OUT IN LEFT FIELD

Speaking of "out in left field," Wednesday's Obama press conference was sad. He looked sad, dispirited. His demeanor reminds me of when I once had a job I disliked and wasn't very good at resulting in my not wanting to get up in the morning to go to work. O seems to have zero motivation to even try to be our leader.

 I've been saying since his inauguration that he doesn't have to totally fix problems, he just has to improve them. He has failed to do so. I read the WSJ/NBC poll numbers that came out this am. To see approval #s in the teens for handling of several foreign, domestic, and economic issues was shocking. In the teens! That is indefensible.

Included in the poll was a question about providing tax incentives to encourage businesses to bring jobs back to the US. 85% of those polled said yes. So what does Obama threaten to do? He is planning to threaten companies with penalties if they do business over seas. "It's not fair." What? Left field isn't far enough out there to describe his understanding of business and job creation. Pathetic. Business is not philanthropy or charity or fair.

Go on line and read the poll. It's hard to believe things could get this bad but O has managed to take us there. Terrible judgment on his part and on those of the voters who reelected him. Big mistake. 

Albiwan 

ON SECOND THOUGHT…Roberto Clemente's Wisdom…

I haven't written in a while. Just enjoying life with family and friends. :-) But something struck me the other day so here it is. I was thinking that Obama's campaign slogan "Hope and Change" should have be reversed. Should have been "Change and (then) Hope" as in 'hope the change works', which most often it has not. In retrospect is it possible that had the GOP worked that angle would the slogan have met the same level of success for Obama? 

Many years ago a Hall of Fame baseball player, Roberto Clemente, was overheard shouting out to a rookie, who was performing the Sign of the Cross on himself prior to getting into the batters box. Clemente's words were "hey rookie, we don't pray for hits on the Majors!" The past six years have proven to me that Obama's Hoping is much the same as the rookie's Praying, in the absence of talent both are futile in the big leagues.

Albiwan..

         

NYT David Brooks- The Stem and the Flower

    A good friend, JimmyC, suggested that I read David Brooks' column "The Stem and the Flower," so I did. I’m in general agreement with Brooks' narrative that government moves slowly and that we should not expect much in the way of results from the process, but I do not agree with his conclusion that we should take politics less seriously.
   What I think Brooks could have included in his column was that although government moves as slowly as the tectonic plates, our current day politicians can have a significant impact on the culture rather quickly. It’s the “fish stinks from the head” theory. Having worked in corporate culture during my career it was quite apparent that the attitude of the leaders filters through the culture very quickly, sometimes because their reputation preceded them and some because they were simply charismatic. When a miserable bastard was the boss the peeps sulked; when the boss was one who made it clear that he wanted his people to thrive, they did. I wanted Brooks to say that to the politicians who read him. He didn’t.
   With respect to my disdain for politicians, while I might disagree with their policy and their ability to get things done in my lifetime, their failures that are inexcusable are generally in the areas of improving the cultural mindset. Politicians should at the very least be transparent, be honest, be inclusive, and give the people hope that things will get better, that all politicians are not scum, that some are dedicated public servants. Obama’s “hope and change” has turned out to be a travesty if not an emotional fraud, which has most hurt those who truly needed to believe that with Obama’s election something better would happen for them, that they would thrive under his “leadership.” Almost six years later they are worse off financially, and even worse, emotionally. The culture is depressed. Brooks didn’t/wouldn’t go there.


Albiwan..

FIASCOBAMA

FIASCOBAMA:
How better to describe the current state of Obamacare.

And isn't it ironic that Obamacare, originally used by the GOP as a term of ridicule to describe what it accurately anticipated to be a failure and a detriment to affordable health care, was proudly adopted by the egomaniacal Obama. You see, Obama smirkingly thought that he would hang the GOP on its own petard because the name tag 'Obamacare' would insure that his indelible mark would forever be attached to his signature policy achievement. Well, in retrospect Obama probably wishes he'd have insisted on the original title 'Affordable Care Act'. 

One of the reasons for this blog is to express my interest and experiences in human behavior. Religion, history, and politics are always target rich environments. But Obama has taken conscious human behavior, completely lacking in empathy, "where no man has gone before".

FIASCOBAMA…

Albiwan..

WE HAVE TO LAUGH TO KEEP FROM CRYING

O is now a laughing stock to the late night funnymen and SNL who tell the truth with their humor, yet the libs deny the truth and continue to mindlessly follow O as if he were the pied piper.

The GOP’s idea to delay the personal mandate in the Affordable Care Act for a year is simple common sense because there are 1200 companies, organizations, and unions that have quietly, under the cover of the press, been granted waivers personally by Obama. So, why shouldn’t Obama give us, the people, a waiver as well?

The answer, Obama can’t give us a waiver from the mandate because it’s a tacit admission to the ignorant masses that swoon at the very sight of Obama that the ACA was poorly conceived, written, and forced into law prematurely by O and the Democrat Congress.

We can only imagine what the late night comics would do to him then. Sadly, their humor would fall under the category of "it would be really funny if it weren't so true."

Albiwan..

DID PUTIN REALLY SCHOOL OBAMA?

How ironic is it that finally, after 5 1/2 years of denying it, in his Tuesday night speech to the nation when President Obama actually said America is "exceptional" that Putin, Obama's new best buddy excoriated O for saying so? 

Putin, a trained KGB killer said...I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation... (spoken like a true socialist, but probably what Obama actually thinks)

...We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal... (this from Putin is unmitigated temerity, because if nothing else Putin is a godless politician...)

It appears as if Putin 'schooled' Obama, but in actuality that would  only be the case if you believe in socialism. 

Albiwan..

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY

Unhappy one year Anniversary of the Administrations successful cover-up of Benghazi. 

Albiwan..

THE YOUTH OF AMERICA AT POLITICS

Last night (Sept 6th, 2013) Sean Hannity hosted a studio audience of twelve university students (six Democrats/six Republicans) to discuss the World's geopolitical affairs. The iconic NY Yankee manager Casey Stengel would refer to his team as "the youth of America at play." Well, last night Hannity introduced us to "the youth of America at politics", and it was a less than encouraging portent of things to come from their generation. 

The subjects covered ran the cable talk shows current gamut, US politics, immigration reform, federal taxation, Syria, US economy/national debt, Obama fiscal policy, Republican's anti-Obamacare stance, and more, surely a target rich enviornment for free thinkers. It just didn't happen, the thinking part. These twelve young people from top universities were obviously bright (although a few had difficulty expressing a thought) and had a pretty good understanding of the subject matter but the dissapointment for me was that there was nary an original thought from any of them. All of them spouted their respective party's talking points to a "T." Ignorance ran rampant with only one or two brief moments where common sense appeared but then quickly vanished. They were as if programmed robots. If this is the best we can extract from our finest universities expect the US to remain in its current rut of a slow growing economy, high unemployment, thirty year-olds living with their parents, struggling healthcare program, racial tension, immigration issues, deterioration of the country's moral, loss of World status, and continued political chaos. 

From what I watched, if these twelve are a true representation of our universities' product, shame on our universities for letting these young people down. Universities should not exist to program our youth, rather these young people should be taught/encouraged to think freely. I have written on many occasions that thinking is underrated. Those words so apply to Hannity's show last night. 

Hannity's twelve "youth of America at politics" did not deserve a passing grade.  

Albiwan.. 

"BALL OF CONFUSION"

"That's What The World Is Today"

It seems the burning question out there recently is 'does anyone know what Obama is attempting in his foreign policy?' I think the question should be 'Is it a foreign policy or a domestic political policy all about the appealing to the voters on the left?' Because by now it should be obvious to anyone with their eyes open that with all of Obama's actions he first asks himself the question "how will it affect the vote?" Regarding Syria he is now swinging from his own political petard. 

In his handling, actually, I should say mishandling of Syria the Prez has confused the Congress, our allies, you, me, and even the liberal media, which is finding it more and more difficult to cover for Obama's foreign policy blunders. You see, regarding Syria (and the Middle-East) all of the above are expecting a clearly defined foreign policy. But the only thing that is clear to me is that Obama's foreign policy has continually deteriorated since January 4th, 2009, the day of his Cairo speech entitled "New Beginnings", which was obviously politically bent to please the New York Times, the ABC, CBS and NBC TV networks news operations and their politically left leaning kumbaya readers/watchers. You remember the one, that much heralded by the media Cairo speech, Obama's coming out party, the eloquent but dumb speech that said the US was going to sit down and talk with terrorists nations who want to destroy us and our allies...the speech that apologized for Bush's mistakes and arrogance...the one in which Obama threw Israel under the bus. The liberals were cheering. But four years and eight months later the cheers are now silent, replaced by the quiet of faces masked with confused expressions.

At the time of Obama's post Bush era Cairo speech there was no doubt that America's popularity in the Muslim/Arab world was thought to be at a low point. But one should not confuse popularity with respect. You see, even though the US was unpopular it was still respected as the World leader because of our universally feared military power and our enemies believing President Bush, if provoked, would use it. 

Presently, as a result of Obama's "foreign policy" making it clear he will keep moving the "red line" backwards rather than defend it with military intervention, the US is no longer popular with our allies, which have come to expect strong leadership from the US, not Obama's "leading from behind." And in spite of the Cairo speech, the terrorist countries/Muslim extremists still hate us and want to kill us; and, because they no longer fear us militarily, they believe they can kill us or any others they choose, including their own people, with any methods they choose ( poison gas). Obama's "red line" has become a blurred line. Who'd have thought US standing in the World community could have come to this?

Thanks to Obama's feckless "lead from behind" foreign policy, which is no more than a domestic political ruse, the World is a leaderless Ball of Confusion. (Thank you Temptations.)

Albiwan..

"Out Front" of what?

1- Why did it take 24 hours from the start of the terrorist attack in 
    Benghazi to get US military on the ground and who was 
    responsible for the delay? A commercial airline could get there in
    nine hours.

2- Why did it take the FBI three weeks to get to the site of the
    terrorist attack, the US compound, when it took a CNN reporter
    only three days?

3- Why, after almost a year, were none of the 20 Benghazi
    compound personnel who were victims of the attack questioned? 

4- Why has the mainstream media avoided doing investigative
    reporting to tell the truth about Benghazi to the American people?

5- Why does the mainstream media refuse to call the 
    Administration's delaying tactics (two months prior to the 
    presidential election) related to Benghazi a cover-up?

6- Why hasn't the media focused on the Administration's 
    stonewalling the Congressional investigation?

7- Why does the mainstream media consistently provide cover for 
    Obama and his Administration? Does the media benefit by 
    keeping the public ignorant?


CNN promos led us to believe that, after a year of the mainstream media burying the lead, we were finally going to get the answers to our burning questions.

"Out Front's" Erin Burnett teased many of us into believing that she would do an honest expose of "Benghazi, What Really Happened?" and answer the unanswered (avoided?) questions. 

Unfortunately all Burnett did was continue to tease us and left us frustrated. She answered non of the questions and at the end of the broadcast we still do not know "...What Really Happened?" She concluded in one sentence, in the fifty-ninth minute of the hour long broadcast, that Politics trumped Patriotism. Big whoop. Zippy the Monkey knew that. When was the last time Patriotism came first in the narcissistic political mind?
Burnett's "report" first focussed on the time line of the attack, then the FBI and military non response, the "possibility" of the Administration covering up the truth of what happened prior to, during, and after the murders in the Benghazi compound, and then she drifted off onto the pursuit of those responsible for the attack and the investigation to get justice going nowhere after a year's time. She then did the obligatory brief "who were the four men killed" that night. 
Has it ever dawned on news reporters, certainly not Burnett, that we are upset that our federal government has failed us? That we might be most interested in who in the US Government were those responsible for this failure being allowed to occur? And why has nothing been concluded after almost one year's time? And to bring in Zippy again, even he knew it was a cover-up. Why in a year's time can't the Congress get this done and name names? Americans are suspicious of the 536 people who "run" the Federal Government; all Burnett's "Benghazi, What Really Happened?" accomplished was to raise CNN's paltry ratings. It did nothing to lower our suspicion of our politicians and very little to answer the unanswered questions about Benghazi that frustrate Americans. 

Albiwan..

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE...

A quick thought...

It is no coincidence that as Obama’s popularity wanes so do the ratings on MSNBC. (It’s particularly heartening to see Maddow fall; although remarkably bright, she is a conflicted, angry, and sometimes mean person.) I saw a clip yesterday of a Hollywood director who quit the Church of Scientology*. When asked why he quit the Church after so many years he answered, “...because I realized how stupid I had been accepting the teachings of the religion and I was embarrassed.” I think the same thing is happening to many Obama voters, albeit too little, too late to repair the damage caused by his radical, reckless policies and extremely poor, often times naïve, judgment. 

Albiwan..  

*footnote: I have no opinions about the Church of Scientology;
the reference above was simply an anecdotal tool.

IS IT EVER THE DEMOCRATS?

Here we go again...

I haven't written in months. Frankly, Obama's re-election slowed my motivation and, as usual, I have been bored and frustrated with the lack of journalistic integrity in the media that faithfully covers for the Administration's failures. Actually, that is understating how I really feel. The unabridged version is that I think the liberal media totally sucks for refusing to report the news, choosing instead to create the narrative, which is at the least, dishonest. The avoidance of the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12 was a new low from which I am still recovering emotionally.  

So, what was so irresistible to move me after seven months to sit down and write? Thank you New York Times. Today's Times led with Republicans In House Resist Overhaul for Immigration...those bad Republicans. The NYT could have led with 'Democrats in Senate Refuse to Enforce Existing Immigration Law' or ' Democrats in Senate Obstruct Immigration Reform by Passing a Bill WIth No Chance to Pass In the House,' but those headlines would have required objective reporting, which would cause the Times reporters (an oxymoron) and editorial staff to break out in hives...and we wouldn't want that, would we?

Previously (July 2, 2011) I wrote about Gray Lady Down, the book that chronicled the fall of the NYT, the once unquestioned standard for news journalism. It seems that with each passing day and with each new headline the Gray Lady's slip continues to fall yet embarrassingly lower.

Albiwan..

History Repeating Itself- Almost.

If Nixon’s implication in Watergate was discovered prior to the 1972 election do you think he’d have been reelected? His resignation in disgrace
answers that question.

When Benghazi happened on 9/11 Obama was behind in the polls and trending poorly. Had the media done their job and exposed Obama’s lie or at least focused on the possibility of a lie during the two month period prior to the election, do you think Obama still would have won the election? Not a chance. And if the Media and the Congress were to make an honest, aggressive effort to expose what we already know, Obama, like Nixon, would be forced to resign. Nixon resigned in August 9, 1974, over a year and a half after the election, because Woodward and Bernstein would not give up exposing Nixon's lie. Although the GOP did everything it could to stonewall the liberal media, the media pressure was irresistible and the rest is history.

It's important to make the distinction that Nixon did not resign because of his policies, he resigned because he was caught lying to America to protect his chances of being reelected. Obama’s policies, as wrong headed as they appear to be to many, are not a reason to get rid of him, but his lie to America is unforgivable and is more than enough reason for his resignation. Of course without the liberal media aggressively doing their job and pressuring Congress as they did with Watergate, and in the absence of the media pressuring for questions to be asked and answered regarding what and when Obama knew, the stonewalling in Congress, the Admin, and the State Dept will continue until Obama’s term is over. It’s a national disgrace in the true sense of the word. Hard to believe it can happen in America.

And many still can’t admit he lied. My goodness.

Albiwan..

Post Tragedy Political Dance

    While the federal politicians do their usual post tragedy political dances concerning gun control, the fact is we will never prevent the bad guys from getting any weapon they want. But don’t you find it interesting that armed security guards protect our banks, shopping malls, office buildings, sports arenas, airports, and government buildings but not the schools where the most vulnerable, our children, spend their days? There is nothing on Earth more valuable than the safety of our children yet we choose not to protect them. Why?

Albiwan..

MAUREEN DOWD- ALONE AND BORED IN LEFT FIELD

   I have always loved Maureen Dowd’s caustic, clever, sniping writing style, and had always wanted to date her :-). If I dated her we would be like James Carville and Mary Matalin. But Maureen is so far to the left she stands no chance of ever relating to someone outside of her minuscule world-view, unlike Carville who has moments of clarity and honesty. To call her extreme is an understatement. She is the left’s answer to the right’s Ann Coulter, who should have been committed long ago.

    But enough of the niceties, Maureen's NYT column of Aug 22, 2012, about the Missouri Moron, was a subject that Maureen could have dispatched in three or four sentences. Instead she chose to gush her usual GOP bash-speak, 'as everyone knows', they are “anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-gay...” which is nearly as stupid sounding as the Missouri moron’s statement about which she wrote. Maureen would have us believe that there are no women, immigrants, or gays in the GOP and none of them have mothers, sisters or wives. OY! And then she beat the Missouri Moron and the topic to death to the point of seemingly her and our boredom, all the while attempting, and failing, to draw a connection between the Missouri Moron and Paul Ryan, a conservative that she abhors, which is a redundancy. To her Paul Ryan is nothing more than “a fresh face on a Taliban creed,” oh, really? And the NYT expects anyone with an IQ over 75 to take Maureen seriously? As I wrote recently, to me scary are the voters who read Maureen’s stuff and growl “YEAH, YOU GO GIRL!”

   But expressing her virulent hate for conservatism is what Maureen does and has always done. I’m used to it and expect it from her, much as I expect a consistent flow of senseless economic analysis from Paul Krugman. It’s what the NYT pays them to do, in this case, run interference for the President by changing the subject from the seriousness of a failing economy, a nearly bankrupt health care system, a failed foreign policy, etc, to chasing an insignificant Missouri Moron who is running for the Senate (a less than august body based on its ‘performance’ these past eight years).

   Maureen, in the midst of her diatribe, tried to insert a shameless plug for Obama’s wise words (an oxymoron), his “refreshing assertion” that “a bunch of male politicians shouldn’t be making health care decisions for women.” Nope, the Prez thinks a better idea would be a panel of 15 bureaucrats without a medical degree among them determining the limits of health care an entire nation of 310million should receive. Yeah, that’s a much better idea. It's no wonder he’s President.

    Dowd is not “a” beacon for liberals/progressives, she is “the” beacon. No one is to the left of her, and much like Coulter in right field, Maureen stands alone in left field. But if I hadn’t met Connie, I’d still want to date Maureen. :-)


Albiwan..

RICK REILLY, EAT CROW…(IT TASTES LIKE CHICKEN)…

On July 30, 2011 I wrote a post that pretty much scalded Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly for his July 21st 2011 article tearing Tiger Woods limb from limb because of his personal failings. 
I referred to Reilly as a "shitty critic" and that bottom feeders like Reilly could never be able to understand the genius of someone such as Woods. So, it seems that less than a year later my evaluation of Reilly was spot on and my faith in Woods was not misplaced. Or perhaps I should say that my wish for Woods returning to golf prominence is on the verge of reality.  
FYI, if you wish to read some of Reilly's bilge, excerpts follow below. I took the liberty of commenting on some of his statements (in red ink):

So, Tiger Woods, if and when you return to golf, you need to adjust to a new normal.
New Normal #1: You're a JAG right now -- Just Another Guy. (Who happens to be one of two players that have won twice this year...)

You're not golf's young stud anymore. Not young. Not a stud. Dustin Johnson takes you four out of five in a cage match now. 

It's been three years since you've won a major. Almost two since you've won ... anything. (Tiger won his 73rd tourney two weeks ago at age 36. Jack Nicklaus won his 73rd and last tourney at age 46.) You're 35 years old with a knee that's had four surgeries, an Achilles that's a-killing you, and a golf ball that won't listen. (it's listening now, big mouth...ranked #1 in fairways and #7 greens in regulaion at the Memorial.)

You need to realize that when you come back, you'll no longer scare anybody. (Oh really?, might want to run that one past Rory Sabbatini and Rickey Fowler.) Unlike the old days, you can only win with your clubs now, not your scowl and not your jet and not your caddie, whoever that's going to be. (Joe La Cava is happily on the bag and making more $ this year than Steve Williams.)

Tell me, what do tour players Chris Couch, Marc Leishman and Chris Stroud have in common with you this year? They've all won about the same money and the exact same number of tournaments as you have. Which would be zero. (that's like asking a Peyton Manning how many touchdown passes he'd thrown while on the disabled list, which is ridiculous.)

Anybody scared of those guys?
You're sliding down the world rankings like they're greased. You're 20th now. You're as upside down as NewsCorp stock. (Hey Rick, Tiger's now #4 and rising and with ever step he moves up discredits you further.)PS-NewsCorp stock is trading around $19.50-$20.00/shr., hardly upside down.

So ...

New Normal #2: Get a win wherever you can.

Gone are the days when you're bigger than the Greenbriar or the John Deere or the Honda Classic. When you get back out there, you're going to need off the schneid, bad. If it comes at the Texas Open, take it. Because the truth is, Tiger, you're not above the Texas Open anymore. Pride went out the window two Thanksgivings ago.

New Normal #3: Try a little tenderness.

Take some time with people. Phil Mickelson signs for 20 minutes after every round, Tuesday or Sunday, first place or 100th. On a good month, you do 20 minutes. Try it once. You might like it. (I hope you don't do this to your children, comparing them to those with whom you have a man-crush...very undignified, small.)

Your every moment on a golf course doesn't have to be Elvis being rushed out of the Hilton. Take some time with people. Say hello. Stand on 18 once and watch a guy finish, then shake his hand. It's not going to kill you. Your dad used to do it all the time. (in boxing, this would get one disqualified for a low blow...referencing his dead father is reprehensible.)

New Normal #4: Enough with the emperor act.

Climb down from this ivory tower you live in. Introduce a little transparency into your life. Give an interview once in a while that isn't being timed by your agent standing in the corner. Tweet more than once a month.

Hire a good-guy caddie, like former Scott/Greg Norman bagman Tony Navarro. He's available. Navarro is 51 years old and has seen everything twice. He's not going to let you act like a jackass. You need him. (and you, Rick, need a good psychotherapist.)

New Normal #5: Spread it around a little.

Look, everybody knows you're the cheapest guy on tour. Some people are sure your wallet is sewn shut. I know a car valet in L.A. that you've stiffed so many times, he feels like he's full of embalming fluid. The last time he saw you, he stood in front of the car door, making small talk until you made with a fiver.

Don't be like that. Drop some coin. You'll be surprised how it improves your disposition. Karma does exist, you know.
And one old normal: Go back to the 2000 swing. (Reilly, you arrogant ass. You were telling arguably the greatest player to ever swing a club how to improve his game...and I thought Obama was a narcissistic arrogant ass.)

Enough screwing around. Get the film out and go back to how you swung the golf club when you were the single greatest player in history. Remember when you had all four major trophies on your coffee table at once? You did it with the 2000 swing. It works.

The truth is, Tiger, you're not golf's pope anymore. (appears that he still is. Even Brandel Chamblee, never a fan of Woods, said after Woods win at The Memorial, "Tiger Woods is everything to golf!" You're not divinely entitled to greatness. Wrong again, Rick, Wood's talent is a gift from the gods." Your talent used to forgive your lack of grace. Not anymore.

All you are right now is a guy with injury problems, swing problems and monstrous public-relations problems. You've lost your wife, your swing, your coach, your caddie, your health and your good name, all in 18 months. You may have roughly $500 million, but you're running very low on everything else right about now. (you negative, unhappy loser, you'd trade with Woods in a minute.")

There's a way to get it all back -- humility. (I'd suggest you take a dose of your own prescription."

As a wise man named Gerry McIlroy once said, it doesn't cost anything extra to be nice (Reilly, coming from you, this statement is laughable. Nice?? This diatribe you have written could be the most mean-spirited I have ever read. What you have written is an embarrassment to the good name of Sports Illustrated...you owe your employer, its readers, and Tiger Woods an apology. You should plead temporary insanity, considering what you have written, I think you have a case.      

Prostate Health and Allergy Meds

Please pass this message along to your friends.


Yours truly recently went for my annual physical, which included a blood work-up. All of my numbers, cholesterol, sugar, sodium, etc were in the normal range but I was shocked and frightened by my PSA of 2.3. Previously my PSA was .6. My doctors suggested that I be retested in a month with instructions to abstain from sex for five days prior to the test date. I was quite frightened by the prospect that I might have prostate cancer and then I'm told to give up the male American pastime.  Talk about adding insult to injury!


When I called for an appointment for the re-test the nurse asked about my medications. I mentioned that I had been taking Allegra-D, Claritan and Nasonex inhaler for several years whereupon she informed me that allergy medications can have a significant effect on PSA test results. I immediately stopped the medications, which meant that I would have been off the meds for almost three weeks prior to the PSA re-test.


The result...my PSA dropped from 2.3 down to .8!!! Although there were warnings that the meds could cause difficulty with urination to my knowledge there was nothing in the medications' literature that warned of the negative side effect on a PSA score. And thank goodness for that nurse because neither of my doctors connected elevated PSA with allergy meds. Makes me wonder how many re-tests and even biopsies were taken needlessly.

Be well,
Albiwan

Obama called out by Thomas Friedman- pass the smelling salts.

Thomas Friedman Op-Ed NYT 11/23/11. Go Big Mr. Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/friedman-go-big-mr-obama.html?hp

I read Friedman’s article (link above) twice and came to the same conclusion twice. Prominent liberals, or at least Friedman speaking for them is very frustrated by Obama’s presidency and T.F. finally tells Obama he's not wearing any clothes. Pass the smelling salts! What I also concluded is that 80-90% what Friedman wrote is what I have been writing here for as long as Obama has been on the national scene as a candidate and president.

For me, and for Friedman and Buffett, Obama’s tragic flaw, his judgment, has been politically motivated, i.e., focused on re-election. O has had his opportunities to make a huge difference for the country but as Friedman wrote, O “didn’t want to take the political risk,” even when accepting the recommendations of Simpson/Bowles would have made Obama a hero to the electorate, he balked. Had he accepted the commission’s recommendations he’d have locked up his re-election then and there, and no one would be watching the GOP candidate’s circus.

Recall, I never agreed with any of Obama’s policies from the beginning but that does not mean I wanted his presidency to fail. I thought that once he began to see the negative effects of his policies he would revise them with movement to the middle. He did no such thing; instead he moved even more stubbornly to the left, which increased the chasm between Democrats and GOP. Obama did this of his own volition and no one else can be blamed. This was a judgment call on his part, and it becomes more evident every day that his judgment was, to be kind, unwise. Apparently, Friedman agrees with me.

It's hard to express how heartening it is for me to see a Thomas Friedman and a Warren Buffett finally speak out and state objectively that O has messed up. I hope Obama and his people read Friedman’s article and take it seriously enough to begin to change the course of the nation in which almost 80% think the country is on the wrong track. It’s Obama’s locomotive and he is the conductor and where he steers it is totally up to him. Friedman almost pleadingly lays out what is necessary for Obama to get the US back on the right track and I agree with his appraisal. No one needs a president to fail. In this case if Obama does fail the cause will once again be his own poor judgment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/friedman-go-big-mr-obama.html?hp

Occupy Wall Street and the "news" media..

It appears that FOX is portraying the Occupy Wall Street protestors as an ignorant/stupid, bigoted, unwashed, misguided rabble that is without a clear cut platform, a portrayal similar to that of the MSNBC/CNN portrayal of the TEA Party prior to the 2010 elections.
FOX anchors/personalities say the Democrats are attempting to position the OWS protestors as the liberal answer to the TEA Party. FOX has had Democrat pollsters on air who contend that it would be harmful to Obama’s reelection chances and will also damage the Democrat party to be aligned with the OWS protestors.

MSNBC is taking a page out of the FOX game plan for supporting the TEA Party by showing the best side of the OWS protestors. I have watched a lot of the coverage on MSNBC and CNN and am not clear on how the networks are attempting to portray the OWS protestors aside from aligning them with the President’s message that the top 1% is not paying its fair share but if they were legislated to do so the additional revenue (taxes) would go a long way toward solving the deficit problem.

Interesting poll today showed that the Occupy Wall Street target, the bankers, comprise only 14% of the top 1% of the wealthiest. Corporate execs comprise 35%. 8-9% was in medical field (I think). 39% was in a category called “other.” My logic would say the protestors should Occupy the US Congress. Also, median net worth of a member of the Congress is just under $1million. Your Congress serves itself. Congress is killing us.

By the way, another random poll of 200 of the OWS protestors calculated that 15% were unemployed. Stay tuned. And if you have absolutely nothing to do tonight and want to have fun, watch Matthews or Maddow on MSNBC and then watch Hannity on FOX. You will think you are watching events taking place in two different countries.

Albiwan..

H.L. Menken was Correctamundo!

One hundred and thirty years later, H.L. Menken continues to be prescient with his famous quote "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Presently we are learning a lot about the current mental stability and acuity of the people of the US. Herman Cain is actually beating O in the latest poll. Strange times.

I continue to believe the media is at the root of the general confusion surrounding politics. Chris Jansing "news" this morning did a report on the Occupy Wall Street protest. In a one minute video MSNBC's "news producers" managed to avoid showing ANY signs or posters carried by the protestors. So Jansing's viewers are unaware of the "Down with Capitalism" and "Down with Zionist Wall Street Bankers" signage carried by the protestors. The "news" video showed no pictures of tent cities nor were any protestors interviewed. The Wall Street protest, which has accounted for several hundred arrests, looked like a church picnic.

I guess "News" is in the political eye of the producer and ultimately the beholder. Yet many MSNBC viewers "will never watch FOX" and many who watch FOX "will not watch MSNBC or CNN." The mindset seems to be "I like what I choose to believe and don't confuse me with facts or another point of view. I'm not interested nor do I want to form my own opinion. I'm comfortable with what I like and I trust Chris Jansing or I trust Hannity" to inform me.

And so Herman Cain is beating Obama, and by the way, this isn't an endorsement for either. And, H.L. Menken is correctamundo!

Albiwan..

Sent from my iPhoney