Political Correctness in Sports has reached a new low...

Like millions of others, I watched the Superbowl this past Sunday, and even though I didn't have a dog in the fight, I was half-heartedly rooting for the Giants to win. Probably because they are the underdogs, and that's what we Americans do.

It was a pretty well called game and I don't expect perfection from referees who are just as human as I am, so I wasn't all that upset when at the 9:35 remaining mark of the fourth quarter, a pass interference foul by the Patriot's Moore went uncalled. The commentators took several looks at that play and it was pretty clear that Moore had grabbed Manningham's left shoulder with his left hand before the ball arrived, and he used that leverage to aid his reach over Manningham's right shoulder to break up the pass. It was clear enough that after the analysis one of the commentators referred to it as a "huge non-call". It was what happened later that made the issue interesting to me.

After the punt, fair catch and then a commercial break, the Patriots took over the ball on their own 8-yard line and started out with an incomplete pass on first down. THEN the commentators said, "Now, let's go back to that 'non-call'." I was literally amazed! I have watched many football games where there was something I'd have liked to see over that wasn't shown, but I can't recall any cases of going back to a play after an analysis via replay had been completed and everyone had moved on.

They proceeded to point out that the referees make their calls based on "real time" analysis of what goes on during the game, and to essentially completely reverse what they had said before the commercial break about it being a blown call. They completely ignored the fact that official review using slow motion and freeze-frame has been a part of the game for years now. They also completely ignored the fact that ONE OF THE COMMENTATORS HAD MADE THE PASS INTERFERENCE CALL OUT LOUD IN THE BOOTH WITHIN A SINGLE SECOND OF THE INITIAL PLAY, no instant replay required.

That they could ignore the reality of official review and the additional reality of one of them actually making the call in "real time" from the booth when it actually happened was enough for me be somewhat disgusted by the political correctness of it all. The simple fact was that the referee had blown the call - it happens - but they couldn't leave it there. They had to go back after the analysis had been concluded and, by ignoring all of the many facts to the contrary, justify the referee's lack of calling the penalty.

I am completely certain that someone during the commercial break told them that they had to undo the criticism of the referee implicit in pointing out the blown call.

I am also completely disgusted by that fact.

Warren Buffett's Challenge

I admire Warren Buffett. The "Oracle of Omaha" had always seemed to show good sense and restraint when it came to what he said, and what he did. Then...

...he wrote this op-ed piece for the New York Times about the rich being coddled by legislators. The problem there is of course that if he honestly believes he pays too little in taxes, he should simply choose to pay more. Congress even made that decision easy by quickly and in bipartisan fashion passing a bill that changes the tax code to make such donations easy - as easy as a check box on your tax forms. Of course, this move pretty easily called Mr. Buffett's bluff because in spite of his claims that he should be paying more taxes, he did nothing of the sort.

I should add here that there have been some distortions of what he said in that article published since; distortions of the type that I have found to be common in the media. The oft repeated claim is that he said he paid less in taxes than his secretary. Mr. Buffett in his letter actually made the statement that he effectively paid - as a percentage of his income - less taxes than others in his office. In terms of actual cash he of course pays thousands of times MORE money, but that doesn't make for quite as sensational a headline.

There's a reason for that percentage difference too. Most of his income is derived from dividends and capital gains, money that in most cases has already had taxes paid from it to the government by the corporations that earned it. Because this money has already been taxed, it was decided years ago that the tax rates on money earned this way on the individual should be lower to reduce the effective "double-taxing" of the same money, and to provide an incentive to invest in American industries.

Think of it this way; you work for a company, and then you and I both buy a partial ownership of your company by buying stock and becoming shareholders. When you get paid a salary, the company subtracts that money out of it's gross returns under the heading of expenses and therefore it doesn't pay taxes on your salary. YOU do, in the form of an income tax and that money is only taxed once. After all of the company salaries and other expenses are accounted for, the money that remains is the profit. If our company makes a profit, before any of those profits are divided out to the shareholder/owners, the government taxes that money at the corporate rate. Then you and I get our share of the profits from what remains after the government taxed it; THEN the government taxes us AGAIN individually, effectively double-taxing the corporate income.

So because the money that Mr. Buffett receives has already had taxes paid by the corporation that earned it, the amount he actually gets has already been effectively reduced by being taxed before he gets it. Unlike his secretary's salary which was deducted as an expense and not taxed until AFTER it was paid, he then pays a lower individual tax rate on his investment income because it has ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE...in theory.

I say "in theory" because currently Mr. Buffett's company is significantly in debt to the government in terms of back taxes owed. Just how much is in dispute, but the IRS says it has reached the 10-figure mark. That's BILLIONS, not just millions. So in reality - in Mr. Buffett's particular case - he is getting far more money in corporate profit sharing than he should be getting because the corporation hasn't paid a billion dollars to the federal government that's owed. Instead that money has been given to the individual shareholders like Mr. Buffett, who pay lower taxes because supposedly that money has already been taxes once...but in his case much of it hasn't. So yes, Mr. Buffett is certainly NOT paying his fair share of taxes. In his article he claims that he personally wouldn't mind at all being effectively double-taxed on his investment income, and needs no such incentives to continue investing, but apparently he won't do what he appears to WANT to do until he is forced by law to do so. I don't really get that part. Why does he need a law to force him to do something he thinks he should be doing, and why should what HE wants to do be forced on others who have no such wishes?

All of which makes his claim that "I don't pay enough taxes" a little bit hypocritical, since it's HIS company that is refusing to pay the government and instead gives the money to him and others like him. It seems to also support the truism that people who become super-rich eventually get very liberal in their later years. I have to wonder if that isn't some form of guilt.

That would be an interesting end to the story, but there's more. Mr. Buffett, after having his first bluff called, has effectively doubled down recently and issued a challenge to match on a dollar for dollar basis any contribution by any Republican congressman to lower the national debt. Of course, he has left his Democratic buddies out of this so we know right away where his sympathies lie; either than or he doesn't think their money is worth very much. This to me is very interesting though - the challenge, not the sympathies.

Since he chose to couch his initial claim to not be paying enough taxes in the framework of percentage of income, I think that the Congressmen he has challenged should respond in kind with a challenge of their own on those same terms. To wit; offer to put 10% of their annual income (income; not pay or salary) into a voluntary contribution to push down the national debt if Mr. Buffett will do the same. This is still fair because a sacrifice of $15,000 by someone who makes $150,000 a year means a lot more than a sacrifice of $5 million means to someone who makes $50 million a year.

In fact, I think they should push the challenge a bit further; they should extend it to all of congress by making it a Republican vs Democrat thing. In other words, they should have a side bet with Mr. Buffett (maybe something concerning campaign contributions?) that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats will be willing to make that contribution to reduce the national debt, and that they will be willing to continue it until the deficit is reduced to within 3% of the budget. That would put pressure on Congress - both sides of the aisle - to do their jobs. By the way, that 3% number is Mr. Buffett's own suggestion.

Lastly, they should suggest that if he wasn't willing to match their challenge on a percent of income basis they would still be willing to make the contribution for one year on one additional condition - that he would permanently shut up about taxes and get back to investing. Berkshire Hathaway hasn't done very well in the last few years, in my view due to Mr. Buffett concerning himself with other things.

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently." - Warren Buffett.

Mr. Buffett, please take your own advice.

It's Not Easy, Being Green...

About 18 months ago I put energy saving lights over my desk. I didn't go whole hog solartube or anything like that; it's just a couple of lights that use less energy than the standard (cheap) incandescent bulbs we are used to.

Originally the two recessed lighting cans over my desk had held 75 watt incandescent floodlight bulbs, and they lit that corner of the room VERY well. Since it wasn't the original location of my desk they weren't used very much at first, and they lasted for years being turned on only once a week or so. But finally, after over a decade one of them burned out. That happened some time after my desk had been moved into the well-lighted corner, and wanting to be more energy-conscious (at my wife's urging) I changed BOTH bulbs, putting a 50-watt halogen bulb in one of the cans and a 19-watt fluorescent bulb in the other. I hadn't originally intended to compare the bulbs; my purpose was to have sufficient light from the halogen bulb while waiting for the fluorescent one to reach full brightness - let's face it; they may be called "instant on" bulbs, but we all know they are NOT!

I could stand the comparative dimness of the sole halogen bulb while waiting the 2 minutes it took for the output of the fluorescent to reach it's maximum, and once it had done so the lighting over my desk was every bit as satisfactory as the 150 watts of incandescent lighting had been - at a cost of only 69 watts to the environment. Of course, the cost of the bulbs was a different story entirely. The incandescent bulbs were a very cheap at around $3 each, while the halogen bulb price was $11

and the fluorescent was even higher at $12!

Still, the halogen advertized a life of 2500 hours of use, and the fluorescent was much higher at "up to 10,000 hours", making it seem a bargain overall. The manufacturer even posted a lifetime price comparison over incandescent bulbs showing how you'd need 5 incandescent bulbs to last that same 10,000 hours and how they would use so much less electricity and at $.10 a kilowatt hour you would save $35-$50 over the life of the fluorescent bulb even though the initial cost was higher. So not only were you being green and saving the planet, you were saving less money while doing it as well! Who could resist a deal like that?!

Well, after 10 years of changing fluorescent bulbs in my (vaulted) kitchen ceiling, I was pretty sure that the much ballyhooed life of fluorescent bulbs was a myth - and now I have proof. The fluorescent bulb over my desk failed to light yesterday afternoon when I flipped the switch, and several switch cycles later I was convinced it had died for good. It's halogen partner, which had matched it's vaunted lifespan second for second - being on the same circuit - was still going strong with full output instantly and consistently upon demand. And no, this is not a dimmer controlled circuit, and yes, it was mounted base-up as specified in the instructions.

Now I know that a single bulb failing before it's cheaper partner doesn't constitute actual proof that fluorescent bulbs don't outlast other bulbs on average, but I was pretty much past believing that anyway before this happened. The fluorescent bulbs on the vanity mirror in the bathrooms of my home were the first to fail as well; the difference being that they were installed at slightly different times in different bathrooms. I couldn't very well put the fluorescent bulbs in a room with a dimmer circuit when the labels clearly specify not to, could I? I don't know if a dimmer circuit makes incandescent bulbs last longer, but of the original 8 fluorescent bulbs, only 2 are still functioning, while only one of the original incandescent bulbs has burned out.

So, while Kermit the Frog was right about fact that "It's not easy, being green", he left out the part about it not being cheap either.

Wikileaks

As I listen to the continuing furor over the Wikileaks scandal, I have to wonder what the true goals of people like Julian Assange are.

I have read the Wikileaks home page as well as their explanation of their goals and purposes, and why they think what they are doing is a necessary thing to make the world a better place - but I don't see it in their actions. Frankly, I believe that secrets have a place, and while some of them are kept to protect the guilty and should be revealed, that others protect the innocent and should not. In spite of all their claims of redacting and editing out names of people who they believe may be harmed by the release of information, I don't honestly believe that Wikileaks has a rational grip on that idea.

First, the Wikileaks information releases focus primarily on Western nations. Every nation in the world has state secrets, and I find it hard to believe that NO asian nation has anyone willing to reveal the various travesties of justice that may have happened on their home soil. It's almost like South America and Asia don't exist as far as Wikileaks is concerned. Or have their realized -to a man it seems - that people like Assange are the greater threat? That the destabilization of international relations which seems to be the goal of Wikileaks makes this world a MORE dangerous place, not a safer one?

Second, Assange's data releases are timed almost exactly like a kidnapper would carry out threats to harm their victim - the only difference is the apparent lack of demand for a ransom.

The most recent response to the pressure he is under appears to be the release of a list of assets around the world which would harm the interests of the Unites States if they were attacked by terrorists. There is absolutely NO benefit to be found in releasing such information; all he can accomplish by this is let terrorists know where they should strike to do the US the most harm. Wikileaks says this release was to invalidate claims that diplomatic personnel don't spy out strategic information, and defends this release by claiming they haven't revealed what security measures are in place, or where the most vulnerable locations of each asset are, but this is a stupid defense. NO fortress is impregnable, and the BEST protection against terrorists is keeping them from finding out what the best targets are. Remember, these are people who think a good form of attack is to walk into a crowded marketplace full of innocents with a bomb strapped to your chest, and then blow yourself up. OF COURSE what information diplomatic people run across is gathered and evaluated. Every country does that, and it would be incredibly foolish if they didn't. Who doesn't make a point of remembering things they learn about other people and places in case that information is useful in the future?

Assange's history shows a deeply held resentment of governments and authorities of all kinds. From his early hacking days in his home nation of Australia to his current role as the founder of Wikileaks, his internet goals have always been the embarrassment of various entities who had kept secrets for any reason he didn't like. Now that he is reportedly seeking asylum in Switzerland, I'd be surprised if there were any leaks about that country. I'd be willing to bet that his purported goal of "providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices" doesn't extend to a country he hopes will protect him from the anger of the others, and from the justice he faces for his own sexual misadventures.

The real problem is that things like a diplomat's opinion of the leaders of the country he is serving in don't constitute a "censored injustice" in any way, shape or form. That Saudi Arabia doesn't want to publicly reveal their true feelings about Iran's president isn't an injustice. That a Chinese official doesn't want his personal opinion of North Korea's Kim Jong Il, as expressed in a private conversation with a US diplomat (who he HAD to know would pass it along to his superiors), revealed to the world isn't injustice. It's sensible caution. Wikileaks is led by and composed of immature people who don't get that.

Which is why I believe that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are a greater threat to peace and stability on this planet than even any valid injustice they might happen to reveal, and as such they need to be stopped. For the good of us all.

I will NEVER in ANY WAY support or help Wikileaks. I will not contribute to them, I will not "like" them on Facebook, I will not support anyone who advertises with them (there are no advertisers on wikileaks that I could find, BTW), and I will not host any information for them.

I WILL support severe penalties for anyone who betrays his oaths and his country by contributing to wikileaks, and I WILL rejoice at Assange's eventual downfall. This man is a bigger threat to the planet right now than Osama bin Laden.

Burning Qur'ans?

I am a Christian, by most accounts a conservative, and I am at my core not comfortable with the claimed motives of those building a Mosque 2 blocks from the location where a team of Islamic extremists killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

That being said, what the heck is going on in the mind of this idiot in Florida with his "Burn a Qur'an Day"?!!! I mean, really - what the heck are you thinking, dude?

I am firmly convinced that the core essence of being a Christian is to live your life in imitation of, and for Christ. The guiding principle here is succinctly expressed in the view, WWJD (that's "What Would Jesus Do", for the rare individual who is unfamiliar), and I am FIRMLY CONVINCED that there is NO WAY Jesus would participate in, condone or fail to verbally object to the burning of a Qur'an or anything else that other people honor and revere.

I am not allowed to question this man's Salvation, but I can indeed question his brains, his motives, and his ability to follow our Lord. He is making Christians look bad because, with the attention the media is giving this idiot, it almost appears that there are more than 10-15 people participating. His church has 50 members - total - and I sincerely doubt that all of them will participate. Which leads to my next question...

WHY is our media giving this...person...power he doesn't deserve?

This one-man crusade to offend millions is being heard around the world because our media is giving him the voice to reach that far. If the moderate Muslims are indeed moderate, this will certainly cause many of them to reconsider their moderate position. If they were ever inclined to learn anything about Christianity and Christians, this will change a lot of minds in the wrong direction. In a world full of hatred, this will bring even more.

I do NOT endorse this man's actions. I repudiate them, as a citizen of the US and as a Christian. He does NOT represent me, my Lord, or my country. May God have mercy on him for what he is doing.

"Ground Zero" Mosque

In the years since 9-11 I've heard many times that the actions of a few radical Islamists in conducting those attacks shouldn't reflect on the majority, and that "Islam is a religion of peace".

Now, I agree that the rule in our country says that the people who want to build a mosque on privately owned land near the 9-11 site (and I think the entire "ground zero" or "near ground zero" debate is completely specious) have a right to do so. The community also has a right to object (just as in any other case where a controversial construction project is going into a neighborhood), and there is a resolution process to decide the entire result. I'm sure the same thing would happen if someone tried to build a XXX Adult Theater in my neighborhood.

What is more important to me is the views of those who are proposing the construction in the first place. I think that I am learning a GREAT DEAL about the sensitivity - or lack thereof - of the "moderate" Islamists/Muslims who have claimed to have zero affiliation with the extremists. If they cannot or will not see how offensive their actions are to the community they are living in, I now am certain of something about Islam and its adherents which I only suspected previously.

Someday, and remember you heard it here first, some or other of the Imams teaching at that site will refer to it as the site of a "great victory", for in truth I believe that many of the moderate Muslims think of it in that way even if they won't say as much among those who do not share their beliefs. It explains just why they seem not to hear the objections of those who lost family that day, for whom the site still hold very powerful memories and associations.

I can understand and appreciate that. It lets me know with no more room for doubt just exactly who I am dealing with...

Regarding developments on the other side of this issue...

The entire "Burning Korans" thing is completely and totally embarrassing. Yeah, I know you're upset. I know this whole issue reaches your 'hot buttons' and that the deaths of 3,000 Americans at the hands of Muslim extremists isn't something that is going to go away anytime soon. I know that Muslims have been burning American flags and killing Christians all along, and that the "Islam is a religion of peace" is a mantra used when it's convenient, but WHY would you cross THAT line?! WE are BETTER than that! Why do you drag us down to their level?!

Some people need to have a little more faith in the American way, and a LOT more brains when it comes to living it.

And finally, what the President said...and didn't say.

Obama said that he believes "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

The funny part is that I believe the above is absolutely correct - IF accompanied with the caveat that the lack of sensitivity on the part of those wishing to build the Mosque is appalling. The President didn't say that though. What he said a day later when asked specifically about it was:

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding."

Well if he isn't going to comment on the wisdom of putting a Mosque there, why the hell did he bother to comment on the legal right to do so when he isn't part of the legal case?!!!

He needed to say both or neither, but he failed us rather miserably on this one. I've really liked the man until this point, but Senate candidate Jeff Greene said it FAR better.

"Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else."

He gets MY vote.

What is the matter with our government?

I like President Obama.

I really do. I don't subscribe to the notion that he is an undercover radical Moslem, or that he was born outside of the USA. I tend to share his idealism, his hopes for our country and his desire to fix what he sees as wrong with the US. The economy is a problem he is doing his best to fix. Things like the gulf oil spill weren't issues he has any expertise at all on, but he is took a leadership role insofar as it was possible for him to do so. The war in Afganistan is a reality he is facing up to, as is Iraq - and he is doing fairly well considering just how unrealistic some of his campaign positions were. He has shown a willingness to make the hard decisions I didn't expect from someone who's positions are far more liberal than mine.

I'm not a fan of his class-war rhetoric though, and the attempts to divide the country into the rich (over $200,000/year earners) vs everyone else is something I find disturbing.

What really has me bothered right now though, is this video.

This is truly bothersome. Why is it we can have ARMED INVADERS from another country illegally entering the USA, shooting our citizens and committing other crimes, and all the Federal government does is put up signs warning residents of the USA not to enter certain parts of OUR OWN COUNTRY, because there may be armed citizens of another country there?!!!

You're kidding me, right?

Isn't this why we have an Army, and Air Force, and the Marines? To protect our borders from foreign invaders? What the hell is going on?!!