When a conservative says that Dodd-Frank goes to far and should be repealed, liberals will twist the subject around and say that conservatives want no regulations at all on anything, and that it’s like having no speed limit on the highway.  I think Republican candidates for President should take this strategy and employ it the next time they are asked about states banning contraceptives.

For example, if they are asked this during a debate, they should say “Of course states should be able to regulate contraception.  It is absurd to think that any drug or medical device should be put on the market without any regulation.”  And then the candidates can answer follow-up questions detailing the importance of ensuring that pills contain the proper dosage and are safe to use.  Or that medical devices are not harmful and perform as advertised.

The fact is that liberals distort the issue of conservative calls for regulatory reform and limits to government.  It’s time that it’s turned around against them.  We should paint liberals as being against drug and medical safety and give them a taste of their own medicine.  It will have the added benefit of showing them to be extreme.

Many people, both locally and nationally, have expressed their opinions about the brawl at the end of the Xavier vs. Cincinnati game on December 10.  I would like to touch on some of that commentary here today.

Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Paul Daugherty, in his column the day before the game mentioned what Cincinnati guard Sean Kilpatrick said on a local radio show.  Here’s some of what he had to say:  “THANK GOD for Sean Kilpatrick. The run-up to the  Shootout has been less than thrilling, until now. Of all the guys to throw down with, Killa picks Tu Holloway” and “He has just made the job and the game far more enjoyable for this unwashed hack. Many thanks.”

In Daugherty’s column after the game, he had this to say about the suspension Tu Holloway received:  “More suspension for Tu Holloway. One game. Really? For ‘body bags’, ‘gangsters’, ‘thugs’ and ‘zipping them up’? One game? For taunting the UC bench, then exulting in the riot on the court by standing on press table as if X had just won a championship? One game? For that mess of a press conference? One game?”  I will give Daugherty credit for one thing, unlike some national media figures, he doesn’t say that Holloway threw punches to start the brawl.  But Daugherty himself misses the irony when he says trash talking before the game makes his job more enjoyable, but then expresses his indignation after the game at trash talking.  This is not to defend Tu Holloway’s actions.  He is being punished for them, for the things he said.

Former Xavier assistant coach Pat Kelsey tweeted this after the game ended Saturday.  He is, of course, implying that a lot of fans of the game would love to see a fight break out during it.  There’s some truth to that, and I admit in my younger days I loved seeing brawls in any sport.  Who can forget the brawl in 1986 between the Cincinnati Reds and New York Mets.  I still have images in my head of John Denny pummeling one of the Mets players.  But now that I’m older and a little more wiser, that doesn’t appeal to me as much.

ESPN personnel like Doug Gottlieb and Stephen A. Smith have said that Tu Holloway started the brawl and should receive more of a suspension.  If you look at the replay, I can see no punch thrown by Holloway at any moment during the brawl, let alone at the start of it.  My contention is that the situation didn’t get out of control until Dez Wells pushed the UC player to the floor.  Had he not done that, it wouldn’t have escalated into the brawl it did.  As can be seen on the replay, one of the referees signaled a technical foul.  Without Wells shoving the player to the floor, the referee would have been able to control the situation, no doubt assessing double technical fouls, and the players would have gone back to their benches, brawl averted and the incident would have been only a minor footnote.

I’ll close by saying that I’ve read some very disturbing comments on articles about the game and brawl.  Some have tried to inject race into the brawl, which is crazy.  It was an unfortunate event, an embarrassment to both teams and schools, but let’s leave it at that.  Let both teams heal and move on from it.

I’ve made many comments on twitter about the end of the men’s basketball game between the Xavier Musketeers and Cincinnati Bearcats.  Because it’s hard to post everything 140 characters at a time, I’m making this blog posting.

To see all of my tweets on the subject, please feel free to look at my twitter feed:  http://twitter.com/#!/Aquaman300.  You’ll have to go back about 20+ tweets, so I will rehash what I said here, and discuss the penalties that were handed out to the Xavier players.  Full disclosure, I am a Xavier alum, season ticket holder for men’s basketball for the past 20 years, and, according to the mailing the athletic department sends me every year, a booster for the Xavier athletic department.  But I doubt the administration really cares what I think.

At the game on Dec. 10, I was sitting in the front row behind the broadcast team for Cincinnati.  Those weren’t my usual seats, and how I came to have those seats is a story for another day.  First, here is what I saw live.  During the game, I had been sending out tweets about the progress of the game.  After Tu Holloway scored with 20 seconds to go, I looked down to my phone to begin typing out a final score tweet.  I glanced away from the action for a moment, and by the time I looked up, the fight had started.

My first image was seeing both benches empty, then Xavier center Kenny Frease was on all fours escaping the cluster of people.  Frease also had a bloody left eye, stood up, walked to center court and collapsed.  I also saw Xavier forward Dez Wells being restrained by a member of the Xavier staff.  I caught a brief glance of Wells’ mouth, and it appeared bloody, but I haven’t seen any mention of him suffering an injury.  Xavier forward Andre Walker was also being restrained, and I saw Xavier Athletic Director Mike Bobinski talking to Walker, asking him to calm down and saying that it will be alright.  That was my best lip-reading that I could do.

Then when I was home, I had ample opportunity to watch replays of the brawl.  This is how I saw it when watching the replay.  With 9.4 seconds, the ball went out of bounds.  A Cincinnati player (I couldn’t identify him) and Xavier’s Tu Holloway got in each other’s face and were shouting at each other.  It then appeared that the Cincinnati player pushed Holloway.  Dez Wells then pushed the Cincinnati player to the floor, and then all hell broke loose.  Cincinnati’s Yancy Gates had the basketball in his hands and threw the ball, hitting Holloway.  Gates also punched Kenny Frease, knocking him to the floor, where number 13 for Cincinnati proceeded to kick Frease.  Xavier’s Mark Lyons and Landon Amos threw several punches.  I also saw a Cincinnati player shove Xavier’s Brad Redford.

In this tweet yesterday, I said who should be suspended:  http://twitter.com/#!/Aquaman300/status/145641045965799424.  Landon Amos was the player I couldn’t identify.  The suspensions were announced today, and it came down about as I expected.  Wells and Amos received 4 games, meaning they will miss the Hawaii trip.  Lyons gets 2 games, and Holloway 1.  I believe the suspensions are appropriate for what happened.

As an alum, fan and ticket holder of Xavier, the brawl at the end of the game is an embarrassment.  The actions of those involved reflect poorly on the team and the university.  Also reprehensible was the student section, chanting “F--- UC”.  Such a chant has no place in collegiate athletics, let alone at a Catholic university like Xavier.  In response to the events of yesterday, Xavier and the Atlantic 10 conference has taken the appropriate action.  Several players for Xavier have apologized over twitter, and Holloway also apologized at a press conference today.  It is all of our hopes that the Xavier players can put this behind them and once again conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to a Xavier student-athlete.

Some random thoughts about the occupy protests.

In the “Occupy” protests around the country, we are getting reports of deteriorating sanitation conditions.  Fleas, body and head lice are reported to be running rampant at multiple locations.  There’s been an outbreak of tuberculosis at the Occupy Atlanta site.  Against the back-drop of this, people are outraged at Newt Gingrich for suggesting that the protestors take a bath.  Unbelievable.

In Dayton, Ohio, the occupy protestors are preventing the Christmas tree from being from being installed.  What is the purpose of that?

Protestors talk about unequal wealth distribution.  What does that mean?  Do they think there’s someone out there who decides how much wealth everyone gets?  This will seem like I’m stating the obvious here, probably because I am, but the way to acquire wealth is to work hard, show up early, stay late, be thrifty, increase your skills and above all else, don’t sit around and wait for someone to give you something.  Go out and make your opportunity.

And now occupy protests are taking place on college campuses.  I’ve seen the videos of campus police pepper spraying protestors and the University of California-Davis.  I’ll leave aside the discussion as to whether or not pepper spray should have been used.  I’ll just ask, what is the purpose of sitting around a college campus making it harder for students who want to go to class and study?

As I conclude this post, I can see that my thoughts are a bit jumbled and chaotic.  Listening to some of the protestors being interviewed, we see that their thoughts are equally confused and jumbled.

As I’ve listened to discussions on what to do about the long-term financial stability of Social Security, I’ve noticed that there are contradictory statements made by many elected politicians.  It’s either called a tax or a retirement program, depending on what is convenient for the person discussing it.  When referring to the cap on income that FICA taxes applies to, it’s said that this is a regressive tax that really hits lower income hardest.

In 2011, FICA the tax is 7.65%, and the cap is $106,800.  When convenient, people will say that this benefits the super rich, because anyone with an income higher than the cap doesn’t apply to such income.  This is when Social Security is called a tax.  However, if Social Security is a retirement program, if someone pays more in FICA, then  what they receive upon retirement will be more.  Let’s give an example.

Say someone earns a salary of $1,000,000.  Keeping the $106,800 cap, that works out to $8170.20 in FICA.  Removing that cap, FICA becomes $76,500.  Again, under a retirement plan, this person would get a lot more upon retirement.  Is that going to happen if the cap is lifted?  Is anyone who is in favor of lifting the cap in favor increasing retirement benefits in a similar manner?  Somehow I doubt it.

Before we decide what to do about Social Security, we’d better decide what we want it to be, and be honest with the American people.  If it’s a tax, then tell us that we are paying for those who currently receive it, and that what we receive will bear no relation to the taxes we pay.  If it’s a retirement program, then what we receive is based on what we pay, and those who have lower incomes will receive less than those who have higher incomes during their working lives.

So, what do we want Social Security to be, and what is best for the country?

A few times on twitter I’ve engaged in some discussions about the minimum wage and why I believe it should be abolished.  I’ll now consolidate those arguments into this blog entry.

This year I read Walter Williams’ autobiography “Up From the Projects”.  In it he discussed the various after school jobs he had while he was young.  Included among these jobs were sweeping floors, making package deliveries, and other similar tasks.  As I read this, I wondered if it would be even possible to get those kind of jobs today, with minimum wage laws and payroll taxes increasing the cost of hiring employees.

Dr. Williams also described what he learned from those jobs, the skills he acquired and the lessons he was taught.  He described machinery he had the opportunity to practice on during off-hours of the business.  Also, Dr. Williams discussed how he learned the value of being on time and the importance of hard work.  Those lessons are very valuable.  In addition to those, I would suggest that there are other benefits to getting those kind of jobs when young.

First, let’s say I own a bowling alley, and a teenager comes in and is looking for a job.  In the absence of minimum wage laws, I might think that it’s worth $3/hr. to have the parking lot swept on a weekly basis.  After a few weeks of this I might notice how he is doing a good job and be impressed by the work done and then offer him additional work with a corresponding increase in pay.  This could go on for several years and, after he graduates from college and looks for work in his field, he’d have a reference for those future employers.  With a minimum wage law, instead of hiring someone, I might find it easier to fold those duties into another worker, or to do the work myself.

There are other possible benefits as well.  Think about the inventions of products.  It’s said that necessity is the mother of invention.  Having jobs like sweeping a parking lot, cleaning a stove in a restaurant or cleaning restrooms can inspire someone to think of a new product, to invent something to make that job easier.  Without that inspiration, where will new inventions come from?

In closing, what benefit is there to having a minimum wage law if low skilled workers cannot get a job at that wage?  In reality, it’s not actually a minimum wage.  It’s simply illegal to earn a wage between $0 and the minimum hourly wage.  If the two parties involve mutually agree on what the wage should be, why should the government make that illegal?

As I’m watching the episode of Red Eye that I DVR’d overnight, hosts Greg Gutfeld and Bill Schulz, and guests Kevin Williamson, Lauren Sivan and Joe Derosa discussed the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.  Williamson stated his discomfort with the U.S. government, specifically the President, ordering the death of an American citizen by acting as judge, jury and executioner.  Certainly when stated this way, it gives me cause for concern.  However, let’s think about who al-Awlaki is.  You can look at al-Awlaki’s story here.  Obviously he’s not someone who’s lived in the United States his entire life and President Obama decides to assassinate him just for the heck of it.  al-Awlaki was part of al-Qeida and waging war against the United States.

Consider the nature of al-Qeida.  They are the ones who carried out the vicious attacks of 9/11.  If they could, they’d carry out even worse attacks.  As Thomas Sowell has said many times, if you are walking down the street and someone comes after you while wielding a knife, you shouldn’t be expected to follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules.  Certainly a blow to the groin is a harsh thing to do.  We’d rightly condemn someone who, in the middle of a basketball game, would punch a player for the opposite team in the groin just out of the blue.  However, if I’m walking along a sidewalk and someone with a knife charges after me, I’ll punch the guy in the groin and I won’t think twice about it.

While I respect what Kevin Williamson said on Red Eye, he is taking a principle and holding to it to the point of suicide, and allowing terrorist groups like al-Qeida to hide behind our rules and use them against us.  If they could, al-Qeida would detonate nuclear devices in the United States and not think twice about it.  Anwar al-Awlaki actively supported al-Qeida, he recruited for them, he supported terrorist activities they tried to carry out.

It’s important to be vigilant in making sure the government doesn’t abuse their power.  In this specific case, I don’t think the President abused his power.  We are much better off now that al-Awlaki has met his much deserved demise.

Throughout the entire debate over the eventual removal of the military policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, I was struck by how short our memories are.

First, before the policy was implemented during the Clinton administration, gays were not allowed to serve at all in the military.  In fact, when President Clinton tried to push for allowing gays in the military, he received significant push-back not only from military officers, but from the public at large.  As a result, a compromise was reached, and gays were allowed to serve, but they couldn’t tell anyone they were gay.

That happened in 1993.  Fast-forward to 2010, a mere 17 years later, and Congress voted to eliminate the policy and allow gays to openly serve.  Some of the same people who were against, and vehemently so, gays serving in 1993, now supported the removal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allowing them to openly serve.

My contention is that to call DADT an idiotic policy now is to ignore the fact that gays couldn’t serve at all in 1993 and that there was significant opposition to them serving.  After 17 years of the policy, many people who were previously opposed to their service in the military reconsidered that position.  No doubt many thought “if they can serve in silence, what’s the difference if they’re open about it?”  So seen in this light, DADT is a transitional policy, and I think that with it, our military allowed gays to openly serve sooner than would have happened without it.  DADT had a purpose, it was served, and now it’s gone.

During the GOP presidential candidate debate on September 22, there was the exchange between Rick Perry and Rick Santorum over what is referred to as the “Texas Dream Act”. To paraphrase Santorum, there’s no problem with those who are here illegally going to college, he just says that they should pay the out of state tuition rate. I don’t know all of the details of the law in Texas that was passed in 2001, but, as Perry said, out of 181 people in the legislature, there were 4 dissenting votes. Few things ever get that close to unanimity in any legislative body, so I doubt the law is at all controversial to those in Texas.

The dispute between Perry and Santorum comes down to this. In Texas, illegal aliens and children of illegal aliens qualify for in state tuition at Texas universities if they meet certain criteria, and Perry supports that. Santorum says that they should pay out of state tuition rates. Not that they can’t go to college, they should just pay a different price. So what is this whole dispute about? They are haggling over price. Is that really such a major difference?

It can also be argued that the entire exchange illustrates just how welcoming our country, the United States, is to immigrants, and even those who enter illegally. Think about it. Enter the USA illegally and stay here, you’re allowed to go to college, and the only issue being discussed is what price you will be charged. As those hikers found out, illegally enter Iran, whether intentional or not, get 8 years in prison, but you can get out early if you pay a $500,000 bail, which some have called ransom.

The next issue is securing the border. Some GOP candidates, Santorum and Michele Bachman among them, call for building a fence along the entire border between the USA and Mexico. Perry says that securing the border is important, but that it’s not realistic to build a 2000 mile fence, and that there are other methods that can and should be used. He says that in some places, a fence is useful, but others require different methods, whether that’s boots on the ground or aviation assets. So what we have here is not a dispute over whether or not to secure the border, but over the method in which the border is secured. Like the price issue, is this really that big of a difference?

My conclusion is that no matter who, among the declared Republican candidates, wins the nomination, the GOP will have a nominee who has a very welcoming immigration policy. All of the GOP candidates rightfully recognize that our country should welcome those who want to come here, there are merely some disagreements over the details. The problem is that perception matters. Few people, when watching the exchange between Santorum and Perry will draw the conclusion that their positions differ only on price. I think many people saw that exchange and concluded that Santorum wants to shut down the borders and Perry wants to open them wide to anyone and give them all free education. The truth is far different from that perception.  

In the recent GOP Presidential candidate debate, Bret Baier asked the question about a theoretical deal of $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases.  All candidates on the stage, by show of hands, indicated that they’d walk away from such a deal.  They’ve faced some criticism for having such an inflexible stance.  I suggest that worrying about any sort of ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is wrong approach.

First, it’s well documented that any deals that Congress has made in the past have not worked out as planned.  Consider TEFRA of 1982, where President Reagan agreed to a 3 to 1 deal of spending reductions to tax increases.  While the tax increases happened, the spending reductions never did.  With this in mind, I say show me the spending cuts first, and implement them, then we will talk about any changes to the tax code.

Second, historically federal tax revenue has averaged about 18% of GDP.  Currently that number is running at a historical low of 15%.  I believe that this is an aberration, and likely will correct itself even if there are no changes made to the current U.S. tax rates.

Third, whenever Congress discusses reducing spending, it’s always a reduction in the amount of projected spending over a number of years.  Also, when spending is projected out, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assumes a yearly increase of 8% for each year.  Finally, when spending reductions are discussed, it’s always in the later years of the time period.  For this most recent deal discussed, Congress talked about a 10 year time period, and the larger spending reductions took place in the last couple years.  But any tax increases happen right away.

Finally, any discussion of increasing the amount of tax revenue needs to take into account possible changes in behavior that those tax rate increases will cause.  For example, in the 1990 budget deal, there was a luxury tax imposed on yachts and high-end cars.  It was projected to bring in a certain amount of tax revenue, but instead sales of those items dropped.  The government didn’t receive anywhere near what they expected to receive.  Additionally, the fact that sales dropped caused layoffs in those areas of the economy, and that also further reduced the amount of tax revenue the government received.

So to wrap-up, we don’t need Congress and the President to negotiate “deals” based on reducing the rate of increase in spending, especially when there’s no guarantee those “cuts” will ever take place.  Show us real cuts, where the government actually spends less next year.

There are two candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination who have expressed some support for the legalization of drugs, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.  It appears that there are two prominent reactions to this idea.  One is not only immediate dismissal of the idea, but a resistance to even debate it.  The other comes from people who are excited about legalization, because they want to use it.

I would like to approach the subject from a different point of view.  First, instead of thinking about drugs in a monolithic manner, in which legalization is an all or nothing proposition, we should keep in mind that drugs actually fall into a number of different categories of legalization.  There are some (aspirin, acetaminophen) that anyone can buy, some (alcohol, nicotine) are restricted by age, some require a doctor’s prescription, and some are outright illegal.  Second, I don’t think the subject of legalization should be viewed as an all or nothing proposition.  For example, someone can credibly be in favor of legalizing marijuana while opposing legalization of heroin.

After we accept this premise, then we should look at individual drugs and look at what are the advantages and disadvantages of legalizing it.  For any drug, the advantages to legalization is that the manufacture and sale of it will fall under government regulation.  The dosage can be regulated, and it will be subject to product liability laws.  So anyone who would purchase the drug can be confident in the dosage and that they are getting what they want without an unpleasant surprise.

In the end, after taking this approach, one may still decide that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and that’s fair.  The bottom line is that no one should fear discussion and debate of the issue.  Unfortunately, there’s very little sober, reasoned debate about this.

I’ve seen reports of a growing trend today where flash mobs of teenagers will enter a store, grab as much merchandise as they can, and exit the store.  The first reaction I have is the obvious one, outrage at such blatant disrespect for property.  Then I try to think of what could the cause be.  How did we get to this point?

Keep in mind, I’m no psychologist.  I’m an IT guy, so I understand computers much better than I do people.  So anything I say should be taken with that grain of salt.  There are many possibilities as to why this is happening, but I intend to focus on two of them.  What are children taught by parents in their words, and what are they taught by the example of their parents?

First of all, are children today taught to respect the property of others?  How many people see a business owner and, instead of respecting the sacrifices that owner made to build that business, believe that business made it through winning “life’s lottery”?  In other words, a successful store or restaurant doesn’t get that way by accident.  It happens with the owner working 60 or more hours a week, foregoing vacations for years as they put in the sweat equity required to get their business off the ground.  Do parents tell their children that?  Do they teach their children to respect their property because of the hard work that went into the business?  Or are they taught something else?  Could they be taught that the world owes them a living, so there’s nothing wrong with taking it?

Second, what about the example parents set?  For example, consider the times parents may take their children to an amusement park, and say that their 13 year old child is really 12 so that they can get in for the lower price.  Children learn from that example.  How much of a step is it to make from thinking that is ok, lying to save maybe $5, to thinking it’s ok to take a small piece of candy, to thinking it’s ok to take a larger piece of merchandise, to eventually thinking it’s ok to join as part of a mob to steal thousands of dollars in merchandise?  It’s a stretch, perhaps, but leading by example is a powerful thing.

I suppose there’s know easy answer as to why this is happening.  It may not even be important to figure out what the root cause is.  Stores can make adjustments, through inventory tags and other innovations.  But that costs all of us.  All we can do individually is teach our children to respect the property of others and that lying to save money is not the right thing to do.

As I said, though, I’m no expert.  I’m just a guy with a computer.  The beauty of the internet is that anyone can post anything, even those who don’t know what they are talking about.

In November San Francisco is going to vote on a ballot initiative that will ban circumcision within the city.  If it passes, this will not be the first time in history that circumcision will have been banned.  As mentioned in the first and second book of Maccabees, it was banned in 175 B. C., clearly part of an overall plan to outlaw Judaism.

As mentioned in this article, circumcision will become a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

One of the supporters of the circumcision ban is Matthew Hess, as he states on his Twitter feed here. Also put out by Hess is the Foreskin Man website. Foreskin Man comics are also being produced as campaign literature in favor of the ballot initiative. The Foreskin Man comic shows images of a blonde and blue-eyed (one might say Aryan) “superhero” saving a baby from circumcision at the hands of a “Monster” Rabbi. The similarity of the images in this comic to Nazi Germany anti-semitic propaganda is chilling.

This must be called out for what it is. One of the supporters of the San Francisco ballot initiative clearly has anti-semitic motivations. This is not to say that everyone who signed the petitions are anti-semitic, nor will it be fair to call everyone who eventually votes for the ban is anti-semitic. But the ballot initiative was conceived by a person who’s demonstrated his anti-semitism. It was conceived with evil motivations. Furthermore, the circumcision of Jewish males goes back to a sacred covenant between Abraham and God. If circumcision is outlawed for males under 18, Judaism itself may as well be outlawed. That is why this ballot initiative is evil. It must be opposed.

Recently former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been the subject of jokes and derision over comments she made about Paul Revere’s ride.  At this link, you can see a video of her comments, along with some commentary that she may have been right, although not very clear:  http://www.partialposts.com/?tag=paul-revere

John Ransom also has a column about it here:  http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2011/06/06/the_left_hates_sarah_palin_and_paul_revere

Most Americans know Paul Revere through the Longfellow poem “Paul Revere’s Ride”.  The poem, written just prior to the Civil War, engages in poetic license, yet has fallen into our collective historical memory.

Then along comes Sarah Palin, who says something different from what we all “know”, and she is told to brush up on her history.  But when historians gave their two cents on the issue, we find that Palin was more correct than we realized.  Some historians called this outright vindication of Palin, while others said that she accidentally got it right.  From that we see just how polarizing she is.  Those who love her will look at the facts in the most favorable light, while those who hate her will view the facts from a negative perspective.

Let’s compare this to how people react to comments from Vice-President Joe Biden.  Paul Greenberg had an interesting column on some recent comments of Biden’s about the auto bail-out.  You can read his column here:  http://townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/2011/06/06/custom-tailored_history

To sum up the column, here’s what Biden said:  "Because of what we did, the auto industry is rising again. ... At the time, many people thought the president should just let GM and Chrysler go under." But the president "certainly wasn't going to abandon an industry that had meant so much to our economy...."

And here’s Greenberg’s response:  "Can the vice president have forgotten that both GM and Chrysler did go under on this administration's watch and at its urging? Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection at the end of April 2009, despite an earlier $4 billion loan from the federal government, and General Motors followed it into bankruptcy a month later."

Of course, we can also mention Biden’s gaffe on the campaign trail in 2008:  http://purplepeoplevote.com/2008/09/25/another-gaffe-from-senator-biden/

This is where Biden said that, after the stock market crash in 1929, President Franklin Roosevelt went on TV to reassure the American people.  As is pointed out, this is a double gaffe, because Roosevelt wasn’t President in 1929, and considering the fact that television wasn’t in widespread use in 1929, going on TV wouldn’t reassure very many people, if any at all.

In conclusion, we have a possible 2012 Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who gave an account of Paul Revere that differs from what most of us “know”.  (It’s not unusual for “conventional knowledge” of history to be different from the actual facts.)  We also have Vice-President Joe Biden who gets recent facts wrong (auto bailout in 2009) and could also make policy based on that incorrect information.  And this leaves aside what he said about FDR going on TV in 1929.

What’s worse?

 

Yesterday I commented on the obvious corruption of ACORN, in light of the videos released which show ACORN staff advising undercover investigators on how to set up a brothel. I had thought that this so plainly demonstrated the nature of ACORN that anyone could see it, but I was wrong.

First, as reported by biggovernment.com, Charlie Gibson said, in response to being interviewed about it, “I don’t even know about it.” See the full story here: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/15/charlie-gibson-on-acorn-scandal-i-dont-even-know-about-it/

Charlie, is ABC news asleep on this? How could any national journalist not have heard about it? The only answer I can think of is that they don’t want to know about it.

The second story comes to us from Reuters. Read the story here: http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1422457320090914

You can tell how Reuters stands on ACORN just by the title of the article: “U.S. Senate denies funds for poverty group”. Oh, is that what happened? Looking at the title, you wouldn’t think that there was any scandal, and you’d have to read towards the end of the article to even get a hint of the story:

“ACORN more recently has been embarrassed by conservative activists who secretly taped employees in several cities giving tax advice to a couple posing as a p(imp) and prostitute.” Well, I’d hope they’d be embarrassed. Also, what difference does it make if they were “conservative activists”? Clearly the author of the article is trying to impugn the motives of those who have exposed the corruption.

Then the article closes with this observation:

“The group has fired several of those taped while denouncing the actions as a smear campaign.” A smear campaign? That has to be the most outrageous thing I’ve read about this. Are those who run ACORN clueless? Those employees gave the advice on how to set up an illegal enterprise and hide it from the law. If there was any smearing involved, they smeared themselves. Back to my example involving H&R Block, does anyone out there think the same investigators would have been able to get an accountant from there on tape giving similar advice.

In watching the O’Reilly Factor tonight, he showed a clip from MSNBC where someone was saying that the employees were entrapped. Are you kidding me? How could they have been entrapped? They freely talked to the undercover investigators, and anyone can tell from the videos that they took the questions they were receiving seriously.

The corruption of ACORN is obvious. It’s on tape. The fact that some choose not to see it, like Reuters and MSNBC, speaks volumes about their character, or lack thereof.