Sarah Palin's Book of Whines

Sarah Palin, in a ghost-written book, "Going Rogue," blames her disastrous campaign on John

McCain's aide, Steve Schmidt. She was not the problem; it was the campaign's fault.

One of the best comments on Palin's book is that of "MountainPenelope" in the HuffingtonPost.

"MountainPenelope"

Still whining a year later Sista Sarah?

If this woman weren't so pa.the.tic, it would be funny.

The one secret she had to hide was a D in a college course?

She 'had' to get married. Her son went into the military to escape j.a.i.l. Her 'abstinence-only' trained teenaged daughter was pre.gnant. Her husband is a member of a separatist movement. The very house she lived in was mysteriously built with materials provided by the same folk who were building the Wasilla sports complex. She entered office in a Wasilla that was on sound financial footing and left them $20 million in debt...

None of those things bother her?

Thanks America for electing Obama."

FDA: Time to Ban BPA

Every time you drink from a plastic container or eat canned food, you may be exposing yourself and your family to a chemical (Bisphenol A or BPA) that has been linked to breast cancer, prostrate cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Since pregnant women, babies, and small children are most vulnerable, it is especially despicable that BPA is found in many baby bottles, sippy cups, and baby formula cans. While consumer groups are petitioning the FDA to ban BPA in all food and beverage products. the large chemical companies are fighting such a ban--BPA is one of the most produced chemicals in the world.

And to make matters worse, there is no need for BPA!

Although there are some technical questions about the cancer studies, the bottom line is that BPA is injurious to human health. As quoted in the NYT: “When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong,” said Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network. “Are we going to quibble over individual rodent studies, or are we going to act?”"

NCAA Football: Forget Excessive Celebration

On a typical autumn Saturday afternoon, a young college football player makes a great play and scores a significant touchdown in a significant game. He raises his fist in celebration or in his exuberance chest-bumps a team mate--a college athlete enjoying the moment. But then Scrooge in the uniform of a NCAA official arrives, throwing a flag--EXCESSIVE CELEBRATION PENALTY.

Until the NCAA can define "excessive celebration" in a fashion that every player recognizes, the penalty is a subjective call by an individual official. In fact, on a particular Saturday afternoon, the vary same action may be a penalty in one game, but not in another.

And what is the problem with players celebrating? Why is this a penalty?

"In-your-face" taunting is offensive and deserving of a penalty, but players celebrating a significant touchdown is not.

The NCAA should allow young college players to celebrate a significant touchdown if the celebration is not an "in-your-face" exhibition. In that case, both the players and officials will know exactly what constitutes a violation.

Inconvenient Truths for GOP

On a day on which the House Republicans rallied with their "Teabaggers" in front of the Capitol, they were confronted with some inconvenient truths (my apologies to Al Gore):

1. Both the AMA and the AARP voiced their support for the Democratic health care plan. Immediately, Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) attacked both groups and their integrity.

2. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) gave a speech on the floor of the House in which he quoted the Harvard Study that reported 44,789 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance. When Mr Grayson began listing how many constituents die in each Republican District due to lack of health insurance, House Republicans spent over an hour trying a variety of procedural moves to stop him. After the delaying tactics, he was able to finish his speech.

3. The Polls indicate the American people favor health care reform.

These facts are quite inconvenient to a party trying to maintain the status quo.

John Boehner's Boner

Are we surprised that John Boehner (R-Ohio) does not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?

But that's okay; John is a conservative congressman. Thank God he is not an immigrant. If he were, he would not be able to pass the citizenship test.

Chrysler Turnaround?

At Chrysler Headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan, company executives explained how they expect to move from bankruptcy to profitability in five years, and apparently the Jeep brand is going to be a significant factor in that turnaround. The plan calls for boosting Jeep sales by 60% in that time.

Unfortunately, there are no plans for new products. The nearest indication of anything new is a "major modification" of the Wrangler in 2010. The Nitro may be "refreshed" in 2012, and the Liberty is scheduled for "a refresh" in 2010.

"Modification" and "refresh" sound to me much like "more of the same." I suspect the purchasing public is not going to be too excited by that prospect.

Perhaps Sergio Marchionne, CEO of both Chrysler and Fiat SpA, has a few tricks up his sleeve, but it will need to be more than "refresh" and "modification." Even if they have nothing "new,' they could, at the very least, make a concerted effort to improve quality.

Senate Fails to Appoint Judges

In an unprecedented effort to thwart the will of the people, the conservatives in the U.S. Senate have blocked nearly every Obama judicial nominee. They are using "the single senator anonymous hold" procedure to deny dozens of Obama judicial nominees an up-or-down vote.

The question is: why is Harry Reid allowing this? Why are Obama's nominees not receiving the same treatment the majority Democrats gave George Bush's nominees?

Since the conservatives can not sustain a filibuster, Mr Reid should force an up-or-down vote, treating the Obama's nominees the same way they treated Bush's nominees.

St. Augustine on Travel

St. Augustine extolled the value of travel when he wrote: "The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page."

The NFL Myth

For years there seemed to be some truth to the NFL's claim that "on any given Sunday" a lower-ranked team could defeat a higher-ranked team. For the last several years this propaganda has had no relation to reality at all. The Detroit Lions will not defeat the Minnesota Vikings this season. Everybody knows that, and we also know that the score is not going to be close. CBS, Fox, ESPN, and the NFL all know that the "on-any-given-Sunday" line is bull crap, but they would like for us to think it is still true, even though they have the statistics to demonstrate the fallacy. Not only are the fans not likely to see an upset, they are not likely to see a close game. The margins of victory have continued to increase steadily over the last several years.

Why then would fans invest 3 hours of their Sunday afternoon to watch less than 1 hour of actual football, all the while knowing which team will win? Why do fans pay big bucks to attend NFL games? The fans of winning teams probably enjoy watching their teams win, even though it is a foregone conclusion. Why do fans of losing teams attend or watch NFL games? The answer to that is football's dirty little secret: either 1) the fans are gambling on the game and their only interest is to cover the spread, or 2) they are involved in a fantasy football league and are interested, not in a team's success, but in an individual player's success.

The NFL has to be thankful that so many of us gamble on football or are playing fantasy football, because their product is not what it used to be.

No Thanks, Howie Long

It is amazing that General Motors is still using Howie Long in its auto/truck commercials. The guy comes across as an arrogant, self-centered bully. I suspect GM has some quality products, but if they want to identify themselves with Howie Long, I would not choose their company. On the other hand, I suppose that he does appeal to immature, self-centered, nineteen-year-olds.