Olympic Stupidity

The IOC recently announced it would drop wrestling as an Olympic sport. Definitely a dumb move. I'm not a wrestler or even a fan, but it's a classic Olympic sport.

 

How about they get rid of:

• Rhythmic gymnastics - Do I need to explain this one?
• Synchronized swimming - This is more like art. Why not make ballet an Olympic sport?
• Synchronized diving - Should every sport have its own synchronized event - hurdles, pole vault, 1500m, etc?
• Trampoline - It's too subjective and seems silly. My 3 year old jumps on a trampoline.
• Soccer -the World Cup is the real event. No one cares about soccer at the Olympics
• Tennis - Similar to Soccer: there is the Grand Slam
• Badminton - This a lawn sport. What about lawn bowling or croquet.
• BMX - There is already the X Games.
• Table tennis - This is a parlor game. Why not have darts and billiards?.

Drop the planned addition:

• Golf: For the same reason as soccer, tennis
• Rugby: This is too local. I don't think baseball/softball should be back either for the same reasons.

Nix all other new sports:  karate, wushu (kungfu),  rollersports, wakeboarding, squash and sports (rock) climbing. Okay, maybe keep squash. Karate and kungfu would be good, but there is already judo and taekwando. The Chinese are trying to fill the Olympics with sports they are good at to win the medal counts. 

Change swimming to one race for each distance. Take out all the different styles, you shouldn't be able to win multiple medals at one distance because there are five different strokes. The breaststroke is a resting stroke. I never saw the point of trying to see who can do a resting stroke the fastest. That's like saying with the 100m final there could be Hopping, Backwards, Normal, Sideways, and Tied Hands.

The Truth About Global Warming... from Pravda?

Maybe pigs can fly. Pravda produces amazing truthful article about Global Warming

For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.


What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.

Various groups have fought back. This is including Russian hackers, who published a huge database of UK government, scientific and university emails depicting the fixing of data to sell Global Warming, er Climate Change (as if it never changed on its own). And while taking hit after hit, the beast, like Al Qaida, will not die. As a matter of fact, the beast is on a steady come back, as it is quite useful during the down times recession. The US alone spends $7 billion each year on warming "studies", which is, in truth, nothing but a huge money laundering operation, as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only product generated.

Amongst the newest claims of pending disasters, is a cry that icepacks are now melting at three times the rate of the 1990s, even though there has not been any significant warming in the past 20 years. Greenland's icepack melt off, has been linked to volcanic activity under the ice, heating it. Must be the magmamen and their SUVs. These facts, however, do not faze the Gia crowd and their Elite/Governmental backers. The fact that a super storm hit the NE US is also being played as evidence of GW. Thank God that before GW no such things ever happened. How are they to explain that Russia and Eastern Europe are projected to have the coldest winter in 20 years? Oh, but I doubt my Western readers are even aware of that.

Now, with their economies in a spiral of debt laden, non-manufacturing recession (if not out and out depression), the Elites, who sense they are loosing their grip or toe hold on key economic regions outside their home regions, are once again calling out their inquisitors of Global Warming and sending them towards the developing world.

The first salvo has been fired by a British Warming dandy named Lord Nicholas Stern of Brantford, who as an academic at Whitehall, has made a career and quite a bit of money off of this scam. Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist and author of the landmark Stern review of the economics of climate change, was a close associate of Gordon Brown and the Leftists, who with the Tory counterparts and in parallel to the American Democrats/Republicans set up the grand and self destructive economic schemes that have plunged their own nations and many many others into the abyss of poverty.

The good Lord Stern, in commentary on why countries such as Russia, China, India and Brazil, in other words, the BRICs, have to pony up cash and depress their own growth, made this statement for the Guardian paper: "It's a brutal arithmetic - the changing structure of the world's economy has been dramatic. That is something developing countries will have to face up to,"

His premise is that even if you take out the deindustrialized West, run away Global Warming will not stop due to the industrialized world. Its now all the fault of those raising themselves up for the destruction of the world, from the phantom joke of GW. Lord Stern tried to assure that the opening salvo was not a salvo, by stating: "I am not pointing the finger at the developing world, just looking at what is necessary. I am not accusing or proposing, just calculating what is needed [to meet scientific estimates of the emissions cuts needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change]". More like a calculated accusation. After all, this is not some light weight of the GIA cult, but the movement's chief economist who enjoyed the ear of the UK government: a perfect tool of the Western Elites.

Expect the cries to get louder and more shrill in the months to follow.

Gun Saves Three Lives

This is why guns are necessary. They provide protection everyone no matter how young or strong. By searching every room until he found her hiding in the attic, it is clear that the intruder was looking to harm, not just rob. Of course these stories often get scant coverage and are buried on back pages.

A would-be burglar was looking to cash in, but instead found himself in a world of pain when a Georgia mother who refused to be victimized shot him multiple times in the face and neck. The Loganville woman, who was not identified, was in the home with her 9-year-old twins on Friday afternoon when someone began ringing the doorbell. Thinking it was just a door-to-door salesperson, she didn't answer

But after the ringing persisted, the person began prying the door open with a crowbar. She quickly retreated to an attic crawlspace with the children, but not before she also picked up her handgun. The burglar, whom police identified as Paul Ali Slater, did a room-by-room search of the home, and when he reached the attic, she was ready.

Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told WSBTV: 'The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html#ixzz2HFhfFEzW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

2014 Election Preview

While it is a long way off, I was curious as to what the 2014 Senate elections would look like. Would the Republican party be on offense or defense? The good news is that they seem to be defending safe seats, and have the opportunity to win a few.

Possible pickups were determined by those who won election in 2008 by <=53%.  Without a Presidential election at the top of the ticket, reduced turnout may favor the more motivated party.

A few incumbents may be in red or swing states, but previous elections have favored them so heavily that only a wave election or a retirement would put the seat in play. South Dakota is an outlier. Johnson won handily in 2008, but won squeakers in 2002 and 1996.  Franken officially won by only 300 votes in 2008, but now he is an incumbent in a lean blue state.

In total, I see six seats in potential play, with another four to six if it is a wave election.

Comprehending the Results

I have a hard time comprehending these results. I understand why Obama won in 2008 (financial crisis, new flashy guy, lots of promises), but what motivated an Obama voter in 2012? The great job he did on unemployment? the successful stimulus? the shrinking deficit? the fufilled promises to be bipartisan and transparent?

Mitt Romney was a solid candidate. He performed well in the debates, focused on the economy (#1 issue), made no major mistakes, and was good on the stump. However he lost by about 2%.

Victor Davis Hanson made a good analysis of the potential blame

1. Dependency Majority
2. Tactical Errors, Unforeseen Circustances
3. Too far to the right

He notes that regarding #2, Obama made his fair share of mistakes. I'd like to add to his #3 that in 2004, if you supported civil unions (but not gay marriage) you were a hero. In 2012, you would be a hater if you supported nothing less that full gay marriage. I'm not sure how moving a little left will be enough either.

That leaves #1, which I have also long feared.  The desired place for Democrats is to have 53% of the people receiving benefits and entitlements paid for by 47% of the electorate. That way the 47% are powerless to reverse course, while the 53% keep voting them in to keep the largesse flowing. Generous public union contracts and green energy subsidies, among others, ensure a flow of taxpayer money back to Dem candidates through donations. These outfits act like launderers for direct taxpayer funding of Democrat candidates.

Another good article is by Armstrong Williams. "This (election) represents a national repudiation of reality: we have tossed out the doctor because we don’t like his prognosis. The spending addict does not want an intervention; he wants more spending, no matter what."

They don’t care about things like the national debt or even a job as long as unemployment insurance is perpetually extended. It was just a few years ago that traditional marriage amendments (on the state level) passed even in liberal states. Now gay marriage amendments passed in those states. Democrat economic ideas won’t work, but telling people or explaining history isn’t enough. They will have to live through it.

People bought the spin: "Obama inherited a huge mess and it take more than four years for recovery."  That would have been fine if Obama said that all along. However, Obama promised a 5% unemployment rate if stimulus passed, which it did, but unemployment is still 7.9%. He promised to cut the deficit in half, but has doubled it. With strong controll of Congress from 2009-2011, Obama could pass whatever he wanted, so he couldn't realisitcally blame "an obstructionist Congress". He did, and people bought it. A failed result overall, but people think Obama cares. We may not live in a result-orientated country anymore.

Obamacare will never be reversed now and will add to the dependency on government. In Canada, healthcare is free but sometimes actual care gets denied. It doesn't mean the nationalized healthcare will ever away, because the number of sick people can't overturn the majority of healthy people who like their illusionary free care. Sick people who get denied treatment, don't live long enough to build any political momentum or vote in many elections anyway.

Obama will also be able to make more Supreme Court appointees. Scalia and Kennedy is 76. Ginsburg is 79 and Breyer is 74.

The media also worked overtime for Obama. If Obama was a Republican you would have seen different stories:

• Daily stories about hardships of the unemployment
• Stories about underemployed people
• Stories about the REAL unemployment rate (unemployment figures exclude people who gave up looking for work)
• Lots and lots of stories on Libya and coverup (remember all the stories on Cindy Sheehan or Valerie Plame?).

Real Clear Politics, Intrade, Short Sellers are Big Winners

Returns are still coming in, but it seems like final average polls were more right than wrong, and may have even favored Romney. Intrade and RCP were correct on the electoral college, pending Florida results which still aren't final.

Looks like Obama won by about 2.5% in the national poll, but there are still votes to be counted. Overall, Romney improved on McCain by about 4%.
The stock market (S&P 500) is current down 2.15% this morning (10:30 CST)

I thought crossover votes  would be limited to 6% (vote for Obama, but also vote for Scott Brown), but these were higher, especially if you talk about rape and abortion (26% crossover in Missouri).

Exit polls shows turnout and result were more similar to 2008 than 2004 or 2000.

2012 Election Day - Final Polls

Below are final polls and betting sites. It's time to see who is right!


Final National Polls:

Final Intrade:

Final RealClearPolitics
  National polls: The head to head RCP average is  Obama 48.8 - Romney 48.1   Electoral Collage:  Without tossups, they have 303 Obama - 235 Romney  

  Rasmussen - Electoral College Of the tossups:   Colorado: Romney +3 Virginia, NH, Florida: Romney +2 Iowa: Romney +1 Wisconsin, Ohio:  tie Nevada: Obama +2    

2012 Election - Final Predictions

President:

Popular Vote: Romney 50.7%, Obama 48.5%, other 0.8%
Electoral College:

Senate

Current Senate: 51 Democrats +2 Independents (who caucus with Dems), 47 Republicans. Among the Senate seats up for election in 2012, there are 21 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 Independents.

Despite the polls being close in some races, the fact there is a presidential eleciton will bring many more people to the polls. There will only be so many cross-over votes (i.e., vote Romney, but vote McCaskill for Senate). So if Romney or Obama is leading by more than 6%, I think the R or D will win.


Prediction: (hotly contested seats are underlined)

Dems gain (2): Maine (officially an independent but will likely caucus with Dems), Massachusetts,
Republicans gain (6): Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin,
Republicans hold (8): Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming,
Dems hold (15): California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia


Result: 51 Republicans, 46 Dems + 1 Independent

House:
Current House: Republicans 242, Dems 193
Prediction: little movement, ranging from Republicans +6 to Dems +2