Girls today

I feel this is an appropriate day to write on this topic.  I don't think I'm that old but I definately see a difference between girls when I was in high school and girls who are currently in high school with regard to the internet.

When I was in high school, girls were very cautious about having their boyfriends or guys take a risque picture of them because they feared it would end up on the internet.  Now, girls do it to themselves.  If you go on facebook, you can see this immediately, the girls my age very rarely, if ever, have pictures of them in bikinis or anything risque on Facebook.  Then you go to a girl in high school and you see literally multiple photos of them in bikinis, close up of their cleavage, and other pictures that leave little to the imagination.  Some even show nipple, which I didn't even know was allowed on facebook but apparantly it is.  Now some girls my age or older will slip and have a picture of them in a bikini but like I said, they're very low in number.  Almost every girl in high school up until the legal age to drink have facebook pages flooded with risque photos...I'm not sure how or when this switch was made.

Sure you can argue that attractive girls want to flaunt what they got.  They worked hard to get their gorgeous physiques so why not show them off?  Looks don't last forever so flaunt it while you got it.  Especially on Halloween where even girls my age dress like sluts but have rabbit ears or something on so they don't actually say they're dressed as sluts.  This is why Halloween is the most popular day to be raped.  It is also the most popular day to try a drug for the first time.  Go out to a bar and you can immediately see why the former statistic is quite obvious to discern.  If you are worried you won't have enough will power to do something disrespectful, don't worrry, the younger ones will post all of it on facebook for your viewing pleasure. 

NBA lockout

The NBA has just announced that we will not have basketball in November.  This bothers me to no end as I am obsessed with the NBA.  In every debate, one should pick a side.  I am siding with the owners.

The thing that the players refuse to agree to is anything less than 52% of all basketball related revenue.  This is approximately 80 million dollars.  I think the owners are being nice offering 50%.  This is a common problem in all businesses and corporations.  Secretaries think that since they do all the bitch work and paper work that they are actually running the companies.  It is very common for lower tier people to believe those at the tops do nothing and the lower people are stuck doing all the work.  This is also seen in construction, those actually lifting steel beams and putting them in place putting the building together hate that the architect of the building gets credit for building it.  In all examples, the distribution of the money is fairly distributed.

I have a problem with David Stern in his dress code for the players and tyrannical suspensions.  The most egregious of this was suspending Rashard Lewis of the Orlando Magic 50 games for testing positive for DHEA.  DHEA is a natural hormone made by the body.  Everyone in the world has DHEA...and if you don't, you should go get some DHEA supplements because it is one of the most important hormones your body needs to function.  I assume that Rashard Lewis tested higher than the normal limit people have, but that's like faulting him for drinking more water than the average person.  It's decisions like these where I can understand the players having issue with David Stern but David Stern and the owners have worked very hard making basketball the global game that it's become.  They literally go around the world searching for talent and advertising/building teams that thousands of people will pay good money to watch live.  I don't know exactly what goes into the daily operations of an NBA owner so I will just say it this way: NBA players are paid millions of dollars to do something that they've been doing for their entire lives and maybe even paid to do early on.  It is the NBA owners responsibility to find a way to make enough money to pay these multi-million dollar contracts while still running a successful team.  In no way should the salaried employees be compensated at a higher revenue share that the company brings in than the people who find a way to pay all the salaried employees every week.

I really hope the players give in to the 50/50 revenue split soon.  They're asking for something they don't deserve and I really want to watch basketball.  If they dismiss what the owners do so much, than they should start their own league like they threaten.  At least then I can watch basketball again...and they'll find out just how badly they need the owners!

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

Bulletin Board material doesn't exist

After watching the New York Jets beat the San Diego Chargers last week, I have decided that the days of "Bulletin Board material" no longer exist. 

"Bulletin Board material" is when an athlete talks trash before a game, which causes the opposing team to get extra motivated to play and subsequently destroy the team that made the offending comment.  Most athletes scoff at the idea of Bulletin Board material because "If you can't motivate yourself, than you really have no business being out there in the first place."  A valid claim, but in this PC world, given the epidemic of pussification of men as outlined in my book, Bulletin Board material isn't indifferent, it works for the aggressive teams.

It's fascinating to me that I'm going to football for my examples as it has the reputation of having the toughest men.  Bulletin Board material under the tyrant that is David Stern (NBA) would probably be heavily fined, which may inhibit players in the NBA from saying it.  Really, I just think football is the only sport that actually has remnances of real men who would make Bulletin board comments.  Basketball and baseball (I don't watch hockey so won't comment and in this country there clearly is three dominant sports) just don't have real men playing anymore.  Now for my examples.

A couple years ago, the New England Patriots stormed through the regular season with a perfect 16-0 record...they went on to win the first two playoff games making them 1 win away from being the second team ever to finish a season undefeated.  The only team in their way was the New York Giants.  Michael Strahan got on TV and said, "We will beat the Patriots 21-17!  They asked Tom Brady, the quarterback for the Patriots, about this comment knowing full well that the Patriots always give vague answers if at all and claim they never listen to the media.  Tom Brady asked what the quote was as he never heard it, upon hearing it, he gasped, "We're only going to score 17 points?"  then chuckled and continued, "okay."  The media had a field day with this.  Every sports analysts in the country kept talking about bulletin board material and how stupid Strahan was for saying it.  Many said he should have just shut up and they were excited for when Tom Brady walked onto the superbowl stage and said, "Watch this!"

I was watching....the New England Patriots only scored 14 points in their loss in the superbowl to Strahan's New York Giants.  Brady and the bully Patriots were punched in the mouth and like most bullies you punch in the mouth, they ran and hid!

Example 2:  Last week, Rex Ryan said, "If I had been chosen as the coach instead of Norv Turner, I'd have two rings by now given how stacked those teams were."  The Jets were on a three game losing streak at this point.  Again, every analyst in the country said that because of these comments the Chargers (Norv Turner's team) would demolish the Jets.  The Jets were victorious last week despite their losing ways this season.

Example 3-4: Last year, Rex Ryan before their playoff games with the Patriots and the Colts said, "This game is personal, I hate Tom Brady and I hate Bill Bellichek" and "The Colts eliminated us last year, so now it's personal, I really want to get them back."  For both games, the experts said that the Jets would be demolished because of Ryan's comments....the Jets won both games!

In the 80s, if you made these comments, then you better watch out.  Given the pussies that play professional sports now adays, you make these comments and those you offend will run and hide!  The only example I can think of where bulletin board material actually worked in this millennium is when about 4 or 5 years ago, someone said, "Tiger Woods is overhyped" when he was matched up with him head to head.  Tiger Woods went on to win the first 10 holes, with only 8 remaining.  In golf this is referred to as "9-8"meaning you're up by 9 with 8 holes to go thus it's impossible to win.  It's sad that since the millennium, golf has the only example of bulletin board material actually working! 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

Let the children play

There is a common stigma in this country that the days where kids could run around and ride their bikes around the neighborhood are gone becuase of pedofiles. I can't fault anyone for thinking this way.  Hell, in my book, I make a similar claim, but now I'm not so sure.  There are two conflicting views on this subject.  (1) the stories of pedofiles and the public list of child predators and (2) Most missing child cases turn up that the parents or another family member is the guilty party. 

    Objectively speaking, the latter is what most convinces me that even now kids can ride their bikes around their neighborhood just like I did as a kid.  No matter how many pedofiles show up on that list, the facts remain that the amount of kids abducted by strangers pales in comparison to parents or other family members. 

I liken this topic to the question: "Would you rather let your children go to a friend's house that has a pool or one where you know the family has a gun."  Most people say the pool, yet statistically and objectively speaking, much more kids get injured or killed in a house swimming pool than by guns in the house. The balancing factor is hearing that a kid got shot is so much more traumatic than that they drowned or slipped while running and became severely injured.  The thought that your child can leave home and someone picks them up to rape and murder them sounds so much worse than bad parenting. The reason is, in the former, there are many victims, the children and the poor parents and family that have to endure this....the latter, it's only the child.  Few people ever have sympathy for parents that abuse their children, and I don't blame them.  So I say, stop sheltering the kids and let them play!

Getting involved

Recently I was on the subway going home when this group of what I presume to be high school students walked on to the train.  There were three girls and two guys.  It was a relatively crowded train so they weren't all standing together.  But one of the guys was within arm reach of one of the girls.  When she wasn't looking, he would extend out and pat her on the back.  She turned around, smiled and told him to stop.  Every now and then she would hit him.  When she would scold him, he started calling her names such as "Ugly" "Big nose" "Jew" and "Arab."  What her background was, I am not sure but she had very light skin, which doesn't reveal anything really.  But, clearly she couldn't have been Jewish and Arab, but I'm going to guess Jewish. 

When we reached the next stop, some people got off and the guy moved in and was right next to the girl he was harrassing.  He said, 'Now, that I'm right next to you, I can really harass you."  To which she smiled.

As the train continued, he kept up the name calling, and messed up her hair by pulling it over her face and holding it there so she couldn't see.  When he let up, she'd be smiling while hitting him in the chest and telling him to stop. 

Throghout this time, I was against the doors on the opposite side of where they'd be opening.  This was happening in front of me yet I did nothing because the girl was smiling and it just seemed like they were joking around.  I could tell by the expressions on everyone else in the car's faces that they were just as annoyed as I was, but nobody said anything.  We got to the next stop and a lot of people got out freeing the area next to me by the door.  The guy wraped his arms around all three girls and shoves them into the door next to me.  They hit the door pretty hard but had no reaction.  He continued to mildly harrass her and then they stopped. 

Throughtout this time, I urged myself to say something, but I didn't.  My logic was, "She's smiling, so she's not too concerned about it and not in any harm.  For all I know it's her boyfriend or brother or something." When he shoved them into the door, I asked myself, "What exactly needs to happen for me to step in?"  Where is my threshold?  Would it be different if she wasn't smiling?  If she needed help, why didn't she ask for it, there were people on the train?  Then again, battered women rarely run and ask for help, they actually vehemently defend their assailants.  Maybe I just don't want a confrontation.  I didn't know these girls.  They mean nothing to me, I'm not going to get in a fight for them.  If charges were brought, the girls wouldn't back me up. so why bother?  Then I thought of a quote, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." 

I regret not getting involved.  I've seen confrontations like this on the train before and usually the aggressor immediately backs off when a stranger scolds them.  Something, I've never really understood either but that is normally how these things end.  I'd like to think that if it escalated, I would have done something, but the more I think about it, the more I think of the Kitty Genovese story.  Kitty Genovese was violently raped and murdered on a lit street.  At least 27 people saw her get raped and subsequently murdered, yet nobody called the cops.  When asked why, they replied, "I thought someone else would have." 

I was just like those 27 people.  I waited around for someone else to get involved.  I would like to implore those of you out there to learn from my mistake.  I hope if this ever happens again, I'll be confronational because I really don't like feeling this guilty.  If I said something, and I had the 5 of them yelling at me about how it was just a joke, at least I would have known I tried! 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page.

Girlfriend vs. Wife.

It seems common sensical that what qualities you look for in a girlfriend should be what you look for in a wife.  True, most people have to date many people before they find the one they want to marry, but that's more testing the market and seeing what you like and dislike so you can better judge what your wife should be like...but does this work?

It's odd I think about these things as I am asexual, but just because I don't want to do something (get married and/or date) doesn't mean I can't ponder about it.  My parents have the best marriage that I have seen, yet they are completely opposites.  My dad is a scientific-minded, black and white, hard facts kind of guys, and my mom starts most sentences with "I feel" and is more an intuitive type.  What ends up happening is they balance each other out and thus their weaknesses are thwarted by each other.  This is why people say, "Opposites attract" but does it HAVE TO be this way?  Can a marriage work if the two of you are similar?

When I look at dating couples, it seems you do not have this "opposites attract" thing.  Instead, they normally are quite similar.  They think the same way, this is why they can understand each other better than most outside individuals.  My two closest friends understand the way I think because they too are very logical.  Because of this, they can handle me in all my forms.  They know why I'm doing what I'm doing and, more importantly, how to handle me and how to get through to me much more effectively than my close intuitive friends.  This got me thinking about this.  Although none of them I am emotionally involved with, I entertain how I would react with someone like them.  It seems that by my parents example, the intuitive ones are the ones fit to marry.  Yet, shouldn't your wife be able to handle you?  Shouldn't your wife know how to get through to you?  By the way, feel free to reverse the genders, the rule still applies.  They say that you should never marry/date someone that is exactly like you because although your strengths are magnified, the weaknesses are too.  There's no balance.  Does that con outweigh the fact that your with someone that is incapable of understanding how you think? 

My logical friends know exactly how to get through to me, how to debate me, how to counter my defense mechanisms.  Maybe I haven't found someone to match the wife credential.  Maybe it's someone that's intuitive but knows how to handle me even though they don't understand why it works.  That last sentence makes no sense to me but I'm leaving it to help spark the thought in your head. 

As far as why there's different characteristics in your wife than your girlfriend, the only reason I can think of is that your wife is much more vested in it.  Sure, a girlfriend can be happy that you want to live within your means, but when you're married, you have to think of their needs too.  Your decisions affect your wife much more than your girlfriend, so that's why you may need someone to balance your decisions to make sure you don't go too far down the wrong path.  You're opposite, however, doesn't know how you think and therefore may not know how to get through to you to stop you.  So, again, does the pro outweigh the con? 

My conclusion is you should date people like you but as soon as you're ready for marriage, start looking for people who fit the criterea outlined in my book but think the exact opposite way you do.  Again, we come back to my biggest problem with relationships...they're just so illogical.

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page.

Defending Obama vs Ron Paul

Ron Paul recently attacked President Obama by saying that his drone strikes were unconstitutional.  I have a problem with this.

The constitution says that the President, being the commander in chief, can authorize any act of war for up to 90 days without congress' consent (Articles of Confederation).  Although up until President Clinton, no president had actually utilized this, it was in the constitution for emergencies.  Clinton used it to bomb Baghdad, Kosova, and many other places whenever heat was on him about scandals. That was an abuse of this right.  The drone attacks, however, I don't think are an abuse.  President Obama has done a good job killing Al Queda members.  He is responsible for taking out Osama Bin Laden and even American defectors.  I don't know how Ron Paul can fault him for this. 

Ron Paul wasn't doing well in the polls to begin with, but this made me jump off his band wagon (If you look at previous posts, I actually liked him).  I still want a president that's going to be able to do what's needed to be done in the war on terror.  Although, I wouldn't give President Obama the highest marks for this, these drone attacks were a very good strategy. 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this webpage. 

My Critique on President Obama

Since, I am going to defend him in a post in the near future, I decided I'm going to attack him finally.  Both in my book, and the rare times I mention him in this blog, I find myself defending him.  I make little asides saying that he's a socialist and whatever but it's always hidden amongst positive words. So, here it is, why I don't like President Obama.

Since he first started campaigning till now, his solution to everything is to have the government take over.  If the government is taking over banking, health care, and all other aspects of the economy, that is socialism.  This is why I don't think it's hyerbole to call him a socialist since all his ideas relate to having the government running everything, even though they fail at almost every endeavor.  The reason they fail at almost every endeavor is because the government, unlike the private sector, doesn't care about making a profit.  So, they spend recklessly and keep throwing money at failing ventures.

To go toward my point that government programs fail, President Obama's ideas have raised the national debt 4.2 trillion dollars since he took office.  Think about that for a second, that's 1.4 Trillion dollars a year!!!  His "economic advisors" will tell you that it would have been worse if he didn't do the bailouts to the car industry and the banks.  The bank bailout did give the government 20 billion dollars in revenue, so that's a fair point. I'm not sure about the cash for clunkers campaign.  The problem is, I can't go back in time and have him not bail out the banks and cash for clunkers and see what would happen.  So, it's all speculation, I think we would have had a couple months of real hardship and then rebounded if the invisible hand was allowed to do its thing without government interference but there is absolutely no way to prove that.  Also, keep in mind, the government lost over 500 million dollars in Solyndra....so, the 20 billion profit isn't spent too wisely is it?  The government is not a hedge fund, it's not, "Oh well, we made an investment that didn't pay off sorry."  Let the private sector make the risky investments because they're the ones who actually want a profit!

Secondly, he's just too available  When he first took office, he was always on TV.  It was really the first time in my life, where I didn't think it was a big thing that the President was speaking.  In fact, after a while, some TV stations stopped showing it because they didn't get the viewership to justify reimbursing their sponsors who paid for a spot on the regularly scheduled programming.  He also gave his opinion on things that he admitted he knew nothing about, like the cop who responded to a distress call in Boston and then was accosted by the professor that lived there.

Thirdly, he raised capital gains tax and made it unprofitable to have a small business. He also punished the rich for being rich by raising taxes on them, the job creators, and raising how much they have to pay to give their employees healthcare.  This means that the employers have to spend more money per worker, which means they're less likely to hire, which means more unemployment....hence the problem we have.  Also, the capital gains tax punishes you for making good investments....so, why invest?  Looks like venture capitalist and the small businesses they help won't be doing so well.  The more I think about President Obama, the more I see Chavez.  Chavez oppressively took from the rich and gave to the poor.  He even went to poor neighborhoods throwing chickens on the street.  What happened was, the poor came out in droves to support him and the rich fled Venezuela and emigrated to other countries.  This means more supporters for Chavez, yes the country is in shambles but at least he's popular!  President Obama seems to be following this model. 

The underlying factor behind all of this is President Obama has socialistic ideas.  We knew this by his association with Bill Ayers and Reverand Wright.  He's also inexperienced, the presidency is not something you learn as you go on the job.  I used to commend people for running for office when they weren't corrupted by politics thinking it could help....based on Obama, I think this might be a false assumption, then again, I need a bigger sample size.  It does not work when people say, "I'll just hire people who do know around me." as people said to defend President Obama.  Maybe, Herman Cain will win the Republican nomination and beat President Obama and then once again, we'll have a man inexperienced in politics as president.  Then I'll see if an unexperienced Republican is just as bad as an unexperienced Democrat. 

Coming soon: I defend President Obama from Ron Paul 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page.

The Wall Street Protestors

Everyone seems to have an opinion of the wall street protestors.  Well, I wish I could add some bold, contrary to the general consensus view on it, but it's just too obvious both what it is and what it's not.  It is a move for revolution and socialism in America to honor Karl Marx.

The protestors are not a right wing conspiracy to demonize President Obama.  I hear this about a lot of protests and, to be honest, yes it does happen.  It's so commonplace, there's a name for it, they're called "Protest warriors."  What protest warriors do is walk into protests and make large signs and loudly proclaim an extreme version of the view.  An example of this is for an anti-war protest for Bush, people walk in with signs saying "Bush should be assassinated." The goal of this is that the more moderate protestors don't want to associate with something so extreme so they leave, thus making the protest smaller or non-existent.  If this is what the right-wing is trying to do, clearly they're failing because the protest is growing.  I'm against protest warriors in general when you're on the right because the left doesn't really get scared off by extreme views.  I think "Bush is a Nazi" would be an excellent protest warrior sign considering Bush, last I checked, didn't order the murder of 6,000,000 civilians.  Yet, all over Greenwich Village and college campuses across the nation, this was a common sign.  So, you really can't be too extreme for these people.  If the right-wing is doing this, stop, clearly it isn't working.

The protestors are not a group backed by President Obama to create class warfare and turn the middle and lower class against the upper class.  Although I believe President Obama's ideas and term champions the spirit of this, I do not believe it was a conscious deliberate act that he backed and created.  I hear, "Remember, Obama was a street organizer in Chicago" that's cute, but he didn't organize this one.

The protestors are unorganized, spoiled, whiny little bitches.  When you interview them, they don't seem to know why they're out there.  One guy said, "I think we should legalize marijuana" well, I'm glad he knows the significance of why he's there.  What happened is, the 4% of college students that graduate and are unemployed (yes, the number is that low) bitch and moan about no jobs, yet they aren't willing to work their way up.  They think, "Hey, I graduated college, I should be guaranteed at least 60,000 a year even though I have no work experience."  They scoff at $ 7/hr jobs and refuse to work their way up the way that almost every single successful person did.  The reason why 90% of businesses fail when it's inherited is that the entitlement that people feel they deserve for graduating college or because their parents were successful doesn't work!  No matter what governent programs, inheritance, subsidies, etc. etc. are in place, hard work and working your way to the top is still the best way to be successful.  The protestors don't understand that, they want a job managing or trading at a bank, not as a mere teller.  When I graduated, I had this mentality, I was promised $ 60,000 a year working for my dad.  The only catch was I wouldn't be allowed to live in New York anymore.  So, I took my unexperience ass and hit the job market hard, I worked recruiting college kids in Kentucky, I sold office supplies business to business, I took any shit job that I could get until I found one that adequately paid my bills.  I learned real quick that the sense of entitlement I had in college was pathetic, moronic and downright ascenine.  So, the protestors are whiny, violent, little bitches and I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Founding Father's presidency

As we are 13 months away from our next presidential election, I look back at the history of the presidency and wonder about how it all started.  In 1776, the articles of confederation stated that there is an election, whoever had the most votes is the president and the second most is the Vice President.  Even back in those times, there were two major parties and it really ended up being a two person race, one representing each party.  This lasted for 27 years until they decided that the system was ridiculous and presidents got to choose their running mate/vice president.  Was it that ridiculous though? 

The whole point of what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish was balance of powers.  They wanted to make sure that there would be no King George III in America, so when you look at it at under that goal, the system makes complete sense.  The Vice President is of the opposing party so it keeps the president in check from promoting far right or far left legislation.  If you look at today's government, this is exactly what happens anyway.  Two years after almost any election, the party opposing the president's party wins the house.  It seems that the voters make this the case anyway when they do this.  What hasn't changed since the inception of America is that the vast majority doesn't want complete party power.  That's why it's always so hard to get anything done, because the house has to approve and then the Senate and even then the President can veto 

This is really the greatness of our system though.  For if bad presidents could get their way, than we may have another George III.  So, why did they get rid of second place being the Vice President?  Clearly the top two people should get the top two positions in government and what's the difference if it's two people fighting or 428 vs. 100 vs. 1?  The balance is the same, if not, much less confusing.

~Larry Couchmanos
  Autographed copies of my book can be purchased at the bottom of this page.

Fresh blood

      Well, just as I post that it's a two man race, Rick Perry's performance in the debates plummets him and Herman Cain seems to pick up his supporters. 

Cain's big thing is that he's going to cut taxes across the board, corporate, personal, wealthy, and bring the capital gains tax to zero.  Obviously, I have no problem with that, I'm of the right-wing, I identify strongly with conservatives, and the definition of conservative is people who want lower taxes, strong national defense, limited government and traditional values.  Reducing the capital gains tax to 0, will help small businesses by giving venture capitalist and investors incentive to invest in up and coming businesses, which potentially causes more self-made people. Herman Cain says this will not decrease revenue for the government because with more self-made people, you have more people making enough money to raise their income bracket, thus give more money in taxes. This happened in the 60s and 80s under Kennedy and Raegan respectively, so it's not far-fetched.  Although I commend him for this, I haven't heard one Republican candidate say "I'm going to raise taxes" or "I'm keeping them the same."  As far as I know all eight candidates at the debate want to lower taxes, so why should that differentiate Cain?

One thing I like about him is that he ran a successful business in Godfather pizza.  Now, some people scoff that's it's only a pizza joint.  This is especially true if you live in New York where independant pizza shops are pretty much on every block.  But you know what, I respect anyone that can run a business.  I also like that it was pizza because if he became president, I don't think he'd continue with this ridiculous Michelle Obama policy of trying to force people to eat right.  I mean the man had a bacon cheeseburger pizza, my mouth waters just thinking of that.  So good, none of this "you can't buy soda with food stamps" and "We have a problem in this country with childhood obesity and my daughters are no exemption" both things Michelle Obama said.  What I eat is none of the government's business and I think Cain would agree.  So, I like this. 

Now for the criticism of Cain, he talks about how he's going to cut spending.  He's making vertical cuts and horizontal cuts.  He talked on Fox and was asked, "Specifically what are you going to cut" and he just went back to how he's going to do fiscal surgery.  The interviewer pressed him some more to be specific and he wasn't.  The interviewer threw him a bone by saying that both Obama and the Republicans are refusing to be specific about what will be cut because they will alienate some special interest voters and neither one wants to gve their opponent ammunition and what you will cut is ammunition.  I scoff at this.  I may be naive and idealistic but Goddamnit, I'm stubborn too, I do not like people who dodge questions.  I support the bold, I want someone to tell it like it is.  I respect Perry for saying Social Security is a ponzii scheme, which it obviously is.  I would like Cain to get specific.  So, I knock him for that.  The other thing that annoyed me is that he said, "I had colon cancer, they cut me open and took out part of my colon, that's what I'm going to do to spending.  That's the type of surgery we need, I had massive surgery, so that's what I'm going to do to spending."  I'm sorry, the fact that you had surgery doesn't make you a surgeon.  This may irk me more because I work with so many people who think that just because they've had multiple medical issues, it's equivalant to graduating medical school and they give medical advice accordingly.  So, until he becomes bold and gets specific, I'm leaving the jury still out.

The one thing Herman Cain did get bold about is he said "African Americans are brainwashed" in that they refuse to even consider voting Republican.  Well the numbers back this up.  In the last three presidential elections, (Gore, Kerry, Obama) the black vote for the Democratic candidate were in the high 80s or higher.  With President Obama, this makes sense, the other two, it follows Cain's point.  What makes his point even more valid is what I know from persoanl experience.  In college, I would go to College Republicans (CR) debates as I was a member.  When the blacks in CR would participate in the debate, the other side took even more offense than they normally did.  They would call them racist, a traitor, etc. etc.  A black radio host told Juan Williams (black contributor on Fox news) to "Go back to the porch."  After Cain's speech, I heard blacks on the news calling Cain a bigot.  This is ridiculous.  I can't fathom being black and using black ethnic slurs against other blacks.  I mean the n-word is used as a term of endearment by some of them so I don't count that.  I guess this just provides more fuel for Chris Rock's contention that black people are more racist than white people because they hate black people too.  Except this time it's Conservative blacks vs. non-conservative blacks.  So, I'm glad Herman Cain boldly stood against them because this is a real problem right-wing black people face.

I will briefly talk about Bill O'Reilly's comment that "Herman Cain knows nothing about foreign policy" he said this because Cain's answer to "Iran will have a nuke this year, what do you do?" was "Have energy independence so that we need less oil from Iran, so they have lower revenues so can't afford it."  It's clear by all Cain's answers that he thinks economically, the problem is, I don't think he can think any other way.  Then again, we need an economics or finance guy in the white house.  O'Reilly said that that will take much longer than a year, he wanted a quick solution.  Cain didn't have one, yea, me neither, any suggestions Bill?  Not your responsibility?  Fine, I haven't heard anyone give a solution to that.  So, I don't fault Cain for that.  The fault I would put is that our oil comes mostly from Venuezuela and Canada.  In the middle east, Saudi Arabia is our largest contributor so his plan really sucks when you take that into account so maybe he doesn't know much about foreign policy.  Then again, he could always pick people in his cabinet who do.

So, would i mind having Cain in the White House?  No, I wouldn't.  I want a economics/finance/self-made business man minded president because the economy is the major problem.  Am I going to jump and celebrate if he wins....well no, I'm not that impressed by him and I want to see some nuts and bolts before I tell everybody that they should endorse him.  Like my last post, I'm losing hope that the Republicans will give me a candidate I can get excited about, the first three that popped up have done nothing, maybe a fourth will make a come back in the next six months or so.