that passing nothing is a success as is would be viewed as a failure on President Obama's part. I will say that the Democrats are "angels" either, but they certainly struggle whether in the majority or not at pulling off the same type of unity. A party that talks exactly the same is harmful and quite frank; ignorant.
This nation is made up of more than liberals and conservatives. It is independents that ultimately decide the crucial elections and are the ones parties should focus their attention towards. But I guess you cannot blame the Republican Party for their action and behavior over the last year or so. It is ingrained in part of who they are and who they were. This party is a shell of what it was when Lincoln was a member or when Theodore Roosevelt was a member.
That brings me to an article I came across recently written by Richard Cohen from the Washington Post. It has spurred the conversation thus far and I leave it below in the form of a link and also a copy of it. It echoes some of the obvious observations of the GOP of late and their history of being unwilling to accept change that will aide in the development of the country mostly on the claim that it ruins "their America". Ultimately, it comes from an unwillingness to allow progress and it only muddles public opinion from many who do not what to make of a subject.
Here you go:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032201813.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Mitch McConnell is right. The Republican Senate leader, a man whose vision is to deny others theirs, told the New York Times that President Obama's health-care proposal was part of an attempt to "turn us into a Western European country," which, the good Lord willing, is what will now happen. I, for one, could use a dash of Germany, where there are something like 200 private health insurance plans and where everyone is covered and no one goes broke on account of bad health. It's great to be healthy in America, but for too many Americans, it's better to be sick somewhere else.
I would also take France or Switzerland, but mostly I'd like Japan, which I move to Western Europe for the sake of argument, and where medical care is as good (or better) than it is here and much less expensive. What all these countries have in common is the recognition that health care is, like food or education, a universal right. The United States, to McConnell's evident chagrin, is now moving this way.
Do not underestimate the importance of Sunday's House vote. It was momentous, and it will not be repealed by the results of the November elections. Against the hopes and insistence of the GOP, America did not reverse Social Security (as late as the Eisenhower administration, that was the fervent wish of the party's right wing) or Medicaid. The worth of these programs became evident, and thus they became politically sacrosanct.
When Americans figure out that insurance companies can no longer deny them coverage because, as it happens, they urgently need it, and when they discover that their kids can remain covered until age 26 and when they can for the first time afford health insurance themselves, this law will become untouchable. Self-interest usually trumps ideology.
This battle was never entirely about health care. The fury of the opposition -- not a single Republican vote -- is as historically significant as the passage of the legislation itself. There is something cleaving this country, something represented by the election of Barack Obama -- the change he either promised or threatened, take your pick -- and the hyper-exaggeration of the ideological threat the man represented. Caricatured as a socialist, a radical, a hard-left liberal and even an alien, he is actually the very soul of center-left moderation, cautious to a fault.
It is the same with the health-care package itself. Whatever it is, it is not socialism. For all the fulminations about the American free enterprise system, private insurance companies are retained. The government will not do what governments all over the world do -- provide either health insurance or health care itself. Does the legislation provide for a government role? Yes. But there is a government role in virtually everything -- or haven't you noticed the tag on your pillow?
The reason this fight took so long is that the culture is about evenly divided. It's not that the political system is broken. On the contrary, it's not supposed to work without consensus. It did as designed -- marched in place and bided its time until Sunday, when it moved just a bit. Consider how long it has taken. Harry Truman wanted this bill.
Anger comes from fear. What was once a white Protestant nation is changing hue and religion. It is no accident that racial epithets were yelled at black lawmakers on Saturday in Washington and a kind of venom even gets exclaimed from the floor of the Congress: "You lie!" "Baby killer!" The protesters were protesting health-care legislation. But they feared they were losing their country.
Ever since the New Deal, the GOP has been the Party of the Past. It said no to the New Deal. It said no to Social Security. Important leaders -- Barry Goldwater, for instance -- said no to civil rights, as they now are saying no to gay rights. The party plays the role of the scold, the finger-wagger who warns of this or that dire outcome -- not all of it wrong -- and then gets bypassed by progress. The GOP then picks itself up and resumes its fight -- against the next innovation. Usually, it wins some battles; usually, it loses the war.
McConnell had his point. Europe is way ahead of us in compassion for the sick. Its systems, though, are hardly perfect, and government debt is always a concern. Still, we know which way we are going. The culture wars will continue, but the outcome, Mitch, is no longer in doubt.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Center: Where Politics Needs to be Harnessed
When I began this blog last summer, part of my reason was to promote perspectives and issues that I felt were either skewed or not addressed enough. I have studied politics for close to 5 years now and have applied those studies in terms of politics today and politics over the years since our early years. We have seen the scene of politics change over the years from the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists to the Democrats and Republicans. However, instead of finding a way to create a sense of bipartisanship or working relations; both parties especially the Republicans have fought that urge in favor of bitter partisanship. At the same time, we have seen liberal and progressive Democrats shun moderate or conservative Democrats and conservative and right wing Republicans shun moderate Republicans. There is a growing lack of acceptance for the center of the road in politics. And that is where I come in.
Anytime someone asks me where I stand on the political spectrum, I always say I am a moderate and say it proudly. Why? Because being a moderate in my opinion is where the rational reside. They favor bits of things that a Democrat supports. They favor bits of things that a Republican supports. It allows one's views to not go too far to the left or too far to the right. That is my biggest problem with talk radio and other media outlets including Fox News and MSNBC.
The two-party system has been part of our foundation since the Constitution was signed over 200 years ago. If you are an independent or don't embrace all that goes along with being a part of one major party or the other, you often struggle. And right now, the wingnuts are either end of the spectrum are the loudest and it is hard for centrists to get their voice heard. They are the ones who are attacked by their parties. Blanche Lincoln on the left and John McCain on the right are two prominent examples. And if things were not already bad enough, the Tea Party came around last year and have only added to the problem. Instead of voicing rational thoughts and opinions, they cling to outrageous statements. If a third party were to embark on a similar mission, they can just as easily gain momentum because people might think they were radical or something and generate some form of attention.
I recently came across an article in the New York Times by Thomas Friedman. In his article, he highlights a lot of what I just said. He points out the shift away from the "radical" center and points out a couple, in my opinion, pretty good ideas. He brings up redistricting to eliminate "safe" districts to pave the way for elections being competitive and politicians being held more responsible for their action as opposed to just resting on their party's name. The second point he brings up involves a way to pave the way for independents to become more viable in elections. Most people are afraid of "wasting their vote" on an independent candidate because it might hurt the major party candidate they support.
Some might call either suggestion or having a centralist mindset "radical". But I would beg to differ. Not being a centralist is more "radical" then embracing a center of the road philosophy. That is probably the biggest thing wrong with our political system today.
Here attached is the link to the article as well as a copied version below: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html?hp
President Obama’s winning passage of national health care is both exhilarating and sobering. Covering so many uninsured Americans is a historic achievement. But the president had to postpone trips, buy off companies and cut every conceivable side deal to just barely make it happen, without a single Republican vote. If the Democrats now lose seats in the midterm elections, we’re headed for even worse gridlock, even though we still have so much more nation-building for America to do — from education to energy to environment to innovation to tax policy. That is why I want my own Tea Party. I want a Tea Party of the radical center.
Say what? I write often about innovation in energy and education. But I’ve come to realize that none of these innovations will emerge at scale until we get the most important innovation of all — political innovation that will empower independents and centrists, which describes a lot of the country.
Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert, put it best: “If you don’t get governance right, it is very hard to get anything else right that government needs to deal with. We have to rethink in some basic ways how our political institutions work, because they are increasingly incapable of delivering effective solutions any longer.”
My definition of broken is simple. It is a system in which Republicans will be voted out for doing the right thing (raising taxes when needed) and Democrats will be voted out for doing the right thing (cutting services when needed). When your political system punishes lawmakers for the doing the right things, it is broken. That is why we need political innovation that takes America’s disempowered radical center and enables it to act in proportion to its true size, unconstrained by the two parties, interest groups and orthodoxies that have tied our politics in knots.
The radical center is “radical” in its desire for a radical departure from politics as usual. It advocates: raising taxes to close our budgetary shortfalls, but doing so with a spirit of equity and social justice; guaranteeing that every American is covered by health insurance, but with market reforms to really bring down costs; legally expanding immigration to attract more job-creators to America’s shores; increasing corporate tax credits for research and lowering corporate taxes if companies will move more manufacturing jobs back onshore; investing more in our public schools, while insisting on rising national education standards and greater accountability for teachers, principals and parents; massively investing in clean energy, including nuclear, while allowing more offshore drilling in the transition. You get the idea.
How best to promote these hybrid ideas? Break the oligopoly of our two-party system. Diamond suggests two innovations. First, let every state emulate California’s recent grass-roots initiative that took away the power to design state electoral districts from the state legislature and put it in the hands of an independent, politically neutral, Citizens Redistricting Commission. It will go to work after the 2010 census and reshape California’s state legislative districts for the coming elections. Henceforth, districts in California will not be designed to be automatically Democratic or Republican — so more of them will be competitive, so more candidates will only be electable if they appeal to the center, not just cater to one party. (There is a movement pressing for the same independent commission to be given the power to redraw Congressional districts.)
Second, get states to adopt “alternative voting.” One reason independent, third-party, centrist candidates can’t get elected is because if, in a three-person race, a Democrat votes for an independent, and the independent loses, the Democrat fears his vote will have actually helped the Republican win, or vice versa. Alternative voting allows you to rank the independent candidate your No. 1 choice, and the Democrat or Republican No. 2. Therefore, if the independent does not win, your vote is immediately transferred to your second choice, say, the Democrat. Therefore, you have no fear that in voting for an independent you might help elect your real nightmare — the Republican. Nothing has held back the growth of independent, centrist candidates more, said Diamond, “than the fear that if you vote for one of them you will be wasting your vote. Alternative voting, which Australia has, can overcome that.”
Obama won the presidency by tapping the center — centrist Democrats, independents and Republicans who wanted to see nation-building at home “to make their own lives and those of others better,” said Tim Shriver, the C.E.O. of the Special Olympics. They saw in Obama a pragmatist who could pull us together for pragmatic solutions. But hyperpartisanship has frustrated those hopes. (Alas, though, it is not equal. There are still many conservative Blue Dog Democrats, but the liberal Rockefeller Republicans have been wiped out.) If that radical center wants to be empowered, it can’t just whine. It needs its own grass-roots movement to promote reforms like nonpartisan redistricting and alternative voting in every state. It’s tea time for the center.
Anytime someone asks me where I stand on the political spectrum, I always say I am a moderate and say it proudly. Why? Because being a moderate in my opinion is where the rational reside. They favor bits of things that a Democrat supports. They favor bits of things that a Republican supports. It allows one's views to not go too far to the left or too far to the right. That is my biggest problem with talk radio and other media outlets including Fox News and MSNBC.
The two-party system has been part of our foundation since the Constitution was signed over 200 years ago. If you are an independent or don't embrace all that goes along with being a part of one major party or the other, you often struggle. And right now, the wingnuts are either end of the spectrum are the loudest and it is hard for centrists to get their voice heard. They are the ones who are attacked by their parties. Blanche Lincoln on the left and John McCain on the right are two prominent examples. And if things were not already bad enough, the Tea Party came around last year and have only added to the problem. Instead of voicing rational thoughts and opinions, they cling to outrageous statements. If a third party were to embark on a similar mission, they can just as easily gain momentum because people might think they were radical or something and generate some form of attention.
I recently came across an article in the New York Times by Thomas Friedman. In his article, he highlights a lot of what I just said. He points out the shift away from the "radical" center and points out a couple, in my opinion, pretty good ideas. He brings up redistricting to eliminate "safe" districts to pave the way for elections being competitive and politicians being held more responsible for their action as opposed to just resting on their party's name. The second point he brings up involves a way to pave the way for independents to become more viable in elections. Most people are afraid of "wasting their vote" on an independent candidate because it might hurt the major party candidate they support.
Some might call either suggestion or having a centralist mindset "radical". But I would beg to differ. Not being a centralist is more "radical" then embracing a center of the road philosophy. That is probably the biggest thing wrong with our political system today.
Here attached is the link to the article as well as a copied version below: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html?hp
President Obama’s winning passage of national health care is both exhilarating and sobering. Covering so many uninsured Americans is a historic achievement. But the president had to postpone trips, buy off companies and cut every conceivable side deal to just barely make it happen, without a single Republican vote. If the Democrats now lose seats in the midterm elections, we’re headed for even worse gridlock, even though we still have so much more nation-building for America to do — from education to energy to environment to innovation to tax policy. That is why I want my own Tea Party. I want a Tea Party of the radical center.
Say what? I write often about innovation in energy and education. But I’ve come to realize that none of these innovations will emerge at scale until we get the most important innovation of all — political innovation that will empower independents and centrists, which describes a lot of the country.
Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert, put it best: “If you don’t get governance right, it is very hard to get anything else right that government needs to deal with. We have to rethink in some basic ways how our political institutions work, because they are increasingly incapable of delivering effective solutions any longer.”
My definition of broken is simple. It is a system in which Republicans will be voted out for doing the right thing (raising taxes when needed) and Democrats will be voted out for doing the right thing (cutting services when needed). When your political system punishes lawmakers for the doing the right things, it is broken. That is why we need political innovation that takes America’s disempowered radical center and enables it to act in proportion to its true size, unconstrained by the two parties, interest groups and orthodoxies that have tied our politics in knots.
The radical center is “radical” in its desire for a radical departure from politics as usual. It advocates: raising taxes to close our budgetary shortfalls, but doing so with a spirit of equity and social justice; guaranteeing that every American is covered by health insurance, but with market reforms to really bring down costs; legally expanding immigration to attract more job-creators to America’s shores; increasing corporate tax credits for research and lowering corporate taxes if companies will move more manufacturing jobs back onshore; investing more in our public schools, while insisting on rising national education standards and greater accountability for teachers, principals and parents; massively investing in clean energy, including nuclear, while allowing more offshore drilling in the transition. You get the idea.
How best to promote these hybrid ideas? Break the oligopoly of our two-party system. Diamond suggests two innovations. First, let every state emulate California’s recent grass-roots initiative that took away the power to design state electoral districts from the state legislature and put it in the hands of an independent, politically neutral, Citizens Redistricting Commission. It will go to work after the 2010 census and reshape California’s state legislative districts for the coming elections. Henceforth, districts in California will not be designed to be automatically Democratic or Republican — so more of them will be competitive, so more candidates will only be electable if they appeal to the center, not just cater to one party. (There is a movement pressing for the same independent commission to be given the power to redraw Congressional districts.)
Second, get states to adopt “alternative voting.” One reason independent, third-party, centrist candidates can’t get elected is because if, in a three-person race, a Democrat votes for an independent, and the independent loses, the Democrat fears his vote will have actually helped the Republican win, or vice versa. Alternative voting allows you to rank the independent candidate your No. 1 choice, and the Democrat or Republican No. 2. Therefore, if the independent does not win, your vote is immediately transferred to your second choice, say, the Democrat. Therefore, you have no fear that in voting for an independent you might help elect your real nightmare — the Republican. Nothing has held back the growth of independent, centrist candidates more, said Diamond, “than the fear that if you vote for one of them you will be wasting your vote. Alternative voting, which Australia has, can overcome that.”
Obama won the presidency by tapping the center — centrist Democrats, independents and Republicans who wanted to see nation-building at home “to make their own lives and those of others better,” said Tim Shriver, the C.E.O. of the Special Olympics. They saw in Obama a pragmatist who could pull us together for pragmatic solutions. But hyperpartisanship has frustrated those hopes. (Alas, though, it is not equal. There are still many conservative Blue Dog Democrats, but the liberal Rockefeller Republicans have been wiped out.) If that radical center wants to be empowered, it can’t just whine. It needs its own grass-roots movement to promote reforms like nonpartisan redistricting and alternative voting in every state. It’s tea time for the center.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
March Madness...the Sweet 16/Elite 8
The first weekend gave us a few surprises and probably none more surprising than the #1 overall seed Kansas getting knocked off by Northern Iowa. Cornell is also still dancing to many people's shock. This weekend can involve a few more shocks on the way to the Final Four. My picks up to this point are 35-14. Time to get sweet with the last 16.
(1) Syracuse v (5) Butler: Butler has a lot of poise and ability for a smaller school, but might not have enough to overcome a tough Syracuse team. PICK: SYRACUSE
(2) Kansas State v (6) Xavier: Xavier has a chance to go deeper than most years, but Kansas State has a special squad this year. They now see a chance to show they are better team in Kansas now that the Jayhawks are gone. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(1) Kentucky v (12) Cornell: Kentucky is a very good squad and might finally be the antidote for Cornell and their magical run. The Big Red has destroyed both of their opponents and they might end up on the wrong end of a lopsided game. PICK: KENTUCKY
(2) West Virginia v (11) Washington: Washington has proved a lot of doubters wrong, but West Virginia looks to be one of the best teams and has a sense of a big run since last month. The Huskies finally meet their match. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(5) Michigan State v (9) Northern Iowa: Northern Iowa probably pulled off one of the biggest upsets, but one must wonder how much they have left. They have a lot of character and won't surrender, but Michigan State despite some injuries has the leadership and experience and enough talent. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(2) Ohio State v (6) Tennessee: Tennessee has played very well against some of the better teams this year and will need one of their best performances to down Ohio State. The Buckeyes see a big hole in their part of the bracket now that Kansas is gone and will play well enough. PICK: OHIO STATE
(1) Duke v (4) Purdue: Duke's big three have played well thus far and will probably be too much with the inside presence the team has. Purdue played very well this year and if they can channel that good play they might pull it off. PICK: DUKE
(3) Baylor v (10) Saint Mary's: Saint Mary's has played great defense and good enough on offense, but Baylor will be tough to shut down and Samhan can only do so much for so long. PICK: BAYLOR
Let's see who can become elite.
The Sweet Sixteen looked to restore most of the order of the first couple rounds chaos. I went 6-2 and overall my picks are 41-16.
Now onto the Elite Eight.
(2) Kansas State v (5) Butler: Butler has made a wonderful run thus far, but I am not sure if they have enough fire power to close out Kansas State. However, Kansas State's close call against Xavier might be an opening for Butler. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(1) Kentucky v (2) West Virginia: Kentucky has consistently played very well all tournament and are close to getting to the Final Four with the young nucleus who was brought in to do so. But West Virginia will be very tough to beat and have a strong team themselves and have played a little better down the stretch. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(5) Michigan State v (6) Tennessee: Not many would have predicted either two to face for the right for a spot in the Final Four. Tennessee has a very good team who came through a good conference while Michigan State has been hit by the injury bug at the wrong time, but they have guys who were just there. Should be a close shootout. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(1) Duke v (3) Baylor: Duke continues to play well and will be tested by a team that went under the radar in the Big 12. Baylor's lack of depth might be the difference. PICK: DUKE
Time to see who gets their tickets to the Final Four punched and the field will finally be formed.
(1) Syracuse v (5) Butler: Butler has a lot of poise and ability for a smaller school, but might not have enough to overcome a tough Syracuse team. PICK: SYRACUSE
(2) Kansas State v (6) Xavier: Xavier has a chance to go deeper than most years, but Kansas State has a special squad this year. They now see a chance to show they are better team in Kansas now that the Jayhawks are gone. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(1) Kentucky v (12) Cornell: Kentucky is a very good squad and might finally be the antidote for Cornell and their magical run. The Big Red has destroyed both of their opponents and they might end up on the wrong end of a lopsided game. PICK: KENTUCKY
(2) West Virginia v (11) Washington: Washington has proved a lot of doubters wrong, but West Virginia looks to be one of the best teams and has a sense of a big run since last month. The Huskies finally meet their match. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(5) Michigan State v (9) Northern Iowa: Northern Iowa probably pulled off one of the biggest upsets, but one must wonder how much they have left. They have a lot of character and won't surrender, but Michigan State despite some injuries has the leadership and experience and enough talent. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(2) Ohio State v (6) Tennessee: Tennessee has played very well against some of the better teams this year and will need one of their best performances to down Ohio State. The Buckeyes see a big hole in their part of the bracket now that Kansas is gone and will play well enough. PICK: OHIO STATE
(1) Duke v (4) Purdue: Duke's big three have played well thus far and will probably be too much with the inside presence the team has. Purdue played very well this year and if they can channel that good play they might pull it off. PICK: DUKE
(3) Baylor v (10) Saint Mary's: Saint Mary's has played great defense and good enough on offense, but Baylor will be tough to shut down and Samhan can only do so much for so long. PICK: BAYLOR
Let's see who can become elite.
The Sweet Sixteen looked to restore most of the order of the first couple rounds chaos. I went 6-2 and overall my picks are 41-16.
Now onto the Elite Eight.
(2) Kansas State v (5) Butler: Butler has made a wonderful run thus far, but I am not sure if they have enough fire power to close out Kansas State. However, Kansas State's close call against Xavier might be an opening for Butler. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(1) Kentucky v (2) West Virginia: Kentucky has consistently played very well all tournament and are close to getting to the Final Four with the young nucleus who was brought in to do so. But West Virginia will be very tough to beat and have a strong team themselves and have played a little better down the stretch. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(5) Michigan State v (6) Tennessee: Not many would have predicted either two to face for the right for a spot in the Final Four. Tennessee has a very good team who came through a good conference while Michigan State has been hit by the injury bug at the wrong time, but they have guys who were just there. Should be a close shootout. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(1) Duke v (3) Baylor: Duke continues to play well and will be tested by a team that went under the radar in the Big 12. Baylor's lack of depth might be the difference. PICK: DUKE
Time to see who gets their tickets to the Final Four punched and the field will finally be formed.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Another Brick THROUGH the Wall
In the wake of the health care legislation vote, we have seen the hatred and vitriol become even worse. Instead of acting like rationale citizens, Americans are acting like animals because "they didn't get their way". We have seen multiple death threats levied at members of Congress as well as windows at district and county offices shattered with bricks. Not to mention a severed gas line at the home of the brother of a Democratic congressman from Virginia.
These are just a continuation of the anti-government organizations that have been spawned in the wake of Barack Obama's election. They harp on being patriots and acting like the patriots in 1776 did. They are on a mission to get "their government" back and free themselves from a dictator. They harness their guns and freedoms and will do whatever necessary to keep them. These individuals fear the government and show utter disdain for the president. They are what some might call a Hatriot. They represent the extreme opinions and actions in society and are often dangerous. Militia groups are becoming much more common than just a few years ago. And it is leaders in these groups who encourage actions like throwing bricks and also have spoken of a civil war. There are other groups who are swearing a sacred oath to the U.S. Constitution and make it their mission to defend it against anyone who threatens it. Not too surprisingly, they view President Obama as one attacker of the document they hold so dear.
To give this some more context, there were extremist groups voicing out against the government as far back as the 1950s. During a 50 year span between 1954 and 2004 there were 845 acts of domestic terrorism from far-right and white supremacist groups. Those acts included bombings and shootings and one notable act was the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in response to what occurred in Waco, TX two years before.
However, as dangerous as those groups were; in today's Internet age these groups can mobilize and recruit much easier and quicker. They can take partisanship and inject it with steroids and be as extreme as possible. These Hatriots have talk radio and even elected officials sparking their cause and giving them a stronger voice. This wingnut behavior cannot be ignored as we have seen talk lead to actions and there have been multiple deaths that have occur at the hands of these unhinged individuals.
These individuals are miss using their voices and taking the wrong actions. The basis of our democracy was built on debate and responsible actions. Protests are part of the foundation of this country and anyone can assemble for a cause. But using deadly verbiage and making threats or worse; carrying them out; is not what needs to be happening. If these people who complain about taxes and injustices took a minute to actually thing about their actions; they might see they are only hurting themselves. Who do you think pays for the damages to a member of Congress's office? YOU! These Hatriots and others need to stop and slow down and realize where a normal person draws the line. If they did, they would realize that their actions only hurt "their America".
Last time I checked trying to kill someone or destroy federal or state property is not going to help your cause. Unlike in 1775, everything here belongs to us; NOT ANOTHER COUNTRY. And also unlike then, we are no where near that type of rule. AND, all those who base their arguments on 1775 times need to understand the state of the country then and the state of the country now. Much of what was written then was meant to set a foundation, but it was also in the mind frame of how those individuals saw the world and the potential future of the country in those perimeters.
It is often said, but always holds weight: YOU MUST LEARN FROM HISTORY. We have seen misguided actions by similar groups through history and history has shown that they were on the wrong side with their actions. It is ultimately up to the Republican members of Congress and in some cases, the Democratic members of Congress, to act like elected officials and not endorse, promote, and even at times stoup to their level. And when these actions are not just geared towards the elected officials who might garner disdain from individuals, but towards their family members; that is taking it way too far.
I have said it before and will continue to say it; if you have a problem with an elected official; go vote. You don't vote; to me you lost your chance to open your mouth. We see it time and time again, unpopular officials will get thrown out of office if they do not reside in a safe district or state.
It continues to anger me to no end to see yet another example of utter disrespect my people who call themselves "real Americans". When the elected officials and other personalities stop upping their rhetoric, maybe will finally see a reversal in these actions. But until then, we will continue to see unstable and irrational individuals continue to run rampant and only hurt the nation they think they are aiding.
These are just a continuation of the anti-government organizations that have been spawned in the wake of Barack Obama's election. They harp on being patriots and acting like the patriots in 1776 did. They are on a mission to get "their government" back and free themselves from a dictator. They harness their guns and freedoms and will do whatever necessary to keep them. These individuals fear the government and show utter disdain for the president. They are what some might call a Hatriot. They represent the extreme opinions and actions in society and are often dangerous. Militia groups are becoming much more common than just a few years ago. And it is leaders in these groups who encourage actions like throwing bricks and also have spoken of a civil war. There are other groups who are swearing a sacred oath to the U.S. Constitution and make it their mission to defend it against anyone who threatens it. Not too surprisingly, they view President Obama as one attacker of the document they hold so dear.
To give this some more context, there were extremist groups voicing out against the government as far back as the 1950s. During a 50 year span between 1954 and 2004 there were 845 acts of domestic terrorism from far-right and white supremacist groups. Those acts included bombings and shootings and one notable act was the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in response to what occurred in Waco, TX two years before.
However, as dangerous as those groups were; in today's Internet age these groups can mobilize and recruit much easier and quicker. They can take partisanship and inject it with steroids and be as extreme as possible. These Hatriots have talk radio and even elected officials sparking their cause and giving them a stronger voice. This wingnut behavior cannot be ignored as we have seen talk lead to actions and there have been multiple deaths that have occur at the hands of these unhinged individuals.
These individuals are miss using their voices and taking the wrong actions. The basis of our democracy was built on debate and responsible actions. Protests are part of the foundation of this country and anyone can assemble for a cause. But using deadly verbiage and making threats or worse; carrying them out; is not what needs to be happening. If these people who complain about taxes and injustices took a minute to actually thing about their actions; they might see they are only hurting themselves. Who do you think pays for the damages to a member of Congress's office? YOU! These Hatriots and others need to stop and slow down and realize where a normal person draws the line. If they did, they would realize that their actions only hurt "their America".
Last time I checked trying to kill someone or destroy federal or state property is not going to help your cause. Unlike in 1775, everything here belongs to us; NOT ANOTHER COUNTRY. And also unlike then, we are no where near that type of rule. AND, all those who base their arguments on 1775 times need to understand the state of the country then and the state of the country now. Much of what was written then was meant to set a foundation, but it was also in the mind frame of how those individuals saw the world and the potential future of the country in those perimeters.
It is often said, but always holds weight: YOU MUST LEARN FROM HISTORY. We have seen misguided actions by similar groups through history and history has shown that they were on the wrong side with their actions. It is ultimately up to the Republican members of Congress and in some cases, the Democratic members of Congress, to act like elected officials and not endorse, promote, and even at times stoup to their level. And when these actions are not just geared towards the elected officials who might garner disdain from individuals, but towards their family members; that is taking it way too far.
I have said it before and will continue to say it; if you have a problem with an elected official; go vote. You don't vote; to me you lost your chance to open your mouth. We see it time and time again, unpopular officials will get thrown out of office if they do not reside in a safe district or state.
It continues to anger me to no end to see yet another example of utter disrespect my people who call themselves "real Americans". When the elected officials and other personalities stop upping their rhetoric, maybe will finally see a reversal in these actions. But until then, we will continue to see unstable and irrational individuals continue to run rampant and only hurt the nation they think they are aiding.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
What the GOP Can Learn from Alf Landon
It was 74 years ago when we heard the similar rhetoric that we are hearing from Republican members of Congress. "This reform will not work and will financially doom us" A Republican leader went so far as to point to less expensive and more practical ideas by members of the Republican Party. Sound kind of familiar? Then the call for repeal was brought forward similarly to the way that Republicans in Congress are hinting at doing the same. The Republican leader saying all this: Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon. Landon would run part of his campaign in 1936 based on repealing Social Security.
Now that the Democratic health care legislation has passed and is now law, the Republicans are looking to take a similar approach as Landon and campaign in 2010 and presumably in 2012 on repealing the legislation. Republicans today should take a stronger look at the failed approach by Landon.
Republican Senate candidates like Mark Kirk of Illinois are basing their campaign this fall around the urgency to repeal the legislation. While one of the GOP leaders in the Senate, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, sees a campaign for repeal being very likely. Others like Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin vow to make repeal of both H.R.1 and S.1 the top goal for Republicans in their effort to regain Congress. Conservative interest groups and think tanks have already begun their campaign efforts. And not to mention potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney voicing his opinion in favor of repeal. Romney as governor of Massachusetts passed a similar health care reform bill for his state and only 10% of Massachusetts favors a possible repeal of the state's version.
Supporters of the repeal are also petitioning Chief Justice John Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Court to review the legislation on its constitutionality. Despite the conservative leaning philosophy of the highest court, they have already ruled in a controversial case involving campaign finances and will need to beware of using their jurisdiction for political purposes.
What Republicans in Congress and anyone else associated with trying to repeal the legislation need to remember is that this legislation influences 30 million Americans. It is often a lot harder to take something away from the American people than to give them something. Can these officials look themselves in the mirror knowing that if they are successful they will have taken health care away from individuals who greatly depend on it.
Another point to note is the way polling might start to work against the Republicans. In all likelihood the opposition to the bill will start to decrease and those who favor it will start to increase. As items in the bill start to take affect this year and those who affects start to see results, their approval will coincide with those results. Polling regarding those who favor repeal and those who are opposed to it or fixing the current legislation are virtually even.
As the year moves forward towards November, there will certainly be at times focus by one Republican candidate or another and their stance on the issue and their "no" vote versus their Democratic opponent. But what that candidate is not going to say is they voted against a bill that allows someone without insurance to stay on their parents' plan until they are 26. Or that they were in favor of denying that young child who is sick in the hospital better care.
Additionally, most of what is in the bill will not be seen for good or bad until after this November. So, the economy will most likely still dominate the issues amongst voters or another issue or two that becomes front page news during the spring or summer.
The Republicans will continue to harp on repeal of the bill, but if they are smart they will soon realize there are several other ways they can use their energy and money. If they think they will win back Congress in November by running a campaign on repealing the health care legislation they will have a rude awakening. Alf Landon thought he could defeat FDR in 1936 using the same approach and failed. If you fail to learn from history, you are bound to repeat it.
Now that the Democratic health care legislation has passed and is now law, the Republicans are looking to take a similar approach as Landon and campaign in 2010 and presumably in 2012 on repealing the legislation. Republicans today should take a stronger look at the failed approach by Landon.
Republican Senate candidates like Mark Kirk of Illinois are basing their campaign this fall around the urgency to repeal the legislation. While one of the GOP leaders in the Senate, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, sees a campaign for repeal being very likely. Others like Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin vow to make repeal of both H.R.1 and S.1 the top goal for Republicans in their effort to regain Congress. Conservative interest groups and think tanks have already begun their campaign efforts. And not to mention potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney voicing his opinion in favor of repeal. Romney as governor of Massachusetts passed a similar health care reform bill for his state and only 10% of Massachusetts favors a possible repeal of the state's version.
Supporters of the repeal are also petitioning Chief Justice John Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Court to review the legislation on its constitutionality. Despite the conservative leaning philosophy of the highest court, they have already ruled in a controversial case involving campaign finances and will need to beware of using their jurisdiction for political purposes.
What Republicans in Congress and anyone else associated with trying to repeal the legislation need to remember is that this legislation influences 30 million Americans. It is often a lot harder to take something away from the American people than to give them something. Can these officials look themselves in the mirror knowing that if they are successful they will have taken health care away from individuals who greatly depend on it.
Another point to note is the way polling might start to work against the Republicans. In all likelihood the opposition to the bill will start to decrease and those who favor it will start to increase. As items in the bill start to take affect this year and those who affects start to see results, their approval will coincide with those results. Polling regarding those who favor repeal and those who are opposed to it or fixing the current legislation are virtually even.
As the year moves forward towards November, there will certainly be at times focus by one Republican candidate or another and their stance on the issue and their "no" vote versus their Democratic opponent. But what that candidate is not going to say is they voted against a bill that allows someone without insurance to stay on their parents' plan until they are 26. Or that they were in favor of denying that young child who is sick in the hospital better care.
Additionally, most of what is in the bill will not be seen for good or bad until after this November. So, the economy will most likely still dominate the issues amongst voters or another issue or two that becomes front page news during the spring or summer.
The Republicans will continue to harp on repeal of the bill, but if they are smart they will soon realize there are several other ways they can use their energy and money. If they think they will win back Congress in November by running a campaign on repealing the health care legislation they will have a rude awakening. Alf Landon thought he could defeat FDR in 1936 using the same approach and failed. If you fail to learn from history, you are bound to repeat it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
What is Wrong With People
To put it lightly the types of actions that I have witnessed and read about from people in this country has been nothing short of shameful. I could not believe the utter disrespect that some people had for members of Congress at townhalls. Or the insidious comments that were said at Tea Party rallies; not to mention some of the signs in the crowds. Then this past weekend, the utter disrespect and lack of class continued with someone spitting at Congressman John L. Lewis. Lewis has not only served valiantly in the U.S. House of Representatives, but he stood besides Martin Luther King, Jr and fought for civil rights in the 1960s. Others chanted anti-gay comments at Congressman Barney Frank. Frank is an openly member of Congress, who has gotten similar disrespect before.
All these events are just part of the growing problem in this country: a lack of respect and class. There are too many ignorant and entitled individuals who have continued to show that they lack character and a sense where to draw the line. I was going to go through a list and pick apart these fools, but Bob Herbert of the New York Times did it for me. I will leave it him; a much more professed scholar and journalist to enlighten you on these individuals.
I will attach the link to the article below as well copy it. This is for those who support my stance that there is clearly something wrong with some people. Politicians and personalities have only sparked their actions, which is also part of the problem right now. But, this piece hopefully will open the eyes of others who have ignored or failed to realize all these ridiculous are taking place. The more the movement for class and respect grows; the quicker these "animals" will be silenced or stopped and maybe we will have some semblance of dignity regained again.
Here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1
Some of the images from the run-up to Sunday’s landmark health care vote in the House of Representatives should be seared into the nation’s consciousness. We are so far, in so many ways, from being a class act.
A group of lowlifes at a Tea Party rally in Columbus, Ohio, last week taunted and humiliated a man who was sitting on the ground with a sign that said he had Parkinson’s disease. The disgusting behavior was captured on a widely circulated videotape. One of the Tea Party protesters leaned over the man and sneered: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong end of town.”
Another threw money at the man, first one bill and then another, and said contemptuously, “I’ll pay for this guy. Here you go. Start a pot.”
In Washington on Saturday, opponents of the health care legislation spit on a black congressman and shouted racial slurs at two others, including John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was taunted because he is gay.
At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here.
It is 2010, which means it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters.
For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness. All you have to do is look around to see what it has done to the country. The greatest economic inequality since the Gilded Age was followed by a near-total collapse of the overall economy. As a country, we have a monumental mess on our hands and still the Republicans have nothing to offer in the way of a remedy except more tax cuts for the rich.
This is the party of trickle down and weapons of mass destruction, the party of birthers and death-panel lunatics. This is the party that genuflects at the altar of right-wing talk radio, with its insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry.
Glenn Beck of Fox News has called President Obama a “racist” and asserted that he “has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate, has said of Mr. Obama’s economic policies: “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”
The G.O.P. poisons the political atmosphere and then has the gall to complain about an absence of bipartisanship.
The toxic clouds that are the inevitable result of the fear and the bitter conflicts so relentlessly stoked by the Republican Party — think blacks against whites, gays versus straights, and a whole range of folks against immigrants — tend to obscure the tremendous damage that the party’s policies have inflicted on the country. If people are arguing over immigrants or abortion or whether gays should be allowed to marry, they’re not calling the G.O.P. to account for (to take just one example) the horribly destructive policy of cutting taxes while the nation was fighting two wars.
If you’re all fired up about Republican-inspired tales of Democrats planning to send grandma to some death chamber, you’ll never get to the G.O.P.’s war against the right of ordinary workers to organize and negotiate in their own best interests — a war that has diminished living standards for working people for decades.
With a freer hand, the Republicans would have done more damage. George W. Bush tried to undermine Social Security. John McCain was willing to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Oval Office and thought Phil Gramm would have made a crackerjack Treasury secretary. (For those who may not remember, Mr. Gramm was a deregulation zealot who told us during the presidential campaign that we were suffering from a “mental recession.”)
A party that promotes ignorance (“Just say no to global warming”) and provides a safe house for bigotry cannot serve the best interests of our country. Back in the 1960s, John Lewis risked his life and endured savage beatings to secure fundamental rights for black Americans while right-wing Republicans like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were lining up with segregationist Democrats to oppose landmark civil rights legislation.
Since then, the right-wingers have taken over the G.O.P. and Mr. Lewis, now a congressman, must still endure the garbage they have wrought.
All these events are just part of the growing problem in this country: a lack of respect and class. There are too many ignorant and entitled individuals who have continued to show that they lack character and a sense where to draw the line. I was going to go through a list and pick apart these fools, but Bob Herbert of the New York Times did it for me. I will leave it him; a much more professed scholar and journalist to enlighten you on these individuals.
I will attach the link to the article below as well copy it. This is for those who support my stance that there is clearly something wrong with some people. Politicians and personalities have only sparked their actions, which is also part of the problem right now. But, this piece hopefully will open the eyes of others who have ignored or failed to realize all these ridiculous are taking place. The more the movement for class and respect grows; the quicker these "animals" will be silenced or stopped and maybe we will have some semblance of dignity regained again.
Here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1
Some of the images from the run-up to Sunday’s landmark health care vote in the House of Representatives should be seared into the nation’s consciousness. We are so far, in so many ways, from being a class act.
A group of lowlifes at a Tea Party rally in Columbus, Ohio, last week taunted and humiliated a man who was sitting on the ground with a sign that said he had Parkinson’s disease. The disgusting behavior was captured on a widely circulated videotape. One of the Tea Party protesters leaned over the man and sneered: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong end of town.”
Another threw money at the man, first one bill and then another, and said contemptuously, “I’ll pay for this guy. Here you go. Start a pot.”
In Washington on Saturday, opponents of the health care legislation spit on a black congressman and shouted racial slurs at two others, including John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was taunted because he is gay.
At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here.
It is 2010, which means it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters.
For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness. All you have to do is look around to see what it has done to the country. The greatest economic inequality since the Gilded Age was followed by a near-total collapse of the overall economy. As a country, we have a monumental mess on our hands and still the Republicans have nothing to offer in the way of a remedy except more tax cuts for the rich.
This is the party of trickle down and weapons of mass destruction, the party of birthers and death-panel lunatics. This is the party that genuflects at the altar of right-wing talk radio, with its insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry.
Glenn Beck of Fox News has called President Obama a “racist” and asserted that he “has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate, has said of Mr. Obama’s economic policies: “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”
The G.O.P. poisons the political atmosphere and then has the gall to complain about an absence of bipartisanship.
The toxic clouds that are the inevitable result of the fear and the bitter conflicts so relentlessly stoked by the Republican Party — think blacks against whites, gays versus straights, and a whole range of folks against immigrants — tend to obscure the tremendous damage that the party’s policies have inflicted on the country. If people are arguing over immigrants or abortion or whether gays should be allowed to marry, they’re not calling the G.O.P. to account for (to take just one example) the horribly destructive policy of cutting taxes while the nation was fighting two wars.
If you’re all fired up about Republican-inspired tales of Democrats planning to send grandma to some death chamber, you’ll never get to the G.O.P.’s war against the right of ordinary workers to organize and negotiate in their own best interests — a war that has diminished living standards for working people for decades.
With a freer hand, the Republicans would have done more damage. George W. Bush tried to undermine Social Security. John McCain was willing to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Oval Office and thought Phil Gramm would have made a crackerjack Treasury secretary. (For those who may not remember, Mr. Gramm was a deregulation zealot who told us during the presidential campaign that we were suffering from a “mental recession.”)
A party that promotes ignorance (“Just say no to global warming”) and provides a safe house for bigotry cannot serve the best interests of our country. Back in the 1960s, John Lewis risked his life and endured savage beatings to secure fundamental rights for black Americans while right-wing Republicans like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were lining up with segregationist Democrats to oppose landmark civil rights legislation.
Since then, the right-wingers have taken over the G.O.P. and Mr. Lewis, now a congressman, must still endure the garbage they have wrought.
This One is For Ted..
About a year ago, Senator Ted Kennedy was struggling and slowly succumbing to a brain tumor. "The Lion of the Senate" had spent 37 years in U.S. Senate working for people in Massachusetts and across the country. He would take up the mantle for various causes throughout his tenure, but one would become his lifelong cause: health care reform. He was in the U.S. Senate when Medicare was passed. He was in the U.S. Senate when SCHIP was passed. Through it all, health care for not just the elderly, but for everyone who wanted it was his goal. Presidents Nixon and Clinton were the two closest during his time to getting something passed in the wake of the work of President Lyndon Johnson. He stood behind then-candidate Obama in 2008 because of a combination of the hope he saw in his similarity to his older brother, John Kennedy, and the hope he saw in a man that might be the one who finally brought health care reform across the finish line. Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy passed away late last August. With his death, a hole was left in the U.S. Senate and he died without seeing the completion of his last objective. Six months later; Senator Kennedy, your lifelong cause has finally crossed the finish line. What used to be a privilege is now a right.
To celebrate this monumental achievement in our history, I went back and reread the letter that Senator Kennedy wrote President Obama last year while the debate over health care was waging. Below is that letter:
May 12, 2009
Dear Mr. President,
I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me – and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.
On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.
You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.
When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the President who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me-and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.
There will be struggles – there always have been – and they are already underway again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat - that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.
And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will – yes, we will – fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.
In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign- and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young President who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young President inspires another generation and once more on America's behalf inspires the entire world.
So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend- and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.
At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.
And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.
With deep respect and abiding affection,
[Ted]
Some might not have always agreed with Senator Kennedy. Some might not have always liked Senator Kennedy. But there must a respect level amongst both sides of the aisle for the perseverance he had throughout his career and even in his final days to continue to fight for causes worth fighting for. You can tell that the dream about to be fulfilled gave his extra motivation not to slow down as he became sicker. You can tell that the possibility of finally having health care reform pass was enough to give him solace as he knew his days were numbered.
So, Senator Ted Kennedy...this one is for you. You never gave up and the dream lives on long after you have left.
To celebrate this monumental achievement in our history, I went back and reread the letter that Senator Kennedy wrote President Obama last year while the debate over health care was waging. Below is that letter:
May 12, 2009
Dear Mr. President,
I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me – and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.
On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.
You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.
When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the President who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me-and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.
There will be struggles – there always have been – and they are already underway again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat - that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.
And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will – yes, we will – fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.
In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign- and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young President who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young President inspires another generation and once more on America's behalf inspires the entire world.
So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend- and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.
At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.
And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.
With deep respect and abiding affection,
[Ted]
Some might not have always agreed with Senator Kennedy. Some might not have always liked Senator Kennedy. But there must a respect level amongst both sides of the aisle for the perseverance he had throughout his career and even in his final days to continue to fight for causes worth fighting for. You can tell that the dream about to be fulfilled gave his extra motivation not to slow down as he became sicker. You can tell that the possibility of finally having health care reform pass was enough to give him solace as he knew his days were numbered.
So, Senator Ted Kennedy...this one is for you. You never gave up and the dream lives on long after you have left.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care: Myths and Access
I began this blog last summer as a way to get some of my thoughts and opinions across. One of my objectives when it pertains to the political arena is to drop the curtain that gets put up. What I mean is: I look at politics from a centralist point of view. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I dislike the fringes of both because they lie more than tell the truth because politics is a game and people who refuse to educate themselves either way are just pawns. Certainly, not many issues have been dragged through the mud like the health care reform debate. Republicans and even worse, their hard base, have voiced some of the craziest statements to confuse people or cause paranoia. So, with that said; how about I "educate" you on some myths and the importance of access to health care.
After what has seemed like an eternity the health care reform that has been close before is almost certain to pass in the coming days and hours. With all the rhetoric tossed around it might be difficult to distinguish what is fact and what is fiction. Here are 5 myths:
1) This could have been a bipartisan bill: From Day 1 of the Obama administration and more importantly the 111th Congress; there was a divide that seemed nearly impossible to bridge. Democrats have the majority and Republicans being the minority were going to fight to avoid anything the Democrats wanted. President Obama campaigned on bipartisanship and working with Republicans, but was met coldly by the opposition party as they did not want to aides in his agenda's success. As the debate when on during the fall and into the spring we saw a clear clash between the two sides. The summit last month was supposed to be the time to put aside partisan differences, but Republicans could only tap on the 2,500 page bill sitting next to each representative from the Republican Party there. Democrats want to expand coverage while Republicans would rather see cost control as the central piece of this legislation. Oh, and despite the fact that Republicans want to do something; they still want to hit the reset button and start completely over. The Republicans, whether it be a good or bad decision, were going to walk lockstep and we have seen that for over a year now.
2) Democrats gave up on the public option too soon: Many on the left felt that the public option was not given a fair chance at getting passed. Progressive campaigns looked to promote its possibility through several statements by Senators. Despite the fact that is will not be on the final legislation and many view it as dead; it is not entirely gone. Legislators who support it are still promoting it and they are still fighting for it. It is tricky to get everything at once and the fact that many are voicing support for it through arguments proves that Democrats have not given up on the public option.
3) Scott Brown changed everything: That one can go either way. His election did force Democrats to have to go back to the drawing board and reassess where they stood as they no longer had a supermajority in the U.S. Senate. The fact that they had gotten the votes in the both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate; they just needed to get it through final procedure votes, which is the course we are on now that should lead to its passage. Whatever the outcome of the special election in Massachusetts, President Obama was focused on carrying through on this legislation; whatever it took. Time will see the impact of Brown's election, but it only altered the course; not derailed health care or the legislation's path.
4) The public is undecided about health care reform: They might be divided over it, but are certainly not undecided. In the latest group of polls, roughly close to 40% favor the idea of this health care legislation while a little less than 50% saying they disagree with this and somewhere is the 10 to 15 percent range without an opinion. The opinions have been about the same for the last few months. The public is far from undecided.
5) How lawmakers vote on health care reform will be the top issue in the 2010 midterm elections: This might be true to some, but not most. It will be a top issue, but not the top issue as jobs and the economy are as important as they were two years ago. There is more than a 2 to 1 advantage for jobs and the economy over health care among voters as their top issue. As with many things, it will be fresh in the minds of voters for about a month, but by November it will have subsided. The economy, job market, and unemployment levels will dominate voters' minds and influence several votes. Bad economies trump all other issues. It is a proven fact. Health care reform will at time link itself to the economy and jobs as Democrats will plug the reform as a way to create jobs and ease aspects of the struggling job market and businesses while Republicans will portray the legislation as something that the White House and Democrats did instead of solving the economic issues.
5 big myths..debunked.
The second part of this post pertains to the importance of access. An article by Nicholas Kristof sparked by interest the other day. He asked: "When in American history did life expectancy improve the most?" He then proceeds to gives guesses for the readers. Maybe the late 1800s with the birth of anesthesia. Or in the 1930s when we first saw antibacterial medicines. Or in the last few decades with CAT scans and heart bypasses. The answer: the 1940s. I did not see that one coming. Why? Because life expectancy increased by about seven years. It is odd that during the war years life expectancy was longer; despite all the deaths in Europe and Asia; than in the years before the war.
The answer and reason behind such an oddity is the fact that Americans were treated and had access to medical care during the war mobilization. Many who were far from doctors or had the medical coverage now had that coverage by being enlisted. Also the various jobs created and New Deal programs gave all these people who before had no to limited access better care. Nothing fancy. Just plain and simple access. And the current legislation for health care reform would only increase access.
Throughout history, access has generally increased, but now it is starting to stall and even reverse and decrease. We have had minor improvements over time, but it has now been nearly 50 years since Medicare and that is a major reason for the decline in access. The oddest thing about the whole health care argument: Republicans oppose this legislation, but it is more towards the center than Richard Nixon's proposed plan back in the early 1970s. Studies have found that without health care legislation, the number of uninsured will only go up by as much as 10 million in the next five years. This negative data is backed up when we look at Americans versus other countries in terms of life expectancy. Children can become sick and die without proper access. Women can have complications from childbirth and even die that could be brought on from lack of proper access. However, those on Medicare generally do very well when compared to other populations. Why? They have coverage and access to care.
Studies provide the information, but any reasonable person would know that uninsured people have a higher possibility of dying early because with insurance and care you can prevent diseases, illnesses, and other causes of deaths.
And what about abortions? Well, according to T.R. Reid, former editor for the Washington Post, "Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations." Compared to our neighbors to the North in Canada for instance, we have one-third more abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. With increased access, contraception and child care become easier and thus lower the rate of abortions and pregnancies in general.
Thus, whether you agree with everything in the bill or not; what is most important is the fact that more and more Americans will now have access to care that they did not have before. It is a right that Americans should be able to exercise. Access leads to less deaths, less health risks, and a better country overall. I can't find no better argument for health care reform than this. Maybe this will be the last post on why we need reform and I will be able to write on how health care is helping millions and that includes access.
There have been myths and many lies along the road the last several months. Look to the root and you can clear the dirt off the truth and see why this legislation is so important and should cross the finish soon enough after a long wait.
After what has seemed like an eternity the health care reform that has been close before is almost certain to pass in the coming days and hours. With all the rhetoric tossed around it might be difficult to distinguish what is fact and what is fiction. Here are 5 myths:
1) This could have been a bipartisan bill: From Day 1 of the Obama administration and more importantly the 111th Congress; there was a divide that seemed nearly impossible to bridge. Democrats have the majority and Republicans being the minority were going to fight to avoid anything the Democrats wanted. President Obama campaigned on bipartisanship and working with Republicans, but was met coldly by the opposition party as they did not want to aides in his agenda's success. As the debate when on during the fall and into the spring we saw a clear clash between the two sides. The summit last month was supposed to be the time to put aside partisan differences, but Republicans could only tap on the 2,500 page bill sitting next to each representative from the Republican Party there. Democrats want to expand coverage while Republicans would rather see cost control as the central piece of this legislation. Oh, and despite the fact that Republicans want to do something; they still want to hit the reset button and start completely over. The Republicans, whether it be a good or bad decision, were going to walk lockstep and we have seen that for over a year now.
2) Democrats gave up on the public option too soon: Many on the left felt that the public option was not given a fair chance at getting passed. Progressive campaigns looked to promote its possibility through several statements by Senators. Despite the fact that is will not be on the final legislation and many view it as dead; it is not entirely gone. Legislators who support it are still promoting it and they are still fighting for it. It is tricky to get everything at once and the fact that many are voicing support for it through arguments proves that Democrats have not given up on the public option.
3) Scott Brown changed everything: That one can go either way. His election did force Democrats to have to go back to the drawing board and reassess where they stood as they no longer had a supermajority in the U.S. Senate. The fact that they had gotten the votes in the both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate; they just needed to get it through final procedure votes, which is the course we are on now that should lead to its passage. Whatever the outcome of the special election in Massachusetts, President Obama was focused on carrying through on this legislation; whatever it took. Time will see the impact of Brown's election, but it only altered the course; not derailed health care or the legislation's path.
4) The public is undecided about health care reform: They might be divided over it, but are certainly not undecided. In the latest group of polls, roughly close to 40% favor the idea of this health care legislation while a little less than 50% saying they disagree with this and somewhere is the 10 to 15 percent range without an opinion. The opinions have been about the same for the last few months. The public is far from undecided.
5) How lawmakers vote on health care reform will be the top issue in the 2010 midterm elections: This might be true to some, but not most. It will be a top issue, but not the top issue as jobs and the economy are as important as they were two years ago. There is more than a 2 to 1 advantage for jobs and the economy over health care among voters as their top issue. As with many things, it will be fresh in the minds of voters for about a month, but by November it will have subsided. The economy, job market, and unemployment levels will dominate voters' minds and influence several votes. Bad economies trump all other issues. It is a proven fact. Health care reform will at time link itself to the economy and jobs as Democrats will plug the reform as a way to create jobs and ease aspects of the struggling job market and businesses while Republicans will portray the legislation as something that the White House and Democrats did instead of solving the economic issues.
5 big myths..debunked.
The second part of this post pertains to the importance of access. An article by Nicholas Kristof sparked by interest the other day. He asked: "When in American history did life expectancy improve the most?" He then proceeds to gives guesses for the readers. Maybe the late 1800s with the birth of anesthesia. Or in the 1930s when we first saw antibacterial medicines. Or in the last few decades with CAT scans and heart bypasses. The answer: the 1940s. I did not see that one coming. Why? Because life expectancy increased by about seven years. It is odd that during the war years life expectancy was longer; despite all the deaths in Europe and Asia; than in the years before the war.
The answer and reason behind such an oddity is the fact that Americans were treated and had access to medical care during the war mobilization. Many who were far from doctors or had the medical coverage now had that coverage by being enlisted. Also the various jobs created and New Deal programs gave all these people who before had no to limited access better care. Nothing fancy. Just plain and simple access. And the current legislation for health care reform would only increase access.
Throughout history, access has generally increased, but now it is starting to stall and even reverse and decrease. We have had minor improvements over time, but it has now been nearly 50 years since Medicare and that is a major reason for the decline in access. The oddest thing about the whole health care argument: Republicans oppose this legislation, but it is more towards the center than Richard Nixon's proposed plan back in the early 1970s. Studies have found that without health care legislation, the number of uninsured will only go up by as much as 10 million in the next five years. This negative data is backed up when we look at Americans versus other countries in terms of life expectancy. Children can become sick and die without proper access. Women can have complications from childbirth and even die that could be brought on from lack of proper access. However, those on Medicare generally do very well when compared to other populations. Why? They have coverage and access to care.
Studies provide the information, but any reasonable person would know that uninsured people have a higher possibility of dying early because with insurance and care you can prevent diseases, illnesses, and other causes of deaths.
And what about abortions? Well, according to T.R. Reid, former editor for the Washington Post, "Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations." Compared to our neighbors to the North in Canada for instance, we have one-third more abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. With increased access, contraception and child care become easier and thus lower the rate of abortions and pregnancies in general.
Thus, whether you agree with everything in the bill or not; what is most important is the fact that more and more Americans will now have access to care that they did not have before. It is a right that Americans should be able to exercise. Access leads to less deaths, less health risks, and a better country overall. I can't find no better argument for health care reform than this. Maybe this will be the last post on why we need reform and I will be able to write on how health care is helping millions and that includes access.
There have been myths and many lies along the road the last several months. Look to the root and you can clear the dirt off the truth and see why this legislation is so important and should cross the finish soon enough after a long wait.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
March Madness Continued
The first round has provided some of the same and some big punches. The big names moved on and the handful of double digit seeds pulled the upset including a 12 over a 5. In terms of my picks I was wrong with the opening game and went 23-9 with the first round.
(1) Kansas v (9) Northern Iowa: Kansas came out the gate strong, but face a dangerous #9 seed. Northern Iowa knocked off UNLV and have a few free shooters who are playing with house money. Kansas has a much stronger squad though and that should be enough. PICK: KANSAS
(1) Kentucky v (9) Wake Forest: Kentucky might have been the most impressive #1 seed in their opening game. They have a lot of young talent that just puts points on the board. Wake Forest survived an up and down Longhorns team, but they don't have enough to keep it going against a much better team. PICK: KENTUCKY
(2) Kansas State v (7) Brigham Young: This one could get interesting as both teams are capable of making runs and feature a couple of the top players. Kansas State though has a little more balance and Pullen will do enough to put them over the top. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(2) Villanova v (10) Saint Mary's: It's a balanced and veteran squad in Nova versus a one man team with role players. Can Samhan do enough to put St. Mary's over the top? Nova did not play very well against Robert Morris and can be vulnerable, but should have enough to survive a possible threat. PICK: VILLANOVA
(3) New Mexico v (11) Washington: New Mexico played against better teams and have a better record. They are one of the small schools who can make a deep run if they play well. Washington might be a tough out. PICK: NEW MEXICO
(3) Baylor v (11) Old Dominion: Old Dominion did enough to edge by Notre Dame, but now they face a tougher challenge. Baylor has more than one player that can shoot well and put this one away. Old Dominion will keep it close, but they don't have enough. PICK: BAYLOR
(5) Butler v (13) Murray State: Murray State got off a late shot to upset Vanderbilt, but they face probably the best #5 seed this year and a team that plays better than most mid majors. Butler does more than enough. PICK: BUTLER
(6) Tennessee v (14) Ohio: Ohio probably pulled off the biggest upset of the first round not only because they beat Georgetown after they barely got in, but they blew the Hoyas out. Tennessee will present a better challenge and a team that has played much more consistent. They should have little trouble winning. PICK: TENNESSEE
(1) Duke v (8) California: Duke had everything going in their opening round game and probably matchup better against Cal then Louisville. California has a good team, but no where as deep as the Blue Devils. PICK: DUKE
(1) Syracuse v (8) Gonzaga: Syracuse has size and speed and too much talent for Gonzaga. PICK: SYRACUSE
(2) West Virginia v (10) Missouri: West Virginia continues to play very well and should be too much for Missouri, who played very well against Clemson. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(2) Ohio State v (10) Georgia Tech: Ohio State and Evan Turner will be too much for what Georgia Tech throws their way. PICK: OHIO STATE
(3) Pittsburgh v (6) Xavier: Xavier looks about as good as most years, but do they have enough to put away a game Pitt team. This one will be close and possibly decided on a last shot. PICK: PITTSBURGH
(4) Purdue v (5) Texas A&M: Both teams are pretty even, but Purdue has played better over the whole year and have a lot of versatility. PICK: PURDUE
(4) Maryland v (5) Michigan State: This one has thriller written all over it. Both feature a couple of good players who can change the game. Experience is my deciding factor. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(4) Wisconsin v (12) Cornell: Cornell surprised many with their victory of Temple in the manner they did. Wisconsin is not the best offensive team and could be vulnerable against a better than usual Ivy League team. PICK: CORNELL
Will upsets occur or will chalk sort itself out again this year? This year has been too unpredictable to follow at times. Here is to more surprises and possible madness! Expect more of the same though.
(1) Kansas v (9) Northern Iowa: Kansas came out the gate strong, but face a dangerous #9 seed. Northern Iowa knocked off UNLV and have a few free shooters who are playing with house money. Kansas has a much stronger squad though and that should be enough. PICK: KANSAS
(1) Kentucky v (9) Wake Forest: Kentucky might have been the most impressive #1 seed in their opening game. They have a lot of young talent that just puts points on the board. Wake Forest survived an up and down Longhorns team, but they don't have enough to keep it going against a much better team. PICK: KENTUCKY
(2) Kansas State v (7) Brigham Young: This one could get interesting as both teams are capable of making runs and feature a couple of the top players. Kansas State though has a little more balance and Pullen will do enough to put them over the top. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(2) Villanova v (10) Saint Mary's: It's a balanced and veteran squad in Nova versus a one man team with role players. Can Samhan do enough to put St. Mary's over the top? Nova did not play very well against Robert Morris and can be vulnerable, but should have enough to survive a possible threat. PICK: VILLANOVA
(3) New Mexico v (11) Washington: New Mexico played against better teams and have a better record. They are one of the small schools who can make a deep run if they play well. Washington might be a tough out. PICK: NEW MEXICO
(3) Baylor v (11) Old Dominion: Old Dominion did enough to edge by Notre Dame, but now they face a tougher challenge. Baylor has more than one player that can shoot well and put this one away. Old Dominion will keep it close, but they don't have enough. PICK: BAYLOR
(5) Butler v (13) Murray State: Murray State got off a late shot to upset Vanderbilt, but they face probably the best #5 seed this year and a team that plays better than most mid majors. Butler does more than enough. PICK: BUTLER
(6) Tennessee v (14) Ohio: Ohio probably pulled off the biggest upset of the first round not only because they beat Georgetown after they barely got in, but they blew the Hoyas out. Tennessee will present a better challenge and a team that has played much more consistent. They should have little trouble winning. PICK: TENNESSEE
(1) Duke v (8) California: Duke had everything going in their opening round game and probably matchup better against Cal then Louisville. California has a good team, but no where as deep as the Blue Devils. PICK: DUKE
(1) Syracuse v (8) Gonzaga: Syracuse has size and speed and too much talent for Gonzaga. PICK: SYRACUSE
(2) West Virginia v (10) Missouri: West Virginia continues to play very well and should be too much for Missouri, who played very well against Clemson. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(2) Ohio State v (10) Georgia Tech: Ohio State and Evan Turner will be too much for what Georgia Tech throws their way. PICK: OHIO STATE
(3) Pittsburgh v (6) Xavier: Xavier looks about as good as most years, but do they have enough to put away a game Pitt team. This one will be close and possibly decided on a last shot. PICK: PITTSBURGH
(4) Purdue v (5) Texas A&M: Both teams are pretty even, but Purdue has played better over the whole year and have a lot of versatility. PICK: PURDUE
(4) Maryland v (5) Michigan State: This one has thriller written all over it. Both feature a couple of good players who can change the game. Experience is my deciding factor. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(4) Wisconsin v (12) Cornell: Cornell surprised many with their victory of Temple in the manner they did. Wisconsin is not the best offensive team and could be vulnerable against a better than usual Ivy League team. PICK: CORNELL
Will upsets occur or will chalk sort itself out again this year? This year has been too unpredictable to follow at times. Here is to more surprises and possible madness! Expect more of the same though.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Welcome to March Madness
Well it's that time of the year again...MARCH MADNESS. 65 teams have punched their tickets to the big dance and after tonight the first team will be gone and the dance will be in full swing by Thursday. There are favorites in all four #1 seeds: Kentucky, Syracuse, Duke, and the top overall seed, Kansas. However, the bracket is as wide open as this season. Ohio State, Kansas State, and West Virginia all had strong finishes and seasons and could be as dangerous. Will we see a "Cinderella" make a run. Chalk was the word for the tournament last year and could happen this year as the handful of top teams seemed poised to cut down the nets. But before we talk titles, lets talk opening round and first round.
Opening Round Game
(16) Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15) v (16) Winthrop (19-13): Arkansas-Pine Bluff got in via the SWAC conference title and Winthrop got in via the Big Sky conference title. Neither has a resume that jumps off the paper and for me, it's basically a flip of the coin. Winthrop has made the NCAA tournament a few times in recent years and will go with that as the difference. PICK: WINTHROP
(1) Kansas (32-2) v (16) Lehigh (20-10): Kansas' only two losses came on the road and beat Kansas State three times including on their way to the Big 12 title. Sherron Collins is one of the top players this year and his surrounding cast is very strong. Lehigh got into the tournament via the Patriot conference title. Kansas is on track for another title. PICK: KANSAS
(1) Kentucky (32-2) v (16) East Tennessee State (20-14): Kentucky's young core led by all-star freshman John Wall have reshaped Kentucky's basketball program. Their only two losses came on the road in conference play and have a balanced attack around Wall. East Tennessee State got into the tournament via winning the Atlantic Sun conference title. A victory over Arkansas and a fairly close loss to Tennessee highlight their season. However, they are severally mismatched here. PICK: KENTUCKY
(2) Kansas State (26-7) v (15) North Texas (24-8): Take away three losses to the Jayhawks and this team led by Jacob Pullen have accomplished quite a bit. They have a defensive philosophy that could be tough to stop. North Texas got to the tournament by winning the Sun Belt conference. Looks like the Wildcats have no problems here. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(2) Villanova (24-7) v (15) Robert Morris (23-11): The tandem of Reynolds and Fisher have been part of Villanova's core for the last few years and this team will depend on them as they struggled down the stretch this year. Robert Morris made the tournament by capturing the Northeast conference. They have a nice team, but Nova despite their recent play have a dangerous team if they are healthy and on the same page. PICK: VILLANOVA
(3) New Mexico (29-4) v (14) Montana (22-9): New Mexico was a team that I didn't expect to play as well as they did they tore through their schedule and an underrated Mountain West conference. They beat a very good BYU team twice. Montana got into the tournament winning the Big Sky conference and made a nice little run. However, they look to be overmatched by a very game New Mexico team. PICK: NEW MEXICO
(3) Baylor (25-7) v (14) Sam Houston State (25-7): The Bears have had a very nice season and could be one of those sleeper teams to make a run. Sam Houston State got into the tournament via winning the Southland conference. Baylor has too much shooting and should win comfortably. PICK: BAYLOR
(3) Georgetown (23-10) v (14) Ohio (21-14): Georgetown started the season strong, but over the last couple months they have had a few off nights that might worry supporters in a dangerous tournament like this. They gave West Virginia a fight for the Big East title and looked sharp. Without making a major run to win the MAC conference title, Ohio would not be in this game. Not too sure how well they match up with some Georgetown's size. PICK: GEORGETOWN
(4) Vanderbilt (24-8) v (13) Murray State (30-4): Vanderbilt has another solid team, but they don't seem to jump off the paper. They lost two games to Kentucky and this might be one of those upset games. Murray State had a very good year and got into the tournament by winning the Ohio Valley conference title. They can be a dangerous matchup for Vandy. PICK: VANDERBILT
(5) Butler (28-4) v (12) UTEP (26-6): Butler might be a 5th seed, but they are one of the most underrated teams and some are even picking against them in this game. They have a good balanced team that can play both sides of the ball well. UTEP's record to me doesn't match this team. They do have enough to pull off the victory, but I don't see it. PICK: BUTLER
(6) Tennessee (25-8) v (11) San Diego State (25-8): Tennessee had a big win against Kansas earlier this and could be poised for a run despite losing some players this year. San Diego State snuck in from a tough Mountain West conference. This one could be a back and forth affair. PICK: TENNESSEE
(6) Notre Dame (23-11) v (11) Old Dominion (26-8): Notre Dame is battled tested from the Big East conference and had a very nice run late in the season. Much of their play often revolved around Luke Harangody. While he was injured they struggled. Old Dominion conquered the Colonial conference to get in and they have a victory at Georgetown on their resume. Should be pretty close. PICK: NOTRE DAME
(6) Marquette (22-11) v (11) Washington (24-9): Marquette started the year strong and ended the year strong. The same thing could be said of Washington. For that reason, this is truly a coin toss. Marquette played in a much better conference and that might be the difference. PICK: MARQUETTE
(7) Brigham Young (29-5) v (10) Florida (21-12): With Jimmer Fredette leading the way, BYU have a very good team who might have enough to win a few in this tournament. This Florida team is young with potential, but not too sure how much fire power they have. PICK: BRIGHAM YOUNG
(7) Richmond (26-8) v (10) Saint Mary's (26-5): Richmond emerges from a better than usual Atlantic 10 and could do a little damage if they get by Saint Mary's. Saint Mary's has a very good player in Omar Samhan and he could the difference in if they win this one and any others. I see Richmond having more balancing and might tip the edge in their favor. PICK: RICHMOND
(8) UNLV (25-8) v (9) Northern Iowa (28-4): UNLV is having another good year that consists of a lot of streaks. They won a lot and lost a couple and won a bunch more and lost a few in between before a pretty solid finish to the year. Northern Iowa is the Missouri Valley conference champions and have an intriguing team that could be one of dangerous lower seeded teams. This is a down the middle matchup. PICK: NORTHERN IOWA
(8) Texas (24-9) v (9) Wake Forest (19-10): Texas at one point was ranked #1 and then lost two in a row in January after starting undefeated. They have been tough to figure out since as they lose some and win some. In the course of a week, Baylor beat them twice and convincingly. Wake Forest started pretty good and was looking good early in 2010 before a string of losses that might be concerning. PICK: TEXAS
(1) Duke (29-5) v (16) Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15): Duke has been one of the best teams all year and has gotten some criticism for benefiting from a down year for the ACC. The trio of Scheyer/Singler/Smith could be the ultimate decider of how far this Duke team goes. Arkansas Pine Bluff got in barely and then downed Winthrop in the opening round game. They looked good, but reality will strike in this one. PICK: DUKE
(1) Syracuse (28-4) v (16) Vermont (25-9): Syracuse has one of the better players in Wes Johnson and have been very dangerous all year. Minus a few Big East losses they have a lot of talent to make a run at a title. Interestingly they draw Vermont, the same school that knocked them in the first round a few years back. Vermont emerges as the champ of the American East conference. They will have a much harder time this time around knocking off Syracuse. PICK: SYRACUSE
(2) West Virginia (27-6) v (15) Morgan State (27-9): Da'Sean Butler and this Mountaineers team are certainly one of the best as they are playing very good at the right time. Morgan State won the MEAC and that was their ticket in. They will not be around despite having a good shooter in Holmes. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(2) Ohio State (27-7) v (15) UC Santa Barbara (20-9): Ohio State has one of the best players in the country and he will be a major cog for this team. UC Santa Barbara's ticket was punched via winning the Big West conference. This one looks pretty self explanatory. PICK: OHIO STATE
(3) Pittsburgh (24-8) v (14) Oakland (26-8): Pittsburgh has a good balanced team that for the most part has looked like a top team. They must play aggressive or they have a tendency to open the door for teams. Oakland won the Summit League conference to get in and could play tough, but don't have enough. PICK: PITTSBURGH
(4) Purdue (27-5) v (13) Siena: Purdue started very strong but a stumble and regained that form that seems capable of doing some damage. Siena gets in via winning the MAAC conference and might have enough to slow down Purdue enough to win. But it's hard to see it. PICK: PURDUE
(4) Wisconsin (23-8) v (13) Wofford (26-8): This looks like another strong Wisconsin team, but its hard to tell how good they are. They lost a couple bad ones early, but seem back to form. Wofford enters champs of the Southern conference and look pretty average. PICK: WISCONSIN
(4) Maryland (23-8) v (13) Houston (19-15): Maryland has been one of the better teams in a so-so ACC and has been peeking lately. Greivis Vasquez is the type of player who can take over a game. Houston needed a miracle run to win the Conference USA tournament to win the conference title and get in. They have a lot of gusto, but it's hard to see this run going on further. PICK: MARYLAND
(5) Michigan State (24-8) v (12) New Mexico State (22-11): This is another balanced team under coach Tom Izzo at Michigan State. They have enough weapons that they present a tough challenge. New Mexico State won the WAC conference title to get in. They don't seem to have a lot in terms of matchup advantages. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(5) Temple (29-5) v (12) Cornell (27-4): Temple might a sleeper among small schools as they won a few games against good schools and ran through an improved Atlantic 10. Cornell is the respective of the Ivy League, but is a bit better than most Ivy League schools who make the tournament. They played close against Kansas. This is one of the better first round games and feature two possible sleepers. PICK: TEMPLE
(5) Texas A&M (23-9) v (12) Utah State (27-7): Texas A&M might have a little run in them as their only losses have come to some of the top teams in the field and on a neutral site there might be a different result. Utah State had barely lost since the calendar turned 2010, but tripped up in their conference tournament final. They have a solid team that could knock off A&M. PICK: TEXAS A&M
(6) Xavier (24-8) v (11) Minnesota(21-13): Xavier had another strong year and one of the top teams in a very good Atlantic 10. Minnesota had a good year, but doesn't seem to have a tournament tested squad. PICK: XAVIER
(7) Oklahoma State (22-10) v (10) Georgia Tech (22-12): Oklahoma State has a team that has the possibility to be one and done or survive the weekend. The same thing can be said for Georgia Tech. These two are very even and this one could be a nail biter. PICK: OKLAHOMA STATE
(7) Clemson (21-10) v (10) Missouri (22-10): Clemson has a nice team, but nothing special. Missouri doesn't have a great team, but has had nice stretches at times. They should have enough here. PICK: MISSOURI
(8) Gonzaga (26-6) v (9) Florida State (22-9): Gonzaga has another solid team with good balance. Florida State has the ability to get past this one due to enough of a balanced team themselves. A close one. PICK: GONZAGA
(8) California (23-10) v (9) Louisville (20-12): In a bad Pac-10, California was probably the best team and took advantage of that schedule. Louisville had much better competition this year and at times showed they were a tough team to beat. PICK: LOUISVILLE
Let the games begin and see what type of madness we experience.
Opening Round Game
(16) Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15) v (16) Winthrop (19-13): Arkansas-Pine Bluff got in via the SWAC conference title and Winthrop got in via the Big Sky conference title. Neither has a resume that jumps off the paper and for me, it's basically a flip of the coin. Winthrop has made the NCAA tournament a few times in recent years and will go with that as the difference. PICK: WINTHROP
(1) Kansas (32-2) v (16) Lehigh (20-10): Kansas' only two losses came on the road and beat Kansas State three times including on their way to the Big 12 title. Sherron Collins is one of the top players this year and his surrounding cast is very strong. Lehigh got into the tournament via the Patriot conference title. Kansas is on track for another title. PICK: KANSAS
(1) Kentucky (32-2) v (16) East Tennessee State (20-14): Kentucky's young core led by all-star freshman John Wall have reshaped Kentucky's basketball program. Their only two losses came on the road in conference play and have a balanced attack around Wall. East Tennessee State got into the tournament via winning the Atlantic Sun conference title. A victory over Arkansas and a fairly close loss to Tennessee highlight their season. However, they are severally mismatched here. PICK: KENTUCKY
(2) Kansas State (26-7) v (15) North Texas (24-8): Take away three losses to the Jayhawks and this team led by Jacob Pullen have accomplished quite a bit. They have a defensive philosophy that could be tough to stop. North Texas got to the tournament by winning the Sun Belt conference. Looks like the Wildcats have no problems here. PICK: KANSAS STATE
(2) Villanova (24-7) v (15) Robert Morris (23-11): The tandem of Reynolds and Fisher have been part of Villanova's core for the last few years and this team will depend on them as they struggled down the stretch this year. Robert Morris made the tournament by capturing the Northeast conference. They have a nice team, but Nova despite their recent play have a dangerous team if they are healthy and on the same page. PICK: VILLANOVA
(3) New Mexico (29-4) v (14) Montana (22-9): New Mexico was a team that I didn't expect to play as well as they did they tore through their schedule and an underrated Mountain West conference. They beat a very good BYU team twice. Montana got into the tournament winning the Big Sky conference and made a nice little run. However, they look to be overmatched by a very game New Mexico team. PICK: NEW MEXICO
(3) Baylor (25-7) v (14) Sam Houston State (25-7): The Bears have had a very nice season and could be one of those sleeper teams to make a run. Sam Houston State got into the tournament via winning the Southland conference. Baylor has too much shooting and should win comfortably. PICK: BAYLOR
(3) Georgetown (23-10) v (14) Ohio (21-14): Georgetown started the season strong, but over the last couple months they have had a few off nights that might worry supporters in a dangerous tournament like this. They gave West Virginia a fight for the Big East title and looked sharp. Without making a major run to win the MAC conference title, Ohio would not be in this game. Not too sure how well they match up with some Georgetown's size. PICK: GEORGETOWN
(4) Vanderbilt (24-8) v (13) Murray State (30-4): Vanderbilt has another solid team, but they don't seem to jump off the paper. They lost two games to Kentucky and this might be one of those upset games. Murray State had a very good year and got into the tournament by winning the Ohio Valley conference title. They can be a dangerous matchup for Vandy. PICK: VANDERBILT
(5) Butler (28-4) v (12) UTEP (26-6): Butler might be a 5th seed, but they are one of the most underrated teams and some are even picking against them in this game. They have a good balanced team that can play both sides of the ball well. UTEP's record to me doesn't match this team. They do have enough to pull off the victory, but I don't see it. PICK: BUTLER
(6) Tennessee (25-8) v (11) San Diego State (25-8): Tennessee had a big win against Kansas earlier this and could be poised for a run despite losing some players this year. San Diego State snuck in from a tough Mountain West conference. This one could be a back and forth affair. PICK: TENNESSEE
(6) Notre Dame (23-11) v (11) Old Dominion (26-8): Notre Dame is battled tested from the Big East conference and had a very nice run late in the season. Much of their play often revolved around Luke Harangody. While he was injured they struggled. Old Dominion conquered the Colonial conference to get in and they have a victory at Georgetown on their resume. Should be pretty close. PICK: NOTRE DAME
(6) Marquette (22-11) v (11) Washington (24-9): Marquette started the year strong and ended the year strong. The same thing could be said of Washington. For that reason, this is truly a coin toss. Marquette played in a much better conference and that might be the difference. PICK: MARQUETTE
(7) Brigham Young (29-5) v (10) Florida (21-12): With Jimmer Fredette leading the way, BYU have a very good team who might have enough to win a few in this tournament. This Florida team is young with potential, but not too sure how much fire power they have. PICK: BRIGHAM YOUNG
(7) Richmond (26-8) v (10) Saint Mary's (26-5): Richmond emerges from a better than usual Atlantic 10 and could do a little damage if they get by Saint Mary's. Saint Mary's has a very good player in Omar Samhan and he could the difference in if they win this one and any others. I see Richmond having more balancing and might tip the edge in their favor. PICK: RICHMOND
(8) UNLV (25-8) v (9) Northern Iowa (28-4): UNLV is having another good year that consists of a lot of streaks. They won a lot and lost a couple and won a bunch more and lost a few in between before a pretty solid finish to the year. Northern Iowa is the Missouri Valley conference champions and have an intriguing team that could be one of dangerous lower seeded teams. This is a down the middle matchup. PICK: NORTHERN IOWA
(8) Texas (24-9) v (9) Wake Forest (19-10): Texas at one point was ranked #1 and then lost two in a row in January after starting undefeated. They have been tough to figure out since as they lose some and win some. In the course of a week, Baylor beat them twice and convincingly. Wake Forest started pretty good and was looking good early in 2010 before a string of losses that might be concerning. PICK: TEXAS
(1) Duke (29-5) v (16) Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15): Duke has been one of the best teams all year and has gotten some criticism for benefiting from a down year for the ACC. The trio of Scheyer/Singler/Smith could be the ultimate decider of how far this Duke team goes. Arkansas Pine Bluff got in barely and then downed Winthrop in the opening round game. They looked good, but reality will strike in this one. PICK: DUKE
(1) Syracuse (28-4) v (16) Vermont (25-9): Syracuse has one of the better players in Wes Johnson and have been very dangerous all year. Minus a few Big East losses they have a lot of talent to make a run at a title. Interestingly they draw Vermont, the same school that knocked them in the first round a few years back. Vermont emerges as the champ of the American East conference. They will have a much harder time this time around knocking off Syracuse. PICK: SYRACUSE
(2) West Virginia (27-6) v (15) Morgan State (27-9): Da'Sean Butler and this Mountaineers team are certainly one of the best as they are playing very good at the right time. Morgan State won the MEAC and that was their ticket in. They will not be around despite having a good shooter in Holmes. PICK: WEST VIRGINIA
(2) Ohio State (27-7) v (15) UC Santa Barbara (20-9): Ohio State has one of the best players in the country and he will be a major cog for this team. UC Santa Barbara's ticket was punched via winning the Big West conference. This one looks pretty self explanatory. PICK: OHIO STATE
(3) Pittsburgh (24-8) v (14) Oakland (26-8): Pittsburgh has a good balanced team that for the most part has looked like a top team. They must play aggressive or they have a tendency to open the door for teams. Oakland won the Summit League conference to get in and could play tough, but don't have enough. PICK: PITTSBURGH
(4) Purdue (27-5) v (13) Siena: Purdue started very strong but a stumble and regained that form that seems capable of doing some damage. Siena gets in via winning the MAAC conference and might have enough to slow down Purdue enough to win. But it's hard to see it. PICK: PURDUE
(4) Wisconsin (23-8) v (13) Wofford (26-8): This looks like another strong Wisconsin team, but its hard to tell how good they are. They lost a couple bad ones early, but seem back to form. Wofford enters champs of the Southern conference and look pretty average. PICK: WISCONSIN
(4) Maryland (23-8) v (13) Houston (19-15): Maryland has been one of the better teams in a so-so ACC and has been peeking lately. Greivis Vasquez is the type of player who can take over a game. Houston needed a miracle run to win the Conference USA tournament to win the conference title and get in. They have a lot of gusto, but it's hard to see this run going on further. PICK: MARYLAND
(5) Michigan State (24-8) v (12) New Mexico State (22-11): This is another balanced team under coach Tom Izzo at Michigan State. They have enough weapons that they present a tough challenge. New Mexico State won the WAC conference title to get in. They don't seem to have a lot in terms of matchup advantages. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
(5) Temple (29-5) v (12) Cornell (27-4): Temple might a sleeper among small schools as they won a few games against good schools and ran through an improved Atlantic 10. Cornell is the respective of the Ivy League, but is a bit better than most Ivy League schools who make the tournament. They played close against Kansas. This is one of the better first round games and feature two possible sleepers. PICK: TEMPLE
(5) Texas A&M (23-9) v (12) Utah State (27-7): Texas A&M might have a little run in them as their only losses have come to some of the top teams in the field and on a neutral site there might be a different result. Utah State had barely lost since the calendar turned 2010, but tripped up in their conference tournament final. They have a solid team that could knock off A&M. PICK: TEXAS A&M
(6) Xavier (24-8) v (11) Minnesota(21-13): Xavier had another strong year and one of the top teams in a very good Atlantic 10. Minnesota had a good year, but doesn't seem to have a tournament tested squad. PICK: XAVIER
(7) Oklahoma State (22-10) v (10) Georgia Tech (22-12): Oklahoma State has a team that has the possibility to be one and done or survive the weekend. The same thing can be said for Georgia Tech. These two are very even and this one could be a nail biter. PICK: OKLAHOMA STATE
(7) Clemson (21-10) v (10) Missouri (22-10): Clemson has a nice team, but nothing special. Missouri doesn't have a great team, but has had nice stretches at times. They should have enough here. PICK: MISSOURI
(8) Gonzaga (26-6) v (9) Florida State (22-9): Gonzaga has another solid team with good balance. Florida State has the ability to get past this one due to enough of a balanced team themselves. A close one. PICK: GONZAGA
(8) California (23-10) v (9) Louisville (20-12): In a bad Pac-10, California was probably the best team and took advantage of that schedule. Louisville had much better competition this year and at times showed they were a tough team to beat. PICK: LOUISVILLE
Let the games begin and see what type of madness we experience.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Mr. Raines Gives Fox News a Reality Check
If there is one thing about today's media and the media our parents or especially our grandparents grew up with, things are over hyped and not down the middle enough. We have MSNBC who cater to mostly liberals and those on the left and we have Fox News who cater to mostly conservatives and those on the right. CNN has a good balance, but they too are guilty of some of the problems in today's media. Talk radio to me is also joke and is more of outlet for fear, paranoia, and "bitching". Both brands of talk radio are pointless to furthering educational talk and discussion and only regress things. I always preach arguments based on facts and truths. Also looking at things down the middle in order to be "fair and balanced". That last quotation sounds kind of familiar? Of course, it is one of the big slogans that Fox News says they are. However, some like Howell Raines see them as "skewed and hypocritical".
Mr. Raines is a former editor of the New York Times and has reached his boiling point with Fox News. He targets his attack at the chief of Fox News, Roger Ailes. Ailes is obviously a staunch conservative, anti-Obama, and against everything on the president's agenda. As someone who prefers CNN over the other two, I can clearly see where Raines is coming from. As much as MSNBC can be accused of supporting the White House, Fox News is definitely on a mission to rip apart the President's administration and all around it including the Democratic Congress. The difference between the two "bias" channels is at least MSNBC tries to deviate at times while Fox News sticks to reigning in conservative propaganda points.
I doubt this mission against Obama is strictly based on his race, but based on the fact that the President goes against everything that a conservative embraces. He wants to help the less fortunate and spend money. But spend money on programs that help the majority and not the minority. The biggest thing in Raines' argument against Ailes and Fox News is the fact that the network has spent much money and energy on fighting against the health care legislation. They continue to enforce their belief that no one wants this and the money isn't there. Traditional talking points. Raines is angry over the fact that everyone has sat idly by while Fox News has "turned reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: 'The American people do not want health-care reform." As someone who regularly follows the daily political news and news in general, I can echo that sentiment as the network does some like a church preaching its gospel. Almost fitting since many who watch the channel are probably fairly religious.
Since Harry Truman, almost every president has brought up working on health care reform. It has been part of presidential campaigns before Obama's. And to dispute that this legislation is Democratic, Richard Nixon would favor the current legislation as he was a major fighter for reform. However, his party has changed greatly in the last 40 years. Raines brings up the fact that the network highlights increased disapproval for reform since the debate began. At the same time, he accuses the network of setting back newsrooms and professional standards back a half century. Journalism since World War II had gradually increased its account of honest story telling of daily events as it watched the world change. For Raines, Fox News has a Foxian reality of the world where the actors on their network lower their morals and respect for news journalism in an all out assault against the White House and Democrats.
Raines lays things out as such:
"I'm confident that many old-schoolers are too principled to appear on the network, choosing silence over being used; when Fox does trot out a house liberal as a punching bag, the result is a parody of reasoned news formats."
In the same breath as that, Raines fears and is worried that many of those "old-schoolers" who would normally blow the lid off lies are hesitate to combat someone and a network with much financial power and a large audience. Ridicule is almost a deterrent that Raines brings up referencing Paula Zahn's departure from Fox News to CNN and Ailes' use of ripping apart Zahn's credibility. The silence is what Raines sees as a spark to the fire that Ailes has created with Fox News. It only intensifies what is said and done on the network. Recently, Arianna Huffington called out Ailes and the bias coverage he produces on Obama. In response, Ailes mentioned caring most about ratings and getting an audience is all that he is concerned about. Essentially throwing telling things like they actually are out the door in favor of making sure his regular viewers stay loyal. It is his outlook that dictates how things are told on Fox News.
Raines sees what Fox News produces as reverting to yellow journalism of the early 1900s as one political party is promoted. Fox believes that the rest of the news media is slanted left and they are essential to balancing the "mainstream media" bias. Fox News is far right and those center left or center right refrain from calling out the network. What makes it so tricky for many to fully attack Fox News is the power of money. NewsCorp owns Fox News and Ailes makes Rupert Murdoch, the head of NewsCorp a lot of money and thus why would he argue against Ailes' style of journalism and news.
In closing, Raines states:
"As for Fox News, lots of people who know better are keeping quiet about what to call it. Its news operation can, in fact, be called many things, but reporters of my generation, with memories and keyboards, dare not call it journalism."
As I stated in the beginning, I think all news networks have flaws, but that is part of human nature. There is a difference though in knowing that what you are saying isn't completely "fair and balanced" and Raines brings up a lot of great points. He unlike many had the balls to write his beliefs out and who knows how he will be perceived. I for one support his argument and say to Fox News, this is your reality check. I never view you as a true and honest news network and thus chose not to watch you. I only occasionally watch it to see what its commentators are saying. I am someone who reads and studies things and often enough they portray things as they aren't or tell stories as they see fit. They use statistics that favor their arguments and points of views and then look foolish when they are caught. Jon Stewart is someone who equally rips both sides of the aisle and both parties, but he probably exposes 5 times more garbage on Fox News then the other networks. I don't find that ironic as the truth hurts sometimes. How about Fox News tell it more like it is then how they want it to be.
I implore everyone to check it out and gather your own opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102523.html
Mr. Raines is a former editor of the New York Times and has reached his boiling point with Fox News. He targets his attack at the chief of Fox News, Roger Ailes. Ailes is obviously a staunch conservative, anti-Obama, and against everything on the president's agenda. As someone who prefers CNN over the other two, I can clearly see where Raines is coming from. As much as MSNBC can be accused of supporting the White House, Fox News is definitely on a mission to rip apart the President's administration and all around it including the Democratic Congress. The difference between the two "bias" channels is at least MSNBC tries to deviate at times while Fox News sticks to reigning in conservative propaganda points.
I doubt this mission against Obama is strictly based on his race, but based on the fact that the President goes against everything that a conservative embraces. He wants to help the less fortunate and spend money. But spend money on programs that help the majority and not the minority. The biggest thing in Raines' argument against Ailes and Fox News is the fact that the network has spent much money and energy on fighting against the health care legislation. They continue to enforce their belief that no one wants this and the money isn't there. Traditional talking points. Raines is angry over the fact that everyone has sat idly by while Fox News has "turned reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: 'The American people do not want health-care reform." As someone who regularly follows the daily political news and news in general, I can echo that sentiment as the network does some like a church preaching its gospel. Almost fitting since many who watch the channel are probably fairly religious.
Since Harry Truman, almost every president has brought up working on health care reform. It has been part of presidential campaigns before Obama's. And to dispute that this legislation is Democratic, Richard Nixon would favor the current legislation as he was a major fighter for reform. However, his party has changed greatly in the last 40 years. Raines brings up the fact that the network highlights increased disapproval for reform since the debate began. At the same time, he accuses the network of setting back newsrooms and professional standards back a half century. Journalism since World War II had gradually increased its account of honest story telling of daily events as it watched the world change. For Raines, Fox News has a Foxian reality of the world where the actors on their network lower their morals and respect for news journalism in an all out assault against the White House and Democrats.
Raines lays things out as such:
"I'm confident that many old-schoolers are too principled to appear on the network, choosing silence over being used; when Fox does trot out a house liberal as a punching bag, the result is a parody of reasoned news formats."
In the same breath as that, Raines fears and is worried that many of those "old-schoolers" who would normally blow the lid off lies are hesitate to combat someone and a network with much financial power and a large audience. Ridicule is almost a deterrent that Raines brings up referencing Paula Zahn's departure from Fox News to CNN and Ailes' use of ripping apart Zahn's credibility. The silence is what Raines sees as a spark to the fire that Ailes has created with Fox News. It only intensifies what is said and done on the network. Recently, Arianna Huffington called out Ailes and the bias coverage he produces on Obama. In response, Ailes mentioned caring most about ratings and getting an audience is all that he is concerned about. Essentially throwing telling things like they actually are out the door in favor of making sure his regular viewers stay loyal. It is his outlook that dictates how things are told on Fox News.
Raines sees what Fox News produces as reverting to yellow journalism of the early 1900s as one political party is promoted. Fox believes that the rest of the news media is slanted left and they are essential to balancing the "mainstream media" bias. Fox News is far right and those center left or center right refrain from calling out the network. What makes it so tricky for many to fully attack Fox News is the power of money. NewsCorp owns Fox News and Ailes makes Rupert Murdoch, the head of NewsCorp a lot of money and thus why would he argue against Ailes' style of journalism and news.
In closing, Raines states:
"As for Fox News, lots of people who know better are keeping quiet about what to call it. Its news operation can, in fact, be called many things, but reporters of my generation, with memories and keyboards, dare not call it journalism."
As I stated in the beginning, I think all news networks have flaws, but that is part of human nature. There is a difference though in knowing that what you are saying isn't completely "fair and balanced" and Raines brings up a lot of great points. He unlike many had the balls to write his beliefs out and who knows how he will be perceived. I for one support his argument and say to Fox News, this is your reality check. I never view you as a true and honest news network and thus chose not to watch you. I only occasionally watch it to see what its commentators are saying. I am someone who reads and studies things and often enough they portray things as they aren't or tell stories as they see fit. They use statistics that favor their arguments and points of views and then look foolish when they are caught. Jon Stewart is someone who equally rips both sides of the aisle and both parties, but he probably exposes 5 times more garbage on Fox News then the other networks. I don't find that ironic as the truth hurts sometimes. How about Fox News tell it more like it is then how they want it to be.
I implore everyone to check it out and gather your own opinion: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102523.html
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Debt...Practical vs Impractical
When the president took office over a year ago, he inherited many things. One issue was the growing deficit. Spending during the Bush administration had dug a big hole in the deficit. Unfortunately, due to the rough economic times more was added to the deficit for bailout money and when this health care legislation becomes a bill; it will add more to the deficit. But, many complain that we must stop now. Spending must cease in a recession. People were not losing control and paying attention to spending at various points in the last ten years. So, that brings me to ask: what is smart debt and what is not smart debt? What is practical spending and what is impractical spending?
Many might not realize it or are so geared into the problems we have today, but a decade ago we had a surplus. Our national debt was not a problem. That is until we enter one war. Then another. Then while doing that we had multiple tax cuts. A sort of perfect storm for erasing any surplus and taking us a down a bad path.
How then, do we do anything with that mix causing a growing deficit? Running deficits, for one, during a time of high unemployment like we face is a good thing. Throughout the world, trillions of dollars have been invested in the global economy in order to prevent an epic collapse. We are seeing growth a year later. The stimulus is still slowly being implemented; as it was planned to do. After discussions, we will probably see a second bill under Obama come to the table as more money still needs to be put into the system despite the deficit we have.
People see the stimulus bills as one way that they are forced to spend more and they "only add to our problem". The question that many ask, though, is where money should be spent and how will that affect their taxes. Big government vs small government is a common argument between the parties and their constituents. Whether people like, right now we need big government; with controlled spending.
Health care has taken a lot of heat in the last year as something we don't need reformed if it will add to the growing deficit. The more people who are not insured will grow through losing their jobs or because their employers will slowly find harder and harder to maintain such benefits. With the reform that has been laid out, businesses; especially small businesses; will have an outlet and assistance in providing for their employers without losing an arm and a leg. Social security is not what it used to be and the baby boomers will be the last to reap it to the fullest if things are not changed and fixed. Both health care and subsequently Medicare alongside with Social Security affect the older generation (60+). Those are the individuals who have paid into the government for decades in order to live a reasonable life after retiring.
Some like Congressman Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin have outlined making Medicare a voucher program and privatizing Social Security to some degree. However, despite what might seem like a genuine effort to fix the problems; these are not the solutions. Involved in his thought process is tax cuts; not to mention that weakening our social services does us no good if things were to get worse.
In addition to social services, our infrastructure and schools are always in need of attention and money invested in both. More time invested in both will restore our country and put us and the future lawyers, politicians, and CEOs on the right track to success.
These are issues and things that can be addressed regardless of our tough economic. E.J. Dionne provides us with three suggestions moving forward regarding how we should address spending.
1) Starting not with entitlements but with a broader assessment of what will need the government to address over the next two decades. There is a need to be frank about where the money is going to go in terms of national defense and entitlements.
2) Offering a selection of the fairest and most economically efficient ways to raise the needed revenue.
3) Proposing a capital budget for the federal government in order that debt is used the way it is supposed to.
What must always be taken into consideration is the fact that borrowing in tough economic times in order to cover the government's daily costs is not smart. However, as we see in both the health care legislation and the stimulus bills; the spending and the financing are meant to take place over time.
We have added to our national deficit through spending without paying and proper allocations. If we set the proper framework for spending moving forward, we can alleviate problems, stabilize the deficit, and allow for it to slowly decrease.
Debt can be smart. And debt can be foolish. Debt can be practical. And debt can be impractical. Lawmakers and us as citizens need to know the difference and make educated decisions.
Many might not realize it or are so geared into the problems we have today, but a decade ago we had a surplus. Our national debt was not a problem. That is until we enter one war. Then another. Then while doing that we had multiple tax cuts. A sort of perfect storm for erasing any surplus and taking us a down a bad path.
How then, do we do anything with that mix causing a growing deficit? Running deficits, for one, during a time of high unemployment like we face is a good thing. Throughout the world, trillions of dollars have been invested in the global economy in order to prevent an epic collapse. We are seeing growth a year later. The stimulus is still slowly being implemented; as it was planned to do. After discussions, we will probably see a second bill under Obama come to the table as more money still needs to be put into the system despite the deficit we have.
People see the stimulus bills as one way that they are forced to spend more and they "only add to our problem". The question that many ask, though, is where money should be spent and how will that affect their taxes. Big government vs small government is a common argument between the parties and their constituents. Whether people like, right now we need big government; with controlled spending.
Health care has taken a lot of heat in the last year as something we don't need reformed if it will add to the growing deficit. The more people who are not insured will grow through losing their jobs or because their employers will slowly find harder and harder to maintain such benefits. With the reform that has been laid out, businesses; especially small businesses; will have an outlet and assistance in providing for their employers without losing an arm and a leg. Social security is not what it used to be and the baby boomers will be the last to reap it to the fullest if things are not changed and fixed. Both health care and subsequently Medicare alongside with Social Security affect the older generation (60+). Those are the individuals who have paid into the government for decades in order to live a reasonable life after retiring.
Some like Congressman Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin have outlined making Medicare a voucher program and privatizing Social Security to some degree. However, despite what might seem like a genuine effort to fix the problems; these are not the solutions. Involved in his thought process is tax cuts; not to mention that weakening our social services does us no good if things were to get worse.
In addition to social services, our infrastructure and schools are always in need of attention and money invested in both. More time invested in both will restore our country and put us and the future lawyers, politicians, and CEOs on the right track to success.
These are issues and things that can be addressed regardless of our tough economic. E.J. Dionne provides us with three suggestions moving forward regarding how we should address spending.
1) Starting not with entitlements but with a broader assessment of what will need the government to address over the next two decades. There is a need to be frank about where the money is going to go in terms of national defense and entitlements.
2) Offering a selection of the fairest and most economically efficient ways to raise the needed revenue.
3) Proposing a capital budget for the federal government in order that debt is used the way it is supposed to.
What must always be taken into consideration is the fact that borrowing in tough economic times in order to cover the government's daily costs is not smart. However, as we see in both the health care legislation and the stimulus bills; the spending and the financing are meant to take place over time.
We have added to our national deficit through spending without paying and proper allocations. If we set the proper framework for spending moving forward, we can alleviate problems, stabilize the deficit, and allow for it to slowly decrease.
Debt can be smart. And debt can be foolish. Debt can be practical. And debt can be impractical. Lawmakers and us as citizens need to know the difference and make educated decisions.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
A Little Truth Never Hurt No One
The last year of debate over health care has given us much anger and shown the dark side of many in this country. The bill has grown and been scrapped up multiple times as new changes and adjustments get made to it. Those in favor of health care reform have gone about showing the necessity for it and the positives of the bill. While a more vocal and obviously critical crowd on the other side of the debate has spoken of the harm of the bill and danger it could do for the country and its people. Part of the debate has gone off what I would consider "the side road" that does not help debate and create a healthy political arena. I am not foolish either and know that politics is a dirty business and mud was bound to be thrown.
The Republican Party last spring locked arms and knew that as the minority that had limited control and power. But they had themselves and knew that if they stayed together, the bill would struggle to pass and if it somehow got through it was a partisan bill. At the same time, a few moderate Democrats were on the fence only complicating matters. And as any outsider would think; if the bill passed with only Democratic votes then it lacked a mandate for something as large this. President Obama has taken criticism from his own party for taking his foot off the gas at times, but the man who promised health care reform is inching closer through his persistence. Obama has majorities in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives yet he could not get his party to act in unison like the Republicans. He was not as demanding as past presidents in similar situations. He was not as cut throat as others who were in his same position.
You have to remember that in 2008, he campaigned on being bipartisan and that has caused him to be weak unfortunately because the other party refuses to be willing for change. He has worked to get Senator Olympia Snowe to come across the aisle. He has worked to add multiple Republican amendments that pertain to spending and waste. Yet, they continue to turn their heads when he talks. So, what more could he do, but to give the power to the members of Congress. However, things have still not gone as planned and now President Obama is asserting his executive power and outlining what needs to be done and there will be no more pushing back deadlines and waiting.
And that leads me to where we are today, both the U.S. House of Representatives in November and the U.S. Senate in December voted for a health care bill. There have been tweaks and minor changes and it is packaged for one final vote. Since those votes, the Democrats lost their filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts in January. However, the Democrats just need 51 votes to get this through the final vote and they certainly have that. But, with their chances to "kill the bill" quickly fading, Republicans are pegging "reconciliation", the term used to pass a bill with a majority vote; as this horrible thing and a "back-door" tactic by the Democrats. Traditionally, reconciliation is used with minor things and budgetary items and normally you want more than 51 votes for something like this bill. Yet, the changes are so minor that they are virtually what reconciliation is normally used for. Democrats are not "ramming down our throats" a health care bill as like I said the vast majority of the language has already been passed.
These claims are a big farce. It is another example of Republican hypocrisy. They say one thing and constrict themselves. They I would assume know what they are doing when they say these things, yet they continue to do so. Unfortunately not everyone is very sharp and informed of proceedings and their words could sway a lot of opinions. But a little truth never hurt anyone, Mr. McConnell? A little truth goes a long way. However, truth and politics do not go together for Republicans. What the reconciliation vote is doing passing a series of amendments. End of story. It is not the large bill. THAT HAS PASSED. So, stop saying that they are jamming it down through a "convenient" vote.
Adding to this cluster of misinformation is the fact that they fail to make consistent statements a lot of the time. They say one thing and conveniently forget that already said something different or that they obviously voted on something already. Also part of this bending the truth approach is taking quotes and statements out of context that make it sound like someone said one thing when they actually said something else or their statement meant something else. And ironically hypocritical is the fact that when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress they "rammed" through large bills under reconciliation. Tax cuts during Bush's first term were far from 3/5th majority and there were even votes of large significance that Vice President Dick Cheney broke ties.
Hence, after coming this far, it only makes sense to use the necessary measures to finish the passage of this health care bill that will change the lives of so many hardworking and less-off Americans for the better. If reconciliation is the solution, the Republicans will have to deal with the fact that they had their chances to be part of history. They need to stop running a campaign and trying to get reelected and possibly take back majority of Congress and deviate from the script a bit. Both parties are guilty are not being 100% truthful, but the Republican Party what not make it 30 seconds on "To Tell A Lie" with their actions this last year. Just remember a little truth is what the American public want. How about you stop construing facts.
The Republican Party last spring locked arms and knew that as the minority that had limited control and power. But they had themselves and knew that if they stayed together, the bill would struggle to pass and if it somehow got through it was a partisan bill. At the same time, a few moderate Democrats were on the fence only complicating matters. And as any outsider would think; if the bill passed with only Democratic votes then it lacked a mandate for something as large this. President Obama has taken criticism from his own party for taking his foot off the gas at times, but the man who promised health care reform is inching closer through his persistence. Obama has majorities in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives yet he could not get his party to act in unison like the Republicans. He was not as demanding as past presidents in similar situations. He was not as cut throat as others who were in his same position.
You have to remember that in 2008, he campaigned on being bipartisan and that has caused him to be weak unfortunately because the other party refuses to be willing for change. He has worked to get Senator Olympia Snowe to come across the aisle. He has worked to add multiple Republican amendments that pertain to spending and waste. Yet, they continue to turn their heads when he talks. So, what more could he do, but to give the power to the members of Congress. However, things have still not gone as planned and now President Obama is asserting his executive power and outlining what needs to be done and there will be no more pushing back deadlines and waiting.
And that leads me to where we are today, both the U.S. House of Representatives in November and the U.S. Senate in December voted for a health care bill. There have been tweaks and minor changes and it is packaged for one final vote. Since those votes, the Democrats lost their filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts in January. However, the Democrats just need 51 votes to get this through the final vote and they certainly have that. But, with their chances to "kill the bill" quickly fading, Republicans are pegging "reconciliation", the term used to pass a bill with a majority vote; as this horrible thing and a "back-door" tactic by the Democrats. Traditionally, reconciliation is used with minor things and budgetary items and normally you want more than 51 votes for something like this bill. Yet, the changes are so minor that they are virtually what reconciliation is normally used for. Democrats are not "ramming down our throats" a health care bill as like I said the vast majority of the language has already been passed.
These claims are a big farce. It is another example of Republican hypocrisy. They say one thing and constrict themselves. They I would assume know what they are doing when they say these things, yet they continue to do so. Unfortunately not everyone is very sharp and informed of proceedings and their words could sway a lot of opinions. But a little truth never hurt anyone, Mr. McConnell? A little truth goes a long way. However, truth and politics do not go together for Republicans. What the reconciliation vote is doing passing a series of amendments. End of story. It is not the large bill. THAT HAS PASSED. So, stop saying that they are jamming it down through a "convenient" vote.
Adding to this cluster of misinformation is the fact that they fail to make consistent statements a lot of the time. They say one thing and conveniently forget that already said something different or that they obviously voted on something already. Also part of this bending the truth approach is taking quotes and statements out of context that make it sound like someone said one thing when they actually said something else or their statement meant something else. And ironically hypocritical is the fact that when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress they "rammed" through large bills under reconciliation. Tax cuts during Bush's first term were far from 3/5th majority and there were even votes of large significance that Vice President Dick Cheney broke ties.
Hence, after coming this far, it only makes sense to use the necessary measures to finish the passage of this health care bill that will change the lives of so many hardworking and less-off Americans for the better. If reconciliation is the solution, the Republicans will have to deal with the fact that they had their chances to be part of history. They need to stop running a campaign and trying to get reelected and possibly take back majority of Congress and deviate from the script a bit. Both parties are guilty are not being 100% truthful, but the Republican Party what not make it 30 seconds on "To Tell A Lie" with their actions this last year. Just remember a little truth is what the American public want. How about you stop construing facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
