Rich Rodriguez: Bitter or Benevolent?

Rich Rodriguez

Early in January, 2011, the University of Michigan fired its head football coach, Rich Rodriguez, after three disappointing seasons. Since then, Brady Hoke, the San Diego State coach, was hired to replace him. 

In the search process, much was made of Michigan looking for a "Michigan man" -- indicating Rodriguez was not. There were comments that Rich and his wife never "fit in" and did not understand and appreciate the "Michigan Tradition." But, let's face it, the bottom line was his teams were not winning. I suspect if he had fielded winning teams, had defeated Ohio State at least once, had a winning record in the Big 10, had not been humiliated by Mississippi State on New Year's day, he would have "fit in" and be preparing for the next season.

 

Yesterday (1/15/2011) a Salvation Army store in Wayne, Michigan, auctioned off a dozen garbage bags of Wolverine clothing (approximately 400 items) donated by Rich Rodriquez. In spite of bad weather the auction was a big success, and the store which has been struggling raised an undisclosed amount of  much-needed money. Mr. Rodriguez who made the donation last Monday did not attend the auction.

Since he has not commented on the topic, the question arises: was he bitter or benevolent? Was he simply making a donation to help out a charitable organization? Or was he sending a message to the University Community that he wants to rid himself of anything that is maze and blue? Is he expressing his  unhappiness with the way the university handled his firing? For  example, the timing of his firing saved the university approximately $2 million and therefore cost him $2 million.

What's your opinion? Bitter or benevolent? Leave a comment.  

The Founding Fathers and "Arms"

Glock 19 9mm with 33 Round Magazine

Jared L Loughner is accused of using a Glock 19 in last week's shooting spree in which 6 were killed and 13 were wounded. This light weight, easily concealed, semiautomatic handgun ($500) has " become one of the best selling pistols in America."(NYT,12/15/10) In fact Representative Gabrielle Giffords owns one.

The one pictured above contains a 33 round magazine. Loughner allegedly emptied such a magazine and was trying to reload a second one when  he was subdued by bystanders who took the second magazine from him. One can only guess how many more might  have been killed or wounded had they not taken heroic action. From the view of Arizona law, the assailant had done nothing illegal until he opened fire at the representative, her staff and bystanders.

The problem is this:  a Glock with a magazine of 33 rounds is a killing machine. It is, as Paul Helmke  of the Brady Campaign says, "not suited for hunting or personal protection. What it's good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly."

The question is: why are semiautomatics with large magazines legal?  The assailant in this case could have shot one or two victims with any handgun, but he would not have killed six and wounded thirteen. Why do we legalize such a weapon -- a weapon designed for mass slaughter? Conservatives frequently want to examine the intent of the Founding Fathers. Does anyone think those men, in writing the Second Amendment, ever imagined such a weapon? And if one is going to extrapolate the meaning of  "Arms" as used in that amendment, where does it stop?  Should I therefore be allowed to own a Bradley Tank, a SAM missile launcher, a nuclear weapon, a chemical or biological weapon?  


It is a giant leap from a musket or Kentucky Long Rifle to a Glock 19 capable of firing 33 bullets in a matter of seconds.

Having a debate about civil political discourse is fine, but a debate about the legality of semiautomatic weapons is more important. 

Lego Creation of the Horseshoe

What one can do with over a million legos and a 1000 hours? 


This is what Paul Janssen did.


See more photos at: www.mocpages.com

A Modest Proposal

State of the Union Speech 2010

In the aftermath of the Tucson killings and the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Senator Mark Udall (D Colorado) has suggested that during the State of The Union speech (January 25th) Democrats and Republicans sit together rather than dividing up according to party affiliation. He thinks that such action would act as a symbol of unity and remind the rest of the world that we are all Americans in spite of our political differences. He said the current custom of having the parties on opposite sides of the House is "a negative symbol of the divisions in Congress." All of us remember the images of half the audience applauding wildly while the other half is is sitting on their hands frowning.


Such a suggestion seems to make much sense in light of all the talk about dialing back the vitriolic speech and  the metaphors suggesting violence. At such a time, one would think a symbol of unity is what our country needs. 


Unfortunately Senator Udall's suggestion will be dismissed. 


Consider what has happened since the massacre on Saturday. Two days after the tragedy, the media rhetoric and political punditry was as divisive as ever. Also, rather than accompanying the President and members of Congress to a Wednesday evening memorial service for the Tucson victims, Speaker of the House Boehner turned down the President's invitation to go with him on Air Force One in order to attend a political fund raiser - a cocktail party. Apparently he or his base fears any sign of unity. And then as an example of incivility there is the memory of last year's speech being interrupted by a Republican congressman heckling  the President from his seat on the house floor. 


 For that segment of the Republican Party, it's not The United States of America;  it is Our Divided States of America.

The Arrogance of John Kasich

Ohio's Governor-elect, John Kasich

In these days prior to John Kasich becoming the governor of Ohio,  he has talked about cutting the payroll for public employees and eliminating  the  public bargaining agreements for public employees, meaning teachers, policemen, firemen, garbage collectors, highway department workers, health workers,  and all those who provide an actual public service. After all, he is a fiscal conservative, and he wants to reduce the cost of government.


As of today we know what he means. He wants to lay off workers and curtail wages for those people who actually do the work of the State of Ohio, but on the other hand he wants to raise the salaries of his staff (many of whom  happen to be his buddies) thirty or more percent above those of Governor Strickland's staff.


Why are we surprised? He learned his lessons well on Wall Street with Lehman Brothers.


I'm not sure the voters of Ohio knew what they were getting when they elected him. Who can blame them. He ran a campaign on creating jobs and reducing spending, but refused to elaborate on how he was going to do that. Now we know his plan: screw the public employees on the front line, the ones who do real work and reward the well-connected who think they are entitled


As The Cleveland Leader explains: "Ohio Governor-Elect John Kasich learned some valuable lessons while working on Wall Street - how to steal from the poor to give to the rich. This time, the rich include his top advisers and staff. While the rest of Ohio struggles with unemployment and Kasich threatens to kill public sector jobs and unions, he's proposing to increase the salaries of his staff, which includes many of his good friends."


And, as The Leader continues: "But it gets worse. Not only is Kasich bumping up the pay of existing positions, he's also creating brand new positions to make sure that his buddies are taken care of. For example, he created the position of Special Assistant to the Governor with a salary of $145,000 per year for his long-time friend, Jai Chabria."


By the way, this is also the same person who wanted to be take the oath of office in private without the press. So much for the transparency of his administration.

.

Reasons Republicans Want to Read U.S. Constitution Aloud in the House

One would have thought the Republicans would want to roll up their sleeves and get to work now that they control the U.S. House of Representatives. Not so. They wanted to spend their first full day at work in 2011 by reading the U.S. Constitution aloud to each other.Yesterday they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. (Well most of them did; two Republican congressmen from Texas missed taking their oath because they were attending a fundraiser. First things first.) But the question is:  are they suggesting they took an oath yesterday to uphold a document they had not read?  Most of us plebeians would have thought  we should read the document before taking the oath. But that's us, stupid plebeians that we are. They take the oath and read the document the next day.

No matter, they spent the day reading it aloud to each other, and inquiring minds are asking; why? Here is a list of some of the possible answers:

1. because some of them cannot read.

2. because they didn't know what else to do until Happy Hour.

3. because some slept through their eighth-grade government class and don't know what it says.

4. because they needed to kill time until the lobbyists provide them with an agenda for this session.

5. because they did not want John Boehner to confuse the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as he has done in the past.

6. because many of them thought the Constitution was established to promote the interests of large corporations. It must have been a shock to read that one of the purposes was "to promote the general Welfare."

7. because they forgot the 14th Amendment reads, "all person born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (What? Those Latino babies will be voters?)

8. because they needed time to fill out  the forms to claim their free Federal Congressional Health Insurance.

9. because they needed time to devise ways of repealing health benefits for 40 million Americans.

10. because, after two years of obstructionism, they don't know what governing means.

Not to be forgotten, they want to reduce the federal budget; but how much of taxpayer money did they spend today reading the Constitution to each other? You don't want to know.

Republicans: "Our health insurance is none of your business!"

Congress's Secret Health Care Plan

While they are talking about eliminating President Obama's Health Care program, the Republican Congressmen voted to conceal from the public whether or not an individual congressman was accepting Federal Health Insurance for themselves. This occurred the same day House Speaker Boehner in his first speech talked about the need for greater transparency in the House.


As Congressman Isreal (D.NY) commented on MSNBC's "Hardball": "This is a very straightforward amendment that we offered, that, if you're going to take government-sponsored health care and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, simply disclose. Let your constituents know that you are taking that government health care. Every single Republican voted to hide their health care while many of them are pledging to repeal it for their constituents."


Since six Republicans had already disclosed that they were not taking the insurance, we are left with the conclusion that all the rest are accepting it, but they do not want us to know they are. How convenient.


Did the American people really think that Republican hypocrisy would end after they had a majority?

1st Day: Boehner and GOP Back Off On Campaign Promises

Pledge to America - broken

Yesterday John Boehner and his Republican congressmen take over the House of Representatives and immediately began backtracking on their campaign promises.


During the campaign in a publicity stunt called "Pledge to America," John and his buddies told us:  "we can save $100 billion dollars a year. That’s $1 trillion over the next ten years.” They repeated this throughout the campaign.


Now that they are in power, they have a different story, "The actual cuts put forward could be 'substantially less' than $50 billion, a House Republican aide said, because the fiscal year will be halfway through by the time Republicans get a chance to affect spending."


House budget chief, Republican Paul Ryan, told NBC's 'Today' program a Republican campaign promise to cut $100 billion in spending this year had been 'compromised' by the momentum of spending already under way.


 "(Reuters) - "Republicans scaled back plans for deep cuts in government spending as they took power in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, diluting a key promise that helped them to victory in November's election."

You Might Be a Tea Party Follower, If....

American Tea Party 

You might be a Tea Party follower,

if you named your daughter Bristol.

if you claim to be an Independent and have never voted for a Democrat.

if you have never gone hunting, but belong to the NRA.

if you do go hunting and your game of choice is caribou.

if you have an autographed copy of Going Rogue.

if you actually read parts of the book.

if you believe Sarah Palin actually wrote the book.

if you fear immigrants.

if you"dabbled into witchcraft."

if you think tax cuts for billionaires are going to reduce the federal budget.

You might be a Tea Party follower,

if you refer to Mexican-Americans as "spics."

if you loved the GOP's "Southern Strategy."

if you, Chilean Dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and Sharon Angle want to privatize Social Security.

if you think Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is a stellar justice.

if you spend weekends as a Nazi re-enactor.

if you and Christine O'Donnell do not realize the1st Amendment provides for separation of Church and State. 

if you and Sonny Thomas of Tea Party Express think Muslim Americans worship a "monkey god." 

if you do think U.S. Senators should not be elected by the people of their state.

if one of your first dates "occurred on a satanic altar"  ala Christene O'Donnell.

if you can see Russia from your kitchen window.

You might be a Tea Party follower,

if you believe Fox News is "fair and balanced."

if you think Texas should secede from the United States and become a sovereign state.

if you agree that corporations and labor unions are really persons just like yourself.

if you agree with Sharon Angle that a 13-yr-old rape-incest victim should make a "lemon situation into lemonade."

if you and Rand Paul agree that a private business owner should be allowed to discriminate.

if you read George W. Bush's Decision Points and bought his story.
if you and Jan Brewer, Arizona governor, think police should be able to detain anyone who does not have proof of their immigration status with them.
if you think political donations should be secret.
if you are an old, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male.


If ten or more of the 30 conditions above apply to you, you are probably a Tea Party Follower
If  fifteen or more apply, you are a Tea Party Disciple.
If twenty or more apply, you are a Tea Party Leader.
If twenty five or more apply, you are a Palin "Family Member" (but not in the family's last will and testament).

Me and My Kindle

"Kendra"

Since I received my Kindle a year ago as a Christmas present, I have grown quite fond of her. We spend time  together on a daily basis, some days an inordinate amount of time. She has become a part of my life. I am not sure how I survived without her. When I visit my doctor or dentist, she is my companion. During this past summer, we were frequently found together in the shade of a large oak tree. In fact she assuages the rage I feel while watching a football game embedded among one million commercials.


In the autumn we traveled together to Hilton Head where we spent several hours a day on the sunny beach. Within the next year we plan to go to Paris and spend time together in the "City of Lights." Although I have a fear of flying, she is quite adept at distracting me from my certainty that we are going to drop from the sky like a wounded duck.


And of course I go to bed with her every night, and I must admit, some fondling occurs.


Oh, by the way, her name is Kendra, and she has a black leather cover -- what I mean is she wears a black leather dress  She, on the other hand,  is white, sleek, smooth to the touch and easy to behold. Although I have nothing against those who are curvaceous and buxomly, I like the fact that she is flat and rectangular.


Sometimes she becomes tired and worn out, but always recovers after a shot of "juice."




.