Thursday, December 31, 2009
If there were a playoff system the MWC wouldn't have a chance to shine as they do.
So for all those TCU fans who are complaining think of it this way. The current system gives the whole conference a chance to draw new fans.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
So here are the results for the first third of Bowlmania:
Mountain West Conference: 3-0 ( 2-0 vs the PAC 10 and 1-0 vs the WAC)
Big East Conference: 2-0 (1-0 vs ACC and 1-0 vs CUSA)
Sun Belt: 1-0
Big 12 0-1
Finally for all of you BSU fans out there who insist that the WAC is competitive-
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
The past several years there has been a proliferation of football bowl games with sponsors of one sort or another that lead to awkward sounding names. For example, the Menicke Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl or - my personal favorite- the GMAC Bowl ( shouldn't this really be called the Stimulus Bowl or the Bankrupt Bowl).
Since our esteemed Congress has assigned importance to these college football bowl games(ahem) and since they are in session today, I felt it appropriate to give them my Christmas wish list of college bowl games.
Here are some bowl games I would like to see. These would be sponsored by entities that would provide smoother sounding names:
The Kellogs'& General Mills Cereal Bowl - This would be limited to teams from Michigan and Minnesota
The Plumbers and Pipefitters Toilet Bowl - This would be reserved for the last place teams from the Western Athletic and Mountain West Conferences.
The Uncle Ben's Rice Bowl - This would be affiliated with a Lousiana team and, of course, Rice University.
The Wishbone Salad Bowl - Florida and California teams go to this one.
The Environmentalist Wacko Ice Bowl - For all of the global warming freaks. Alaska's North Slope would be the perfect location and Sarah Palin could be the Grand Marshal for the parade.
The Campbell Soup Bowl - Since Campbell's is just across the river in Camden, N.J., that would be the perfect place for this. Of course, being the USA's most dangerous city attendance could be a problem.
The Hand Surgeons Finger Bowl - This is a natural since the players could go right to the doctors watching the game from the corporate suites.
The Hormel Chili Bowl - This could be located in Mexico to balance out the International Bowl in Toronto. Like Camden, however, attendance could be a problem. After all, no one wants to see a Shotgun Formation with a real shotgun.
The STD Flower Bowl - San Francisco would be the obvious location for this one.
These are just some possibilities. I am sure you will have your own favorites. Just think of the combinations and permutations that could be added to the existing 34 bowl games.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Graham spoke during a Senate session with Senators John Cornyn (R. -Tx.), Saxy Chambliss (R.-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R.-Ga.).He was referring to the "backroom" arrangement made by the Senate Democratic leadership with Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-NE.) to get his vote for the reform bill.
Mr. Nelson was able to get more Medicaid funding for his state of Nebraska. This is necessary because the pending bill lowers the Medicaid eligibility. States will have to pay more for Medicaid which will include more people.Or as Mr. Graham said, "Every state except one" meaning Nebraska.
Sen. Nelson also obtained an exemption from the insurance tax for his home states insurance giant, Mutual of Omaha.
All the senators expressed their outrage how this deal - and other deals - such as the "Louisiana purchase" of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) and the federal money, given to the self-appointed spokesman for the average person, Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders, for his vote.
They noted how it was the polar opposite of what President Obama and the Congressional Democrat leadership promised when they said there would be transparency in government.
Friday, December 18, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time
Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.), issued a public statement December 17 saying that the President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has instructed staff attorneys to ignore legal subpoenas by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (CRC) requesting information about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.
This is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s pledge for transparency in government.
“We understand that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore these subpoenas,” Mr. Wolf said. “ The nation’s chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general’s obstruction. At least one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.”
Mr. Wolf has written the attorney general six times seeking answers as to why the Justice Department (DOJ) dismissed a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving members of the New Black Panther Party. He also has written DOJ’s inspector general seeking answers.
He has yet to receive a response from him. The CRC has had a similar experience. They subsequently issued the aforementioned subpoenas for the information and to interview the career attorneys that handled the case.
Because of this Mr. Wolf introduced a measure December 17 that would require the House Judiciary Committee to deal with this issue. He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee.
Wolf, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, requested the investigation earlier this year.
“I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted,” Mr. Wolf said in a statement.
Mr. Wolf wants the House Judiciary Committee to demand the attorney general answer the questions surrounding this case. He believes that the protection of Americans right to vote without intimidation is paramount.
“This House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general’s obstruction,” Mr. Wolf concluded. “He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission.”
The commitment by Rep. Wolf towards insuring voting rights is substantiated by his past record. Many Republicans have been reluctant to pursue this issue because they are fearful of being labeled racist by liberal Democrats. Mr. Wolf’s record discredits such an accusation. He has over the years demonstrated a commitment to minority rights and is currently involved in an effort for human rights in Sudan.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
A complicated three way trade was completed yesterday among the Seattle Mariners, Toronto Blue Jays and the National League Champion Philadelphia Phillies. Only the Phillies portion of this trade is of concern here.
The Phillies traded Cliff Lee to Seattle and received some talented minor league prospects. They traded their own minor leaguers to Toronto to obtain Roy Halladay.
Earlier, in July, Lee had been obtained by the Phillies from Cleveland. They traded some minor league prospects to the Indians for Lee and a reserve outfielder, Ben Francisco.
Needless to say there are a lot of talented minor league prospects being shuttled around - several of them from the Phillies farm system.
Lee performed magnificently. He was in large part responsible for the team winning a consecutive National League title for the first time in its 125 year history. He was almost soley responsible for the Phillies winning two World Series games against the Yankees for the first time in the teams history.
So, since July 2009, the Phillies have traded two five-star minor league prospects; pitchers Carlos Carrasco and Kyle Drabek, as well as pitcher Jason Knapp, catchers Lou Marson and Travis D'Arnaud, shortstop Jason Donald and another blue chipper in outfielder Michael Taylor.
They received Roy Halladay, reserve outfielder Ben Francisco, blue chip pitching prospect Phillipe Aumont, pitcher Juan Ramirez and blue chip outfielder Tyson Gillies. They also got Cliff Lee for one half of a season, which as previously stated, is not insignificant, since he was a major reason the team obtained their second consecutive NL pennant, and two World Series games against the Yankees,for the first time ever. They also obtained $6 mm - again not insignificant.
That's a net of -4 minor league prospects and +1 reserve OF, for one season and postseason of a Cy Young award pitcher, as well as 2 or 3 seasons of another Cy Young award winner plus $6mm.
Will the Phillies-Seattle-Toronto trade benefit the Phils or will it be another Von Hayes debacle?
It'll depend on how well the traded prospects produce and how steep the Phillies farm system is. Remember, Arbuckle, the guy who signed Utley, Howard, Rollins etc is no longer the scouting director for the Phillies. So the Phillies may not have the infrastructure to replace Drabek, Taylor et al.
Also, while the consensus opinion is that Halladay is a shade superior to Lee, one stat no one has mentioned is that Lee's flyball to home run ratio was second in the league. Halladay will be pitching in a home run friendly stadium half the time. He was not among the top ten in this category.
Will Halladay be plagued by home runs at Citizens Bank?
Will Happ continue his almost-2009-rookie-of-the-year pitching performance next season or will he be a one season wonder?
Will Cole Hamels regain his 2008 form - or is 2009 a typical season for him?
Can Ben Francisco produce more than a .263 BA next season?
The answers will determine Ruben Amaro Jr.'s future as the Phillies GM.
Monday, December 14, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog
Watching the video of Sarah Palin’s appearance with William Shatner on the Conan O’Brien Show, the one word that came to mind was style. Yet, there was more to it than that.
After all, she entered the arena of late night television, a stage that has excoriated her routinely - the “enemy camp” as Chris Matthews might say. She has been scoffed at before by O’Brien. The show has featured William Shatner mocking Palin’s tweets by reading them as dramatic recitations.
Still, Palin handled her appearance with the aplomb of Beyonce at the Video Music Awards. She exuded the charm of Sophia Loren; the dignity of a Katharine Hepburn.
The blend of these qualities, with the feistiness and intellect of Margaret Thatcher and the forty-something feminine beauty of a Demi Moore, is what makes Palin so dangerous to the political establishments of both parties.
She has a certain manner, an allure, a je ne sais quoi, about her that has endeared her to a wide swath of the American public in a short period of time. She is upsetting a lot of apple carts and the entrenched politicos resent it. They have directed their fire at her.
Indeed, Palin has weathered a torrent of vitriol. While her primary critics are liberal Democrats, the bien-pensants of both parties fear and loathe her.
This was evinced recently by Michael Petrilli’s hortatory article in the December 14 Wall Street Journal. Petrilli’s haughty piece titled, “Whole Foods Republicans,” had this to say about Gov. Palin, “…there's Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual.”
Petrilli’s remarks about Palin’s supporters echoed what liberals have said about military personnel in Iraq (Kerry: “you get stuck in Iraq”) and the audience of the Limbaugh show. It repeats what the left claims is a characteristic of conservative Christians (“uneducated and easily led”) or Middle America (“clinging to their guns and religion”).
It must be noted that Mr. Petrilli is a researcher at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Although he appears to be a Republican, he is obviously one who has been victimized by the Democrats’ tried and true class warfare propaganda. They have succeeded in dividing Republicans along cultural lines.
Yet, Gov. Palin has run the gauntlet of ridicule from David Letterman – moral icon that he is – to Michael Petrilli. Despite the scorn hurled at Palin’s intellect and that of her advocates, she continues to be poised. She exhibits the grace and sophistication of many famous women, past and present.
There is no denying it. Palin is part Hepburn, part Loren, part Moore, Thatcher, part Condoleeza Rice and a little Annie Oakley throw in for good measure.
The power elite compare Sarah Palin to a famous woman as well. However, the famous woman they think of when they think of Palin is Joan of Arc. If they have their way, Palin will end up burned at the stake – politically speaking that is – just like she did.
Friday, December 11, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
As I have reported since May,members of Congress and the US Civil Rights Commission have been asking for an explanation by the Holder Justice Department Civil Rights Division why they dropped a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).
Despite repeated requests from Rep. Frank Wolf (R.-Va.) and Gerald A. Reynolds the Chairman of the US Civil Rights Commission, Justice has not provided the information they reuqested.
Recently an official of the NBPP said the requests were merely a "political witch hunt" by Republicans.
This was followed by a report in the New York Times that Democrats were going to release some GAO report on December 10 that the Bush administration did not enforce civil rights laws. I have not yet been able to get a copy of this report.
However, the fact that the New Black Panther Party and the New York Times are acting as defenders for the Holder Justice Department is strange. The New York Times in particular has a credibility problem because they chose to withhold relevant information they had about communications between the Obama campaign and ACORN, according to Congressional testimony.
Furthermore, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Heritage Foundation, wrote in the National Review Online that the DOJ attorneys who were investigating this case have been prohibited by DOJ's assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez of complying with the US Civil Rights Commission subpoenas.
He wrote, "Perez has even ordered them not to comply with subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite the fact that the authorizing statute for the Commission specifically directs all federal agencies to “cooperate fully with the Commission.”
This would be very disconcerting if true. It would lead one to conclude that an investigation of the investigators is in order.
Until now Congressional Republicans and the US Civil Rights Commission has been reluctant to call for a special prosecutor. If there is active resistance by the Justice Department commanders to resist lawful subpoenas then they have a duty to call for one.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
There has been no call by the leftists of the world protesting his war. No Code Pink, International ANSWER, Not In Our Name or other similarly reprehensible group calling President Obama a "chickenhawk," "war criminal," or "murderer," as they did President Bush.
No, on the contrary, President Obama received a prize for peace. Indeed he received the most famous such distinction - the Nobel Prize.
For his part, President Obama refuted the antiwar mob. Whether he did so knowingly or not, he provided those who went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan - and those who ordered those wars - the intellectual and moral ammunition against those who opposed the war by engaging in the most outrageous and despicable conduct.
Their gratuitous slurs of President Bush, Colin Powell, John McCain and all those who served in the Bush administration, and who favored the war in Iraq, will always be remembered by Americans. This is particularly true of the members of the media who did so - especially those who characterized combat soldiers as cretins or failures.
President Obama refuted the anti-war crowd, the mean-spirited, hate-filled leftwing, during his acceptance speech in Oslo. He told the truth about war and presented a sophisticated rejoinder to those gullible, artless people who populate the left, those hypocrites.
First, Mr. Obama expressed the feeling of grave responsibility he feels,"I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed." Bush did too, the only difference is the absence of the liberal/leftist mainstream media vitriolic criticism.
He continued by recognizing the pragmatism of armed conflict, "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms."
He acknowledged America's role in preserving peace in the world despite the invective of his leftist/liberal brethren both here and abroad:
"I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower. Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world.”
He then rebuked the antiwar protestors of two generations. He said, “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."
Then Mr. Obama provided the most memorable quote of his speech. The one that should be enshrined in bumper stickers to counter those fatuous “War is not the answer" bumper stickers and peace signs one sees driving along any thoroughfare in the United States.
President Barack Obama, the antiwar candidate, said during his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Peace, "War is sometimes necessary."
Nobody likes this idea. Nobody wants it to happen. Americans would prefer it were not the case. However, the average American knows it to be true.
Only the callow and sciolistic, only the supercilious and sanctimonious among us believe that war is not the answer.
Just as the anticommunist Nixon validated the existence of Communist China, the antiwar Obama has validated the righteousness of America’s wars.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
The American liberal mainstream media, ordinarily lauding European culture, has been in overdrive trying to discredit the guilty verdict of Amanda Knox, a Seattle college convicted, by an Italian court, of murdering her British roommate in Perugia, Italy. They present the defense case in detail with only a cursory rendering of the prosecution's case - and then only in a negative light.
However, it is not only the liberal mainstream media defending the convicted killer. Conservative media icon Fox News Channel has entered the fray.
The December 7 edition of the Bill O’Reilly show featured Peter Van Sant, a CBS news reporter, who is most zealous in his desire to clear Knox.
Van Sant – who, coincidentally, is also a native of Seattle - said unqualifiedly that Knox was innocent.
Yet, his investigation, complete with private detective and DNA experts, is still nothing more than a recitation of the defense claims. What he told O’Reilly, who believed him completely, was that: the prosecutor is overzealous and corrupt; the DNA evidence was corrupted and the chain of custody broken; the circumstantial evidence is unreliable; the jury is prejudiced against his client; the interrogation by the Carabinieri was brutal and the confession coerced.
By the way, this last claim – about the Carabinieri - is inaccurate. Knox was not interrogated by the Carabinieri. She was interrogated by the police.
One has to wonder if O’Reilly and Van Sant know the difference between the police and Carabinieri.
Inaccuracies about the Italian criminal justice system have been routine in the reportage. Media keep referring to jurors. Italian courts do not have jurors, such as those used here in America. Indeed, with the exception in the Corte D’Assise, which was the one used in this case, there are no juries in Italy.
The Corte D’ Assise is more of a mixed tribunal. The “jurors” in the Knox case were the two judges and six “Giudici Popolari,” who are lay people. Together they decide the guilt or innocence – as opposed to America, where the jury determines guilt or innocence independent of the judge.
The Knox lawyers are simply practicing Criminal Defense Attorney Tactics 101. They are formulaic. They have been used before. For example:
1- The defense attorneys in the O.J. Simpson case said the DNA evidence was corrupted and unreliable – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
2- The defense attorneys in the Scott Peterson case said that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
3- The defense attorneys in the Mumia Abu Jamal said the prosecutor and the jury were bigoted against Abu Jamal – just as the defense lawyers in the Knox case are claiming.
Not only is the American media trying to interfere in this case, so are liberal politicians.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, (D. –Wash.), is getting Hillary Clinton involved. She said, “The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Miss Knox was guilty.”
When asked if she read the transcript, her press aide replied that they have been communicating with the Knox defense team. They also admitted they have not contacted the prosecution nor have they read the transcript.
Cantwell’s office did say they are pursuing this through the European Union. Their claim is that the “trial procedure did not follow the strictures of the European Union due process aspects - regarding jury sequestration.”
Professor Marco Ventoruzzo is member of the faculty of the Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law. He is a legal scholar in Italy and the United States.
“There is nothing about this trial that impressed me as being unfair,” he said.
Regarding the issue of sequestration he said, “Italian courts have sessions spread out over a period of time to lessen the heat of the moment, unlike American trials, which are done in a short period of time. Italian trials - because of their long duration, of sessions being months apart - incorporate safeguards against the effects of emotions. So sequestering is not that important.”
Cantwell’s intervention is unnecessary. Italian judges are required, unlike their American counterparts, to write their reasons for conviction. These reasons can be appealed. If the appeal is granted, the whole trial is redone – again different from an American appellate process.
By some metrics, the Italian system is vastly superior to the American. The Italian crime rate is a fraction of what America’s is. This is due, in part, to their criminal justice system – which contains mechanisms that we should consider adopting here.
The interference by American journalists and politicians in the Amanda Knox case is reprehensible.
Italy is a sovereign nation. Liberals have complained vociferously about American jingoism and cultural imperialism. They should not violate their own standards and impose American legal culture on Italy.
If the court erred, then the appeals process will determine that it did. The Italian system is perfectly capable of dispensing justice – for everyone including the victim.
Something we here in the United States have not quite figured out how to do.
Monday, December 7, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Hillary Clinton says she will confer with Sen. Maria Cantwell,(D- Wash.) about the conviction of American student Amanda Knox, of Seattle, for the murder of her roommate in Perugia, Italy. Cantwell believes the Italian justice system to be substandard.
Her ignorance of Italian criminal justice - and that of the American media, incapable of accurately reporting it - is most revealing. I have chronicled, in my Philadelphia Bulletin pieces, the factual errors about the Italian justice system, made by the Associated Press and the BBC, among others.
Two of the most common misperceptions were:
1- The media repeatedly referred to "jurors" in the news reports. There are no jurors in the American sense. There is a mixed tribunal more akin to an American military tribunal.
Two trial judges and six lay people, who are called "popular judges" vote on guilt or innocence. It is not determined independent of the judge.
2- The media also said Knox was denied bail. There is no bail in Italy.
Not only has the liberal mainstream media proven to be ignorant, they have revealed their hypocrisy – again.
Liberals love to point to Europe as the paradigm to use for reform of the American criminal justice system. Capital punishment abolitionists routinely mention “America is the only industrialized democracy (i.e. Europe) that uses capital punishment.”
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has referred to European law in his Constitutional rulings.
Now, suddenly, according to Hillary Clinton, Sen. Cantwell and others, European criminal justice is suspect. Why?
Because Knox has been convicted of murder by an Italian court and they do not like the idea of American college students being convicted of crimes in foreign countries.
Knox, an American student studying in Italy, was convicted for the gruesome murder of her British roommate. She, her Italian boyfriend and an African immigrant, brutally killed the woman after a night of sex and drugs.
Predictably, the mainstream American media - the same media that expressed concern about America's image in Europe during the entire Bush administration - criticized the Italian justice system. Numerous reports in American newspapers and magazines second-guessed how the Italians mete out justice.
The media presented Knox has being persecuted for being an American. They completely ignored the fact that the two others convicted for the crime were Italian.
Time magazine published, in June, what was effectively the defense attorney’s case. "Questions remain" about the prosecutions case they said rhetorically.
The implication being that there were no questions about the defense's statements.
Newsweek wrote in July, "It is not uncommon in Italy to give equal weight to circumstantial evidence." As if this is something unique to Italian courts.
Apparently, Newsweek forgot the Scott Peterson murder trial. He was convicted almost completely on circumstantial evidence.
The New York Times commentary piece called Knox an "Innocent Abroad." Is it not interesting how liberal journalists, who profess to believe in due process, always, pronounce guilt or innocence before a trial? They love to pronounce police guilty immediately.
The media is not alone. Liberals of all stripes have turned against Europe.
Academicians, quoted in the New York Times, have called the Italian criminal justice system “not among Europe’s most distinguished.” Hypocritically, some of these same academicians have praised Italy’s criminal justice system in the past because of its prohibition of capital punishment.
Liberals always criticize America for "cultural imperialism." What more egregious example of cultural imperialism is there than to interfere in the judicial process of a sovereign nation simply because one does not like the results of the verdict.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time
College football is a game -- a very profitable game - played by unpaid college kids. The kids play for pride and a chance to go onto the pros. The universities, the television networks like ESPN, the bowl organizations and others reap the profits by exploiting them.
So lets stop the annual whining about the necessity of a college football playoff system. The present one works just fine.
I found a 25 year old television guide piece about the approaching college football bowl games on television. The writer said there were too many bowl games (16 then as opposed to the 34 now). The author said then that there should be a playoff system.
Well, now there is a playoff system in major college football. It involves the top two seeded teams.
Still the sportswriters, politicians and those who are not taking in the bucks they think they ought to be, whine. They say this is not much of a playoff, that it is not fair. They say ask why it is not like the NCAA basketball tournament -- which provides 64 teams a chance at the championship.
OK fair enough, let's examine the "fairness" of the college basketball tournament. 64 teams are seeded -- just as the two major college football teams are.
Why should there be 64?
The lowest seeded college basketball team ever to be champion in the 70 years of the tournament was Villanova. This did not occur until 1985! Villanova was seeded #8 seed that year.
So why should there be 64 teams? Think about it -- -- only one team not seeded in the top seven has ever won the college basketball championship - in the seven decade history of the tournament.
Now some people (especially sportswriters many of whom are as clueless and doctrinaire leftist as their newsroom brethren) say the bowl games are about greed. They postulate the only reason there is no playoff is because the bowl games will lose money.
There is no greed in the NCAA basketball tournament? How ingenuous can you get!
If they believe this then I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska they might want to buy.
The NCAA basketball tournament started in 1939 (37 years after the first bowl game by the way). It consisted of only eight teams then. It expanded to 64 in 1985.
Why do you think that was? Money!
Before “March Madness” came along (the advertising moniker television networks gave the tournament) the public was not very concerned about who the college basketball champion was.
Indeed, most teams played in the NIT (National Invitation Tournament) until about the '70's.
Do you think the NCAA, the universities, the television networks - and yes even the sportswriters - make more or less money because of “March Madness?”
The same thing can be said about small college football. No one was interested whether Podunk State, Coal Cracker College or Sunset Beach U. was the number one small college team in the nation. However, make small college teams determine their champion by a playoff and now there is some suspense for a TV audience. Now networks can sell commercial airtime.
The major college teams do not need to generate interest. They do not need the gimmick of a “playoff.” They already have an audience.
If the small college football teams, college basketball teams or college baseball teams want a playoff that is their business. Just do not say it is for righteous reasons.
Let major college football alone.
If Widget Inc. -- maker of the best paper fasteners in the world -- wants to sponsor the Paper Clip Bowl; the city of Osh Kosh, Wisconsin wants to host it; Middle Tennessee State and North Dakota State want to play in it; ESPN wants to broadcast it; and a few million people want to watch it; why should the federal government, the courts, or the sportswriters of America complain?
The current system is fine. The games -- for the most part -- are fun to watch. Players get a chance to be on a national stage -- for most their only chance to do so.
Even the marching bands have an opportunity to showcase their talents. Their efforts work and their desire are seen by thousands of people. Normally they would not be.
The bowl games are a blast for these kids. It is the only compensation they get.
Leave them alone.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
(Liberals aren't very smart and need to be reminded again and again and again)
1. One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
Pres. Clinton quoted in the Washington Post 2-4-98
2. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton 2-17-1998 Speech at the Pentagon
3. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat ?
Clinton administration Secy of State Madeline Albright Feb 1998
4. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Clinton administration Nat. Sec Adviser Sandy Berger Feb 1998
5. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi Dec. 1998 (Currently Speaker of the House)
6. "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions ? to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter signed by Sen John Kerry October 1998 ( Kerry was the Democratic Party’s antiwar presidential candidate in 2004)
7. 'Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance . . . the disarmament which was demanded' Report of UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as reported by the Washington Post January 27, 2003
8. “Finally, despite damage inflicted by Operation DESERT FOX strikes, Iraq has not forgone its missile and WMD programs and continues to resist the reintroduction of United Nations arms inspectors.”
Feb. 2000 testimony of Gen Anthony Zinni before the US Senate Armed Services Committee (http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000229az.pdf) :
9. "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. ...I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
David Kay, Director of the Iraq Survey Group testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee January 2004
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Liberals love scandals. When the institutions they despise, such as religion, capitalism and marriage are racked with scandal they are ecstatic. They cannot contain their joy.
For the past several years there have been many reasons for their rapture.
One by one, the great institutions of this country have been scandalized.
Molestation and infidelity were rampant in religious institutions. There were instances of abuse by Catholic priests. There were unfaithful, adulterous evangelists.
Financial institutions and formerly great manufacturers were led by charlatans and fools into economic turmoil. Wall Street became synonymous not with greed, worse, with incompetency and whining.
Conservative leadership was not spared. Limbaugh was addicted to drugs, Bennett the virtues czar was a gambler losing millions in Las Vegas. Miss California’s proclamation of Christian faith is at odds with her nude photographs.
Everytime the military, the police or anything else that represents or is admired by the bourgeoisie the liberals despise were scandalized they were gleeful.They were delighted that conservative institutions were falling one by one.
Now, however, one of their own institutions is engulfed in a scandal. One that makes the others tame by comparison.
The great bastion of American liberalism is academia. The great bulwark of American liberalism is the mainstream media. The great sacred cow of American liberalism is environmentalism.The mother of all scandals has swallowed up all three.
Several days ago hackers gain access to emails from scientists at the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It is one of the preeminent institutions for global warming research. The emails revealed that the scientists had been, apparently, altering and falsifying information about global warming.
They cooked the books so that studies showed there was global warming when in fact there was not. Moreover they worked with other environmental scientists around the world to do this. They also tried to suppress dissenting opinions and doubts about global warming from appearing in academic and scientific journals.
Simply put, if the evidence presented is true, these environmentalists corrupted the scientific method for their own gain. Academicians, scientists, have breached ethics and morality to fraudulently further the cause of environmentalism.
Yet, the mainstream media, academic organizations and "green" groups act as if it never happened.
The corruption of the three great institutions of the American left; academia, environmentalism and the media have been exposed. Their hypocrisy is blatant.
If Climategate does nothing else it has accomplished this.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
For the past several years I have written extensively about the deadly problem of repeat violent offenders who are let loose from prison by our political representatives or the institutions for which they are responsible.
My articles have been met with approval and, in some instances, were responsible for motivating some action. I received communications from both police officers and parole agents who told me how the system is abused.
When I wrote for the Philadelphia Daily News in February 2006 how Philadelphia's "gun court" sentences 55 percent of those convicted to probation or how two thirds released from pre-trial custody never show for trial, there were expressions of outrage.
When I wrote in the November 2007 Philadelphia Bulletin that cops receive the death penalty while their killers get life sentences, many were similarly indignant.
My piece titled " Who Freed the Cop Killers" for the May 8, 2008 Philadelphia Daily News, spoke of the lenient parole and probation procedures that led to violent offenders being released who in turn killed police officers. This piece was referenced by nationally syndicated columnist Walter Williams. It generated many responses, from those within and outside of law enforcement, questioning why this has been allowed to continue.
"Patterns in Killings of Police Officers Ignored," an article which appeared in the Sept. 25, 2008 edition of the Philadelphia Bulletin, reiterated the abuses of the parole and probation that led to officers (and civilians) being murdered. Soon after this was published, the governor of Pennsylvania ordered a review of parole procedures. It was largely a whitewash.
Yet, these circumstances are not unique to Philadelphia. A murder spree of three Oakland California police officers last March was conducted by a parole violator.
Studies have confirmed this. According to data complied by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ):
"Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime. "
The amount of crimes these paroled felons were arrested for is staggering. According to the DOJ:
"The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers. Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide. "
These offenders wreak havoc and murder not long after being released from prison.
So it comes as no great revelation that this recent mass murderer of police officers in Seattle Washington was, allegedly, by a paroled violent offender, Maurice Clemmons. It may come as a shock that he was paroled by Republican governor and former, as well as possible future, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
It should not.
Huckabee possesses all the characteristics of politicians who are so anxious to redeem the guilty they forget to protect the innocent. He was very ambitious in letting as many out of prison as possible. The Clemmons case is not the first prisoner released by Huckabee who subsequently committed a horrendous crime. He actively promoted the release of a violent offender who went on to kill someone else on at least one other occasion that has been made public.
So this recent case brings to a total of five the number of people killed by violent offenders that Mike Huckabee was responsible for releasing from prison. For his part Huckabee has tried to distance himself from the results of his policies.
Instead, he should heed the words of former counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who said in his public apology to the family members of the victims of the 9-11 attack, "Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you."
These words should also be emblazoned on the doors of every parole and probation office in the United States.
During the next several months I will be working on a book about the deleterious effect of political correctness in law enforcement. A segment of this book will be written with a distant cousin who is a judge in Italy. The differences in recidivism between the Italy and the U.S. are stark.
I have yet to find a publisher, however, I guarantee that this book will be published - one way or the other. Because the problem of probation and parole - and more importantly the culture that fosters this problem needs to be revealed for all.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
How many people know that the idea for a fourth television network was the brainchild of a wealthy studio executive, who just happens to be a lifelong liberal Democrat?
What irony there is that Twentieth Century Fox Studios was partially owned by one of the biggest tax cheats in American history. A man who was a staunch Democrat, who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton (tax cheats and Democrats seem to go together like horse and carriage).
Murdoch bought out Marc Rich's share of the studio. He later acquired the other half from Marvin Davis.
Not that there is anything terribly wrong with this. It is a business. The owners really do not have any ideological objectives other than to make profits.
It just confirms my point that what is offered as "expert opinion" by Fox is merely what will get viewers to look at the television because it is a business. Generally this means on Fox, blondes in short skirts, Kimberly Guilfoyle's ample cleavage or those who are famous for being famous regardless of their expertise.
For example, I read Ann Coulter's column all the time. It's funny and informative. I would not read her column for her opinion of the burning issues of military strategy etc.
Why would anyone turn to her as an authority about families and religion? Coulter's real attraction is her long blonde hair and even longer legs. Like many Fox News shills, Coulter really hasn't experienced life much.
So outside of politics, the political culture, legal issues and some other things, I really don't want to hear what she has to say about the economy, military strategy, social welfare (in the generic sense), marriage etc.
Same thing with Dick Morris. What does he know about anything other than the Clinton administration, polling data and electoral politics?
Yet, he's called on by Fox News as an expert in military, foreign policy, the news media, welfare, guns, civil rights, etc. Why?
It is one thing for the host of a show to pontificate. (Glenn Beck is an idiot, yet, he admits he is.) They are hired to pontificate all they want. It is their opinion.
Their conclusions are based on information most do not have. They tell people news they are not aware of (unfortunately they often take it from other sources without attribution). They sometimes are entertaining.
However, when Fox News Channel brings in Margaret Hoover, Monica Crowley, Steve Ducey, Dick Morris, Mary Catherine Ham Amanda Carpenter, Fred Barnes, Dana Perino and the worst of all, Dennis Miller, as expert commentators - I change the channel.
Lately, it has been occurring more and more. In fact, Fox News is no longer the first channel I turn on in the evening. It was since 2001.
When Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity ask the opinion of Monica Crowley, Ann Coulter or Dick Morris about foreign policy in Afghanistan - well, that is the blind leading the blind. That is when I reach for the tv remote.
As I have said repeatedly, the establishment conservative media is bureaucratized. It is no longer a meritocracy. The first few that hit the beach and were successful. Now they are merely bringing their friends along - regardless of qualifications or value.
Always remember, this is the same conservative establishment media that has given us Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, David Brock, Michael Smerconish, Andrew Sullivan and Chris Buckley among many others.
The moral is that before one gives complete loyalty to Fox News remember its roots. It can easily return to them.
Friday, November 27, 2009
- Founded the Club for Growth, a pro-capitalist group.
- Is an economics writer for the Wall Street Journal.
- Is a frequent contributor to Fox News Channel
- Is a Fellow at the Cato Institute
- was a consultant to National Economic Commission
- was a research director for President Reagan's commission on privatization
- is the author of several books about economics and the free-market
- has a Master's in Economics from George Mason University
So one would think with all these credentials he would know a simple thing such as why Black Friday is called Black Friday. During tonight's broadcast of On the Record on FNC, Moore said that maybe Steve Forbes could answer why Black Friday is called Black Friday since he cannot. He thinks it should be called Capitalism Friday or something similar.
When Joy Behar does not know the reason for the name and makes a comment that this term is racist, everybody knows why she would say such a thing - and it is not because she is an intelligent, informed person. She is typical of the ignorant leftwing.
However, when a Stephen Moore publicly says on that he does not know why Black Friday is called Black Friday, it is just another example of how conservative leadership in this country is lacking in talent.
Trying to find a capable conservative leader or pundit is like trying to find a closer in the 2009 Phillies bullpen. Every once in a while there is some excellent pitching , yet generally speaking, they cannot save the game.
Unlike baseball, the ramifications of a lack of talent in politics has more deleterious effects. The only thing that Republicans and conservatives have going for them is that the liberals and Democrats are usually more ignorant and incompetent.
The problem is that the Democrats are now in the majority - and for the longest time they pretty much controlled the most of the federal, state and local governments. This is why inside-the-beltway is fairly liberal domain. It is also why the liberals control the culture and the arts.
As dumb as they are, liberals and Democrats have are pretty gullible and the leaders are very deceptive. Why do you think Obama was elected?
Lacking the mainstream media and control of the government bureaucracy, conservatives have an uphill task. It is tough enough without having out of touch leadership.
For the record, Black Friday is called such - in the contemporary usage - because it is the day retailers begin to start making a profit - they go from being in the red to being in the black. (There is a much older meaning, however, this is the current accepted definition).
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Maybe the doubters will finally go away. They should. Not one Big East football team was ranked among the Top 25 in preseason polls.
Now, as the college football season is concluding two teams are in the Top Ten and one is in the Top Five.
During the season there were as many as four teams ranked in the Top 25. Think about the significance of this. Half of the teams in the Big East conference were ranked among the Top 25 in the nation.
What other college football conference can make such a claim?
The University of Cincinnati is currently the fifth ranked team in the country and has been for the past few weeks. Their offense is high powered and their depth at quarterback defies description.
Last season, Cincy’s first two starting quarterbacks were injured. So what happened?
The third string quarterback, Tony Pike, led them to the Orange Bowl!
This year Pike was injured. So, what happened?
The second stringer, Zach Collaros, steps in and he leads them to a perfect record. Indeed, Collaros has evoked comparisons to Brett Favre, Steve Young and Joe Montana with his athleticism, ball handling skills and laserlike passing accuracy.
Contrast this to Iowa, which was moving in the standings until their starting QB, Rick Stanzi, was injured. Iowa has not been the same team since.
Then there is Pitt. The season began with some wins against lesser squads. This was followed by the loss to North Carolina State – a game in which they were leading for most of the time.
Since then, the Pitt squad has won all of their games and they are now ranked number 9. Their freshman tailback, Dion Lewis, is a semifinalist for the Doak Walker award, which is given to the best running back in college football.
Lewis has been compared to NFL Hall of Famer and former Pitt running back, Tony Dorsett. Even Tony Dorsett likes to watch him. Lewis is on track to break Dorsett’s freshman records set in 1973.
Lewis, Collaros and Pike are not the only exciting players in the Big East though. The conference is full of them.
Rutgers and South Florida, which have also been ranked in the Top 25 this season, feature some excellent players now – and freshman phenoms like QB’s Tom Savage and B.J. Daniels for the future.
Conceivably four or five Big East teams could be playing in post-season bowls.
Here are my predictions for who will be going where in the postseason. These are admittedly premature because things can change as we go into the last couple of weeks of the season which feature rivalry games where upsets abound.
Cincinnati versus Ga. Tech in the Orange Bowl
These are two comparable teams. The Orange Bowl is a Bowl Championship Series ( BCS) which gets to choose from the best available ranked teams.
Ga Tech is from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), which is a rival conference. A few years ago, the ACC raided the Big East and took three of the best teams - Boston College, Va. Tech and Miami.
The game also has the benefit of being popular in two relatively large television markets – Atlanta and Cincinnati.
Pitt versus Clemson in the Gator Bowl
This will be another Big East-ACC matchup. The Gator Bowl is slated to match an ACC team against either a team from the Big East, Notre Dame or the Big 12. Given that Pitt is the highest ranked team in the Big East after Cincy and given the large payout by the Gator Bowl, $2.5 million, it would seem only logical for Pitt to be invited.
West Virginia versus Va. Tech in the Meinecke Bowl
The third Big East – ACC game of the day. This time mandated because the Meinecke Bowl features a Big East – ACC game contractually. This one will have the wrinkle of two former Big East and neighboring state rivals.
Rutgers versus Temple in the International Bowl
The only bowl game played in Canada (Toronto), the International Bowl is contractually obligated to feature a Big East team against one from the Mid-American Conference (MAC).
While technically this is the Big East versus the MAC, everybody knows Temple were tossed out of the Big East. They found a home in the MAC.
So this should be a fantastic game. It is a rivalry in many different ways.
It is Philadelphia versus New York. Many of the kids that went to high school together now play for either Rutgers or Temple. Temple was a former Big East team.
South Florida versus SMU in the St. Petersburg Bowl
The St. Pete bowl is practically a home game for South Florida University in Tampa. They can draw a crowd. The bowl features Big East – Conference USA. SMU is a big television market so it would make sense to invite them.
Connecticut versus Mississippi in the Papa Johns Bowl
This is another bowl that is obligated to feature a Big East team against one from the Southeastern Conference (SEC).
Connecticut is a good team with a lousy record and has yet to become eligble to play in a bowl game. If they do not then the other bowl lineups will have to change. If they do, expect them to be invited here because it has the cheapest payout, $300,000, of all the bowl games.
These will probably change before the bowl bids are announced in December, however, these should not be far from the actual results.
Whatever the final bowl lineup is the one absolute certain fact is that Big East football is big time.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
How's that for hope and change. Makes the Visitors in the television series seem downright altruistic.
These Obama Democrats are the same people who derided Bush and the Republicans as racist and callous to the problems of Louisianans. They ridiculed Bush's response. They clamored for more federal money because of Hurricane Katrina when Bush was in office.
Now the only way the Katrina victims will get the money is if Obama gets something in return.
That is how liberals define charity!
Of course, why should anyone be shocked. The Obama Democrats idea of a selfless charity is ACORN. Furthermore, they know they will never be "called out" on it.
The Obama Democrats idea of a vigilant news media is the New York Times spiking information they have about a possible illegality or unethical conduct because they think it will be a "game changer." ( See my original March 30, 2009 report for the Philadelphia Bulletin about this. It was later reported by Fox News and made the rounds of the talk shows like Hannity, Beck et al.)
The Obama Democrats also know that the most of the members of the Republican Party are wimps. The ranking Republican on the committee that heard the ACORN whistleblower testify, Rep. Sensenbrenner did nothing when the testimony was given. Even after I contacted him and told him what was said he still did nothing.
Look at the way the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and some Congressional Republicans have pursued the dropping by Holder of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. The majority of the Republicans are silent about this.
As I said to a member of Rep. Wolf's staff ( Wolf is one of the few pursuing this), if the situation were reversed and some racist hate group had been intimidating voters on behalf of Republicans, the Democrats would have mentioned it every day in their speeches in Congress and in the Senate and they would be calling for a special prosecutor.
Not the Pussilanimous Republicans of the NRC, the Senate Republican Conference and the House Republican Conference.
Is it any wonder why people wonder are looking for leadership.
Currently, there are only two choices. Who knows which is worse.
One is the corrupt, unethical, hypocritical, deceitful, power mad, tyrannical, liberal Obama Democratic Party?
The other is the spineless, incompetent, go-along-to-get-along, play-a-few-rounds-of-golf-and-let's-have-a-few-drinks-at-the-country-club-after-I-check-to-see-if-my-dividend-check-came-in Republican Party in Congress and the Senate.
The pundits wonder why people are lining up for Sarah Palin's book.
Hope and change is what Obama promised. I guess the change he meant was the kind in a cash register.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Hill Street Blues was one of my favorite television programs. I watched it religiously each week.
Moreover, it was a favorite of my Philadelphia Police Department colleagues. The characters, the chaos of the district headquarters (called precincts in other cities); the challenges of the bureaucracy and the politicos, all of these resonated with cops. Not since Wambaugh had there been such realism.
Yet, there existed in the plots certain themes that were disconcerting. There was a subliminal promotion of a certain philosophy.
The most obvious example was that of Lt. Howard Hunter, the commander of the SWAT team (called EATERS in the show). Hunter was the civil libertarians caricature of someone who believed in law and order. He possessed the “let’s-kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out-I-love-the-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning” qualities that liberals associate with anyone who believes in strict law enforcement.
Now Hunter did have his counterpart, Det. Goldbloom(?). He was the bleeding heart liberal. However, of the two, Goldbloom’s character was seen as more serious, while Hunter was a comic character to be ridiculed.
There was also Joyce Davenport, public defender extraordinaire. She was the advocate for the poor and the powerless. She cast a pall over those who wanted to see criminals in jail or who wanted to protect themselves. She talked derisively about “street justice” and “vigilantism.” Her disapproving looks were a staple of the show.
Then there was Capt. Furillo. He would take extraordinary measures to mollify the street gangs. He would be engaged in constant negotiations to have them tone down their violent ways.
Yet, he once threatened a group of neighborhood merchants. What was their crime? They caught a thief who was victimizing a store owner. Tired of being targets of criminals they organized into a protective group.
Hill Street Blues, absolutely presented the liberal construct of criminal justice. These are concepts are manifest in America everyday:
· The New York City DA who arrests the man using a gun to protect his house and kid against a burglar.
· The absurd headline in the New York Times wondering why prison rates are increasing if crime rates are decreasing.
· The fawning reportage of a violent murder just before his execution
· The idea that prison does not work only rehabilitation will.
· The increase uses of probation and parole
· Millions spent on “midnight basketball” to control violent crime
All of these were themes of Hill Street Blues. Now one can say this was art imitating life, instead of life imitating art.
This is true.
However, when a show as entertaining as Hill Street Blues was, proffers these ideas, they become validated. The public perceives Hunter as a real depiction of a strict law enforcement officer, that society does make criminals, etc. These become accepted truths.
There is no reason why a show, just as entertaining as Hill Street Blues, could not be made that showed Goldbloom as the caricature of the “let-them-all-out-of-jail” type and Hunter, the strict law enforcer, as the more serious minded.
That Joyce Davenport is a DA who routinely sees the same defendants in court time and again, because the judges keep letting them loose; all the while she watches the bodies pile up.
That shows Capt. Furillo threatening to throw the gang members in jail and negotiates with the vigilante merchants instead.
This is the importance of conservative art. It is why I wrote my novel “A Sense of Duty.” It is why I promote the novels of W.E.B. Griffin, as well as others. It is why I mention films by James Carabatsos and others.
It is why I founded the facebook forum of Creative Conservatives Corner.
Anyone who thinks art (novels, movies, television shows, music, etc.) doesn’t influence the popular culture is not being realistic.
Monday, November 16, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
I had an opportunity to meet Sarah Palin a year ago during the National Governors Association conference at Independence Hall. She was the biggest star there that day attracting more media attention than Schwarzneggar. I talked to her, albeit very briefly, as she was leaving.
Contrary to her image, she was not the vapid, cute cheerleader one would have expected. She was in command of the facts and spoke with authority.
Of course, her vacuous image is a function of the mainstream media’s prejudices. Part of this is her own doing. As she admits in her new book, “Going Rogue,” Palin gave them ammunition that validated this image after one very hostile national television interview.
However, the criticisms of Palin by the East Coast establishment media - the Manhattan Mob - are a result of two dynamic forces. One is her conservative Republican politics.
The other is the sectional differences that have defined this country since its founding. The commercial interests of New England merchants and southern slave plantation owners versus western farmers; of Wall Street bankers versus Nevada miners; of eastern immigrants versus western pioneers; all have played a part in American culture for more than two hundred years.
These differences were delineated during the campaign and are contained in her book – although not described as such. It is very apparent, though, they existed. The McCain staffers considered her a necessary evil. She was the young, attractive, vital counterpoint to the aging war hero.
Yet, they secretly, at first, later openly, loathed her. They believed she was too stupid to act in her own best interest – and certainly not in the best interest of the campaign. The campaign’s intelligentsia did not trust her to speak publicly.
First, she does not have an Ivy League pedigree. (Although when one considers that every president after Reagan was and is an Ivy League alumnus that is not much of an endorsement).
One might think McCain’s staff aversion odd when one considers that the McCain campaign’s top guns were not Ivy Leaguers. Rick Davis graduated from the University of Alabama. Steve Schmidt attended the University of Delaware and did not graduate. However, both are Beltway insiders, part of the eastern establishment
This attitude is exhibited in a September 5, 2008 U.S. News and World Report which disparaged the fact that Palin went to four different universities. Not only did she attend four different colleges, she went to such academic nonentities as Hawaii-Pacific University and the University of Idaho.
Such an educational lineage is unacceptable to those who graduated from the Ivy Eight, the Seven Sisters or the ‘Almost Ivy’ schools of Cal-Berkeley, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Duke and some others.
Such a scholastic heritage is an anathema to those who inhabit the banks of the Potomac or between the East and Hudson Rivers. For them, Sarah Palin was - and is - nothing more than a baton twirling beauty queen.
Then again, most of the Manhattan Media Mob or the Beltway Bums would not know Dutch Harbor, and the World War II battle there, from Dutch Apple Pie. Supercilious entertainers like David Letterman and Tina Fey – and their writers – probably confuse Kodiak bears with Kodak cameras.
She is a menace because she represents the hoi polloi. She is part of the great unwashed - the antithesis of the eastern elite. The fact that Palin excited the crowds more than McCain dismayed the Republican elite. This caused the invective directed at her by them.
It also produced alarm among Democrats who believed Palin would draw conservative Democrats away from Obama. This led to T-shirts worn by members of a Democratic Party rent-a-mob, who were outside a Philadelphia hotel as Palin exited a campaign function, which read: “Sarah Palin is a c—t.”
So much for the civility for which the liberals claim to clamor.
Sarah Palin is the embodiment of the divisions not only within the Republican Party; she represents the schisms within the nation. She has taken the mantle from Ross Perot – another who dared to shake the political institutions and who drew the wrath of Republicans and Democrats alike.
It is doubtful that Palin will have a future in a nationally elected office. What is certain though is that she will be a powerful influence in national politics for years to come.
Just as Mario Cuomo was influential in leftwing national politics as an outsider, Palin is the voice of conservative women and the pro-life movement.
Just as Ross Perot influenced national policy, so too will Sarah Palin. An elected national office would be too restrictive to someone like her who needs to be able to speak her mind.
Sarah Palin is more rebel than rogue.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
Remember when they called Bush a chickenhawk. Democrats, "antiwar" protesters, liberals, leftists and Bush haters in general continuously said President Bush was a "chickenhaw" a term that denotes someone who favors war - as long as someone else is doing the fighting.
Far left groups like CodePink, International ANSWER and Not In Our Name would refer to Bush in this manner. However, they were not alone.
Many Congressional Democrats - who are now interested in civility, comity and cooperation - did not hesitate to call President Bush this gratuitous, vulgar and untrue slur. Then they expanded it to all of those in the Bush administration and Republican Party who were never in the military.
Of course, liberals being liberals, were just showing their hypocrisy and amnesia. They forgot their hero, Bill Clinton, was a draft dodger. Neither did it matter that Hillary Clinton never served in the military.
Meanwhile Bill was sending troops to Bosnia, Somalia, Haitia and everywhere else. They also forgot all the Democratic Party leaders who did not serve in the military yet voted for war.
It did not matter that Bush served in the Air National Guard, certainly more dangerous than Bill Clinton's nonservice. No, they demeaned the National Guard, the same National Guard that bailed out the hippies at Woodstock by the way.
The liberals also ignored the people in the Bush administration and in the Republican Party who did serve in the military. They especially ignored those whose kids were in the service.
The fact that John McCain served in combat and had a kid headed to Iraq and that Sarah Palin had a kid going to Iraq did not earn compliments from the Democrats. It certainly did not earn them their votes.
So now that we have a dyed-in-the-wool, 14 karat, solid gold, chickenhawk in the White House sending troops into combat - or in this case not being able to make up his mind if he should - where are all the chickenhawk jibes?
Indeed, to paraphrase an old antiwar protest song:
Where have all the protesters gone
Now that a Democrat is in the White House
Where are all the peace protesters
The truth is they were just working for the Democrats
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tea Time Blog
Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a Philadelphia native, and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Lamar Smith (R-Texas) sent a letter, on November 10, to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting information about the Justice Department’s inquiry into the sudden and unusual dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.
The congressmen are concerned that the Justice Department (DOJ) is using the investigation as a means to continue stonewalling Congress in this matter. It has been three months since DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility initiated an investigation at the request of Smith and Wolf.
Yet, despite repeated requests made during the past three months DOJ has not provided Congress with a clear explanation for why the Civil Rights Division dismissed the complaint.
According to Messrs. Smith and Wolf, “Congress and the American people must have confidence that the Department’s Voting Rights Act enforcement is free of improper political motives … it is important for Congress, in furtherance of its oversight obligations, to receive answers before the end of this year—before we enter a political season” so that voters can be assured that voter intimidation will not be tolerated.
Justice Department attorneys filed charges in January against three individuals and the New Black Panther Party for allegedly threatening voters at a poll in Philadelphia during last November’s presidential election. The Justice Department effectively won the case when the defendants declined to appear before the court and challenge the charges.
Yet, when the Obama administration took control of the Justice Department, the case against the Democratic Party’s political ally was suddenly dropped. There were no new facts or evidence to justify the decision. The impression that politics played a role in the decision has been a source of concern for Rep. Wolf who has been a strident defender of voting rights.
Not only has Congress made unanswered inquiries into this matter, so too has the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. The Commission’s chairman, Gerald Reynolds, sent a letter on September 30 to Mr. Holder saying the responses were “overdue” and asking for “Department officials to fully cooperate” with the Commission’s investigation as required by federal law.
Mr. Reynolds noted that the Commission still has not received any of the documents they requested in their initial June inquiries. He said this information is needed because the Commission is responsible to investigate voting rights deprivations and evaluate federal enforcement of federal voting rights laws. They want to form an independent opinion about DOJ’s enforcement actions and the potential impact on future voter intimidation enforcement. It may also try “to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper influences.”
As of this date, neither members of Congress nor members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission have called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the matter.
Monday, November 9, 2009
They stated that a review of the interaction between Hasan and the subject of the JTTF investigation was explainable by his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center. The content of the communications was consistent with his research. They said nothing else derogatory was found. This led them to conclude that "Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning." They also said other communications of which they were aware were similar to the ones reviewed by the JTTF.
The press statement did not elaborate as to the nature of those communications or exactly why they believed them to be consistent with Major Hasan's research.
The FBI stresses that "at this point, there is no information to indicate had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot." Yet, they did not seem to rule out the possibility that the suspect was a lone actor in a terrorist act - only that he acted alone.
They are examining forensic evidence to ascertain Hasan's motive for the massacre. However, they are limited as to what they can disclose to the public at this time.
The Army Criminal Investigative Division is leading the investigation with the assistance of the FBI and the Texas Rangers. As with any criminal investigation the suspect is presumed innocent.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie's Tea Time Blog
H.R. 3962, the Democrats’ health insurance reform bill, to be voted on this week by Congress, contains a provision to establish waiting lists as a mechanism to control costs. Such waiting lists have long been a characteristic – and a bane - of socialized medicine.
Indeed, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled them illegal in June 2005. "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin at the time.
Yet, this is exactly what the Democrats’ plan has in mind for Americans if their proposed bill becomes law. Called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.- Ca., unveiled it with great fanfare last week. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Dingel, D. Mich., and is co-sponsored by Democrat Representatives Charles Rangel of New York, Henry Waxman, Fortney “Pete” Stark and George Miller of California, as well as, Representatives Pallone and Andrews of New Jersey. It is more than 1900 pages long.
But one need only turn to page 26 to find the provision for waiting lists.
There, listed in Title I ‘Immediate Reforms,’ Sec. 101 ‘National High Risk Pool Program,’ paragraph (3)(g) ‘Covered Benefits Cost Sharing Premiums and Consumer Protection’ is paragraph (7) (h)(2) with the heading ‘Insufficient Funds.’
This states, “If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. (Emphasis added)
The High Risk Pool Program is designed exactly for those uninsured individuals who health insurance reform proponents say are the neediest. Estimates are such people comprise one to two percent of the population.
Jane Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), believes that if the government is willing to deny benefits to those who they purportedly consider the most deserving, then eventually waiting lists will be applied to everyone enrolled in the government’s plan. The Democrats’ promise to increase the amount insured, decrease costs and increase benefits is a chimera according to her.
“It’s just inevitable if you make everyone dependent on the system and you make promises you can’t keep. This will be the fate of everyone dependent on the public option - and they (Democrats) want everyone in the country dependent on this program,” she said.
The AAPS, ironically, was established to be the “voice of private doctors” in 1943. That year the Wagner-Murray-Dingel bill was introduced to establish a government run health insurance system. The Dingel of that bill was the father of Rep. John Dingel the author of H.R. 3962.
A similar sentiment was expressed by Robert Kaufman, Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University in California. He too believed that although this policy is limited to only this one specific group it will eventually apply to everyone.
“Rationing is the inevitable consequence of this monstrosity. There is no way that anyone can administer anything like this without waiting lists - de facto or otherwise,” he said. “Given the trajectory and logic of the Obama administration, it is a reasonable surmise to expect that this establishes waiting lists as a policy and that the burden proof is with the Obama administration to show it is not."
Thursday, October 22, 2009
There is a Field of Dreams in Philadelphia – like the movie, this field also has reincarnated a past team - because the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies seem to be a reincarnation of the 1929 Philadelphia Athletics.
They have several things in common.
The 2009 Philadelphia Phillies are the first professional baseball team in Philadelphia to win consecutive league championships since the Athletics accomplished this feat in 1929, 1930 and 1931. The Athletics took the American League pennant during those years – and two consecutive World Series championships in 1929 and 1930.
The similarities between the two do not end there though. They are eerily similar.
Like the ’09 Phillies, the ’29 Athletics featured a slugging first baseman, Jimmie Foxx, who later became a Hall of Famer. In fact, the team had five Hall of Famers – Foxx, catcher Mickey Cochrane, outfielder Al Simmons and pitcher Lefty Grove, as well as the owner/manager, Connie Mack.Both teams featured excellent pitching and defense as well as hitting. Both featured clutch hitting.
The perfect example of this was Game 4 of the 1929 World Series, as told by Sports Illustrated writer and baseball historian, William Nack, in his August 1996 Sports Illustrated story about the ’29 Athletics.Mr. Nack wrote, “By the middle of the seventh inning of Game 4, the Cubs were winning 8-0… Simmons …struck a thunderous home run that bounced on the roof of the pavilion in left, making the score 8-1.”
According to Nack, four successive Athletics got hits, including Philadelphian Jimmie Dykes, and the score was 8-3. Second baseman, Max Bishop, got a single and Dykes scored making it 8-4.Then outfielder “Mule” Haas hit an inside-the-park three run homer making it 8-7. The score was tied after Cochrane walked and scored after singles by Simmons and Foxx.
The next batter was hit by a pitch. This loaded the bases with Dykes coming to bat. He hit a ball off the wall in left field making the score 10-8. The Athletics staff pitched two scoreless innings in the eighth and the ninth and won the game.
The current Phillies roster has played many come from behind games – especially in championship games - including Jimmy Rollins’ double with two outs in Game 4, Monday night.
The current Phillies also resemble another Athletics team in one regard. This team was the first Philadelphia professional baseball club to win back-to-back pennants. The 1910 and 1911 Athletics featured one of the greatest infields of all time.
They were called the “$100,000 infield.” While not much by today’s standards, this was an era when there were no television revenues and a season’s attendance was less than a million.The infielders were Stuffy McInnis, Eddie Collins, Jack Barry, and Frank “Home Run” Baker.
McInnis played first base; Collins played second, Barry shortstop and Baker third. Collins, a Hall of Famer, had a lifetime batting average of.333 and is considered the greatest second baseman of all time. Baker’s nickname tells it all.
The 2009 Phillies infield of Ryan “Home Run” Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and Pedro Feliz is approaching that status, if they have not already achieved it.However, the 2009 Phillies have one distinction that is uniquely their own.
This the first Phillies team ever - in the club’s 126 year history – to win consecutive pennants.Indeed, the Phillies’ history is dismal. They hold the record as having lost the most games of any American professional sports franchise.
The club only appeared twice in the World Series prior to 1980. It was that season – nearly 100 years after being formed – that they won their first World Series championship.
They only appeared twice more in the World Series from 1981 to 2007. They won the National League pennant in their 1983 centennial year – losing to the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. They won the National League title again in 1993 - losing to the Toronto Blue Jays in the World Series.
Finally, last year they won the 2008 World Series for only the second time in the team’s history. They did so behind two phenomenal pitchers, clutch hits and the greatest infield in the majors.
There is a sequence in “Field of Dreams” where Shoeless Joe Jackson, played by Ray Liotta, turns to Ray Kinsella, played by Kevin Costner and asks: “Is this heaven?”Kinsella/Costner replies, “No, it’s Iowa.”Wednesday night the fans of the 2009 Phillies wondered if this were heaven – to which one can reply:
“No, it’s Philadelphia.”
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tea Time Blog
Since writing about the possibility of reverse discrimination in football last week (Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog Oct. 8, 2009 http://tremoglieteatime.blogspot.com/2009/10/reverse-discrimination-in-football.html), I have received some examples of this and there has been a very public controversy involving the National Football League.
My article was prompted by a quote from Stanford University Cardinals running back Toby Gerhart I read in Sports Illustrated magazine. Gerhart, who is white, said that white running backs are stereotyped.
First, the public controversy:
Rush Limbaugh was prohibited from being a member of a group that was trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise, largely, it seems, because of totally bogus quotes attributed to him that slavery was a good thing and an assassin of a civil rights figure should receive a medal.
These quotes were repeated by a mainstream media that did not bother to do the slightest due diligence in checking the source of them and realize these were hoaxes.
Limbaugh was labeled a racist. This is not true of course. The racism label is used to quiet any political dissent. It has no bearing to someone’s racial attitudes.
Never mind that Limbaugh counts among his friends such as Marcus Allen, a former great running back with the LA Raiders and Clarence Thomas. Or that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams guest host for him occasionally. The aforementioned are all African-Americans.
Black Americans are calling black person defending Limbaugh Uncle Tom’s.
For example, Warren Ballantine, an African-American talk radio show host, who calls himself the, “People’s Attorney” used a derogatory term to describe Juan Williams, an African-American journalist defending Limbaugh’s parody of a column written by an African-American columnist called “Barack the Magic Negro.”
Here is a transcript of what occurred on the Bill O’Reilly Show.
BILL O'REILLY: The reason that Limbaugh is not going to be able to buy into the NFL is because a bunch of made-up stuff became legend, and he got hammered.WARREN BALLANTINE: OK, we won't look at the made-up stuff. Let's look at him playing "Barack the Magic Negro", and we're going to say that's just funny, that's just a joke, that's not racial either. It is racial to real black people.JUAN WILLIAMS: Hey Warren, you were saying my argument was a red herring. Maybe you should do some research, go back and find out that it was an article written by a black person, headlined "Barack the Magic Negro."BALLANTINE: He made it a song and played it on his show.WILLIAMS: So what? He was making fun of it.BALLANTINE: You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It's OK.
Such is civility in the America of Barack Obama the great unifier.
I have also received anecdotal information about white running backs that have not played despite objective evidence that they are very talented.
Two players cited were Peyton Hillis and Jacob Hester – both of whom were white. Hillis plays for the Denver Broncos and Hester for the San Diego Chargers.
According to the information I received, although I did not verify it first hand, is that they are both superior players to those who are starting, who are black.
Here is one comment: “Peyton Hillis is bigger, stronger, faster and has a better yard per carry average than “KnowShow” Moreno. Not to mention he is a much better blocker. Yet, he is sitting on the bench and Knowshow is starting. Jacob Hester led LSU to a national title at LSU (you know, the SEC...”best conference in the nation”) with over 1000 yards rushing and a 5.5 yard per carry”
I cannot verify who is faster Moreno or Hillis. The standard used to judge how fast a runner and how capable a running back a player will be is the 40 yard dash time.
Some sources say that Moreno has a slightly faster 40 yard dash time than Hillis. This is inconclusive.
However, Brian Leonard, who was drafted out Rutgers by the St. Louis Rams (the team Limbaugh wanted to buy), had a 4.49 40 yard time, was relegated to the fullback position which Toby Gerhart said is reserved for supposedly slower white players.
Yet, Leonard’s 4.49 is much faster than Knowshon Moreno’s 4.62 run in the 2009 combine. Tony Fiammetta’s was also faster. Neither one start at running back.
Another example was furnished to me in a newspaper article about a New Jersey high school player. Dillon Romain, was passed by for scholarships by every Division I A program.
“He had qualified academically for college with a 3.0 grade-point average and 1,410 on the SAT, Joe Romain said. He ran the 40-yard dash in a swift 4.46 seconds. He stood out for a nationally renowned program. He had been to countless camps and clinics, getting noticed by the right people,” according to article by Matthew Stanmyre, which appeared in the October 14, 2009 New Jersey Star-Ledger.
The Star-Ledger quoted Chris Melvin, a New Jersey-based high school talent evaluator from Elite Recruits as saying, “In this case he didn’t do anything wrong. He just got overlooked for whatever reason.
Don Bosco coach Greg Toal also praised Romain. “It’s rare that any player cracks the starting lineup so quickly at the school, but didn’t hesitate. “He had all the qualities you want. He can block. He can run. He can catch. There’s nothing he can’t do well,” he said to the Star-Ledger.
Both gentlemen told the Star-Ledger what they think is an issue not said. “Melvin and Toal think a contributing factor could be that Romain is white and plays running back. ‘”Being a white running back is not the easiest thing,” Toal said. “There’s stereotypes out there in this day and age.”’
Could Gerhart, Toal and Melvin – three different people, one in California and two in New Jersey – all be imagining this?
Or could it be that in football the rule is “White Running Backs Need Not Apply” just as it was a generation ago when the same rule applied to black quarterbacks?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tea Time Blog
Ever since it was learned that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was attempting to buy a share of the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise there has been a steady drumbeat to prevent this. The approach of those who oppose this is fairly predictable. They use race-baiting.
There is a certain element in the United States – and you can add Western Europe – that labels as racism any criticism or parody of any issue or person who is African-American or Hispanic-American. Occasionally, this accusation is justified. Most of the time it is not, it is simply a smear tactic to silence a critic.
With Limbaugh there is plenty of criticism and parodies of liberals - both white and black - to use.
For example, much has been made about the “Magic Negro” parody of Obama by Limbaugh. They say it proves he is a racist.
Yet, the term “Magic Negro” was applied to Obama March 19, 2007, by Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein, who is African-American. Limbaugh was actually mocking this.
Ehrenstein, wrote, “Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the ‘"Magic Negro."’The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education.”
Note that the term was coined by sociologists – not by Limbaugh. The term is used to describe a black man who assuages white guilt. This is what Limbaugh was parodying.
The people who spread the smear of Limbaugh being a racist know this. They are just relying on the ignorance, or betraying the trust, of the people they tell this to so that these people will influence the decisions of others.
Because it is not just about Limbaugh, it is about his audience as well.
Make people believe that anyone who listens to Limbaugh is a racist and people will not admit they listen to him. They will not think their attitudes and beliefs are truen. They will not talk about the issues and concerns he mentions.
Pretty soon ratings will dwindle and Limbaugh is out of business. If Limbaugh is out of business, then his exposure of the hypocrisy and corruption of liberal organizations, the liberal mainstream media and the leftwing of the Democratic Party will be unknown largely, as it was in the era when the news was dominated by the New York Times, Washington Post and the three major networks.
This is why they have resorted to lying about what Limbaugh said.
Many of the racist quotes attributed to Limbaugh are false. Even the leftwing Media Matters of America could not state that Limbaugh said slavery was a good thing - as has been reported. They did mention the quote about Philadelphia Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb. Limbaugh said that the media was giving McNabb credit because they wanted to see a black quarterback succeed; meanwhile they ignored the contributions of the team’s defense – which also had black players.
I emailed a gentleman named Dave Zirin, a sportswriter with the leftwing magazine, The Nation (Who knew The Nation has a sportswriter? Does the Weekly Standard have one for the rightwing?). I asked him to give me the original source - meaning something that Limbaugh said slavery was a good thing. Something he actually wrote or he actually said - not someone saying he said or wrote it.
I’ll let you know the results. Don't count on getting the information I asked.
Because this is all designed to ruin Limbaugh’s career. America’s leftists, liberals and Democrats all believe he has prevented their complete domination of the national politics of America they way they have dominated the politics of America’s large cities – especially in the Northeast United States ( For example, here in Pennsylvania the American capitalist democracy is sandwiched between the People’s Republics of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh).
How stupid do these liberals think Americans are after all? Limbaugh’s audience knows that African-American economists such as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams guest-host his show occasionally. The audience knows of Limbaugh’s friendship with the African-American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Once he even had Chris Matthews as a guest host.
The average American has caught on to the Democrats and liberals race-baiting. When did they come to realize it for what it was.
It may have begun years ago when a liberal talk show host, Phil Donahue, who at the time dominated the media, was interviewing a black Chicago congressman. Donahue used the “n” word. The congressman demanded he apologize and Donahue refused.
There were no headlines or calls for Donahue to resign. No one called Donahue a racist.
The double standard is easy to explain. Liberals do not like to acknowledge their own racism.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tea Time Blog
“As a white running back you get stereotyped,” Stanford University running back Toby Gerhart said during an interview in the October 12, 2009 edition of Sports Illustrated.
“When I tell people I play football they say, ‘Oh, you’re a fullback,’” he said. For those unfamiliar with the sport, fullbacks are running backs who rely more on strength then speed. However, they rarely carry the ball. Their role is usually reserved to block for the running back.
Gerhardt then mentioned during one football game that he overheard a coach from the University of Washington refer to him by yelling, “He’s not fast enough to turn the corner!”
Is there reverse discrimination in football? It would seem so – in fact, there seems to be racial discrimination in general.
White Men Can’t Run?
It is a fact that in football at all levels - in the college ranks and especially in the NFL ranks of professional football - there is a paucity of white running backs.
The same applies to white wide receivers, another position for which speed is a necessity. There are a few. The Philadelphia Eagles have a white wide receiver Kevin Curtis. Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb, an African-American, has dubbed Curtis “white lightning.”
The conventional wisdom is that white players are too slow. Sportswriters and broadcasters, who are primarily white, seem to have propagated this.
The great Denver Broncos player, Shannon Sharpe, who played tight end, alluded to this concept when he commented about his teammate white teammate wide receiver Ed McCaffrey, was criticized that he was too slow.
Sharpe, who is African-American, addressed the issue. He said, “If Ed McCaffrey was black, I don’t think you would hear it mentioned that he is slow. It’s a misconception. How many players have (Denver Broncos wide weceiver) Anthony Miller-type speed? There aren’t many black, white, red, yellow, green or Chinese.”
Sharpe also said that McCaffrey’s race impeded his earnings. He claimed that if McCaffrey were black he would be making more money than he did.
Are the Media To Blame?
Broadcasters are primarily white – as are the owners of the television and radio networks that broadcast the games. While progress has been made incorporating more African-American commentators, broadcasters and journalists, for a sport in which the majority of players are black the field is still clearly dominated by white males.
They bring with them their own prejudices. If one is around a group of sportswriters long enough eventually they will mention something about “slow white guys.”
This might be the source of the problem Toby Gerhart mentioned.
Perhaps they are trying to compensate for years of past racial discrimination. They are trying to erase the era when few, if any, black men competed with whites in college and professional sports – including football.
Although the NFL did have a black coach, Fritz Pollard, during the 1920’s, he was the only one until 1989 when Art Schell became the head coach of the Los Angeles Raiders.
Blacks were so rare as head coaches, despite comprising the majority of players, that in 2003 the NFL established the Rooney Rule named after the Pittsburgh Steelers owner. It mandated that NFL franchises must interview minority candidates for head coaching positions.
As laudable as this rule is it may not have been necessary if an NFL franchise had been owned by an African-American. It was not until 2005 that an NFL team, the Minnesota Vikings, was owned by an African-American.
Yet, these are not the only places in football were blacks are without representation.
Black Men Can’t Kick?
As rare as it is to see a white running back in football, it is even more unusual to see a black kicker or punter. Not one of the 32 NFL teams has a punter or a kicker who is black.
Is there not one African-American in the ranks of college football or the minor leagues who is not qualified to punt, make a field goal or kick off?
Or is that sportswriters, broadcasters, coaches, scouts, general managers, and other front office officials have the same bias against African-American kicking specialists as they do against white running backs?
It took those involved in the sport of football a long time to evolve from the absurd thinking that blacks were not sufficiently intelligent to play quarterback. How long will it take for them to progress to the point where they will realize that white men can play running back.