Last week, Pulitzer award-winning journalist and conservative columnist, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, laid out his early lines for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. As you can tell from the title of this post, I did not agree with them at all.
Where do I even begin? For starters, he lists Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann at 20-1. Granted, I am a big fan of hers and her views are completely in line with everything I hold dear. But the fact is that Ms. Bachmann, much like President Obama, has absolutely no executive experience on her resume. To borrow the phrase from U.S. Congressman Colonel Allen West (R-Florida), she has never even run a lemonade stand.
She served as a state senator for six years and has been a member of the U.S. House of Representives for four years. How can anyone argue that she is ready for the presidency? Given the way Republicans have bashed Obama for his lack of executive experience and leadership skills, they'd be foolish to even consider nominating her in 2012. She may be raising a lot of money and will certainly get a lot of support from the Tea Party, but I'm putting her odds of winning the nomination at 100-1 at best. Yes, that's just a tad longer than those laid out by Krauthammer.
Dr. Krauthammer lists two former U.S. governors, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, as his favorites at 5-1. He rightly points out that Romney has tons of public and private sector executive experience, and uses a brilliant analogy to describe the major liability of Romneycare. Krauthammer calls Romney "Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats."
As for Pawlenty, he is described as the "mouse that roars" who "could be the last man standing." But it is my view that neither Romney nor Pawlenty have the charisma necessary to win the nomination. Whether you like Obama or not, disagree with his views or not, you have to admit that he is a charismatic politician. The GOP can't afford to nominate someone who pales in comparison in this category, and that is why I see Romney and Pawlenty as having much longer odds, say 20-1.
What really shocked me though about Krauthammer's column is the way in which he lambasted Donald Trump. He said that he was more of a spectacle than a serious candidate. He even went so far as to call him "a provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton." Krauthammer finished his thought by saying that the Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than Trump does of winning the GOP nomination.
I really don't get the comparison to Al Sharpton. First of all, Sharpton, to use the phrase yet again, never even ran a lemonade stand. His executive experience is infinitesimal compared to that of Trump, making the Donald a far superior candidate for the presidency. Moreover, when did Sharpton ever finish atop the polls when he ran for president? Never. Meanwhile, Trump's views and candid comments are resonating with voters, enabling him to finish tied in the top spot with Mike Huckabee in a recent poll. Krauthammer doesn't even give a line on Trump, but I'll list him as one of the favorites at 10-1.
The rest of the field was handicapped as such: Mitch Daniels at 6-1, Haley Barbour at 7-1, and Newt Gingrich at 12-1. Krauthammer does not believe that either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee will run, so he did not list odds for either one. Although I agree with Gingrich at 12-1, I think Daniels and Barbour should be listed down there with Romney and Pawlenty at 20-1. If Huckabee decides to run, I'd have him as the overall favorite in this race at 5-1, and I'd list Governor Palin at 15-1.
Only time will tell which one of us is more accurate, and come August of next year, I'll be sure to take a look back and see whose odds were more on target. In the meantime, anyone care to place a bet?
Monday, April 25, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Christ Continues to Be Crucified
Today is Good Friday, a day when we as Christians recall the crucifixion and death of our Savior and honor the sacrifice he made for our sins. And though it occurred over 2,000 years ago, the fact remains that Christ continues to be crucified to this very day.
He is crucified by the liberal media, who are quick to jump all over stories that have an anti-Christian aura to them. They take advantage of every opportunity they have to demonize the Catholic Church, and they're only too happy to devote press coverage to individuals or institutions that say things or do things to offend Christians. While Islam remains a sacred cow that the media goes out of its way to protect, Christians, especially Catholics, are viewed as targets with massive bullseyes on their backs.
He is crucified by the entertainment industry, in movies, on television, and in music. Sometimes these entities glorify views that are antithetical to Christian beliefs. Sometimes they'll cleverly disguise their agenda with veiled references. Sometimes they'll even unleash direct, overt attacks on Christianity. What I find most disturbing about it is that the entertainment industry exerts a great deal of influence on our youth, and thus on the future of our society. This can only serve to prolong the vicious cycle of secular assaults on Christian values.
He is crucified by our government, who do everything they can to push Him further and further away. Whether it's a judge who rules that nativity scenes or displays of crosses are unconstitutional, a legislator who votes in favor of a woman's right to murder her unborn child, or a public school that confiscates bibles and rosaries, it is quite evident what direction our leaders have been moving in over the past several decades.
He is crucified throughout the world by Muslims who are intolerant of other religious views. Of course, you'll never see the liberal media devote significant coverage to the many Christians who have been harassed, assaulted, tortured, and even murdered in countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Nigeria. And to think that our armed forces have come to the rescue in an effort to liberate some of these countries, that so many of our brave men and women have given their lives to these missions...and for what? So that Muslims can persecute Christians?
Finally, Christ continues to be crucified by each and every one of us through our sins. And so, on this Good Friday, I urge all of my Christian friends to reflect on their lives and the ways in which they have crucified Christ through their own actions. By being truly sorry and making reparations for our sinful acts, we can alleviate His suffering. While we may not be able to change the situations I described above, we can help counter the evil all throughout the world by confessing our sins, doing our penance, and putting forth our best effort to emulate Christ in every way possible. Remember to bow your heads and take a moment of silence at noon today, and never forget that every crucifixion is followed by a resurrection.
He is crucified by the liberal media, who are quick to jump all over stories that have an anti-Christian aura to them. They take advantage of every opportunity they have to demonize the Catholic Church, and they're only too happy to devote press coverage to individuals or institutions that say things or do things to offend Christians. While Islam remains a sacred cow that the media goes out of its way to protect, Christians, especially Catholics, are viewed as targets with massive bullseyes on their backs.
He is crucified by the entertainment industry, in movies, on television, and in music. Sometimes these entities glorify views that are antithetical to Christian beliefs. Sometimes they'll cleverly disguise their agenda with veiled references. Sometimes they'll even unleash direct, overt attacks on Christianity. What I find most disturbing about it is that the entertainment industry exerts a great deal of influence on our youth, and thus on the future of our society. This can only serve to prolong the vicious cycle of secular assaults on Christian values.
He is crucified by our government, who do everything they can to push Him further and further away. Whether it's a judge who rules that nativity scenes or displays of crosses are unconstitutional, a legislator who votes in favor of a woman's right to murder her unborn child, or a public school that confiscates bibles and rosaries, it is quite evident what direction our leaders have been moving in over the past several decades.
He is crucified throughout the world by Muslims who are intolerant of other religious views. Of course, you'll never see the liberal media devote significant coverage to the many Christians who have been harassed, assaulted, tortured, and even murdered in countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Nigeria. And to think that our armed forces have come to the rescue in an effort to liberate some of these countries, that so many of our brave men and women have given their lives to these missions...and for what? So that Muslims can persecute Christians?
Finally, Christ continues to be crucified by each and every one of us through our sins. And so, on this Good Friday, I urge all of my Christian friends to reflect on their lives and the ways in which they have crucified Christ through their own actions. By being truly sorry and making reparations for our sinful acts, we can alleviate His suffering. While we may not be able to change the situations I described above, we can help counter the evil all throughout the world by confessing our sins, doing our penance, and putting forth our best effort to emulate Christ in every way possible. Remember to bow your heads and take a moment of silence at noon today, and never forget that every crucifixion is followed by a resurrection.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Reflection on Holy Week
For Catholics, and perhaps for all Christians, this coming week is the most solemn time of the year. We'll be celebrating the Easter Triduum beginning this Thursday, which is Holy Thursday. On that evening we will commemorate the Last Supper, and participate in a procession with the Blessed Sacrament following Mass. The following day, of course, is Good Friday, to be followed by Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday.
This is a time of year for all of us to reflect on our lives, especially the disappointments, troubles, and sorrows we've endured over the past year. It provides us with a unique opportunity to view our pain and suffering in the context of Christ's own passion and death.
All of us, no matter how hard we try to live a good life, endure pain and suffering. It's part of the human condition, and something none of us can avoid. I know I've had my fair share over the past year, losing my job, having three surgeries, mourning the loss of my grandmother, and watching helplessly as my 6 year-old nephew was diagnosed with a horrible disease. I think all of us have a year like that at some point during our lives.
But no matter how difficult the struggle may be, we can take comfort in the fact that we are not alone. God Himself knows our suffering. He put Himself in our position by taking the form of a man, and then accepting and even embracing a tragic, brutal death. The agony in the garden, the scourging at the pillar, the crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion form the five sorrowful mysteries of the Holy Rosary, and they paint for us the picture of the extreme affliction Christ suffered during his last hours.
For me, it is a comfort to know that God understands our pain. He has been there before, and He knows exactly what we are going through. In fact, He knows a lot more about it than us, because His fate was far more painful and cruel than anything we will ever endure throughout the course of our lives.
But the greatest part about it all has to do with what followed this historic atrocity. Though a righteous man who lived his life for others was unjustly accused, convicted, tortured, and executed, the final result was greater than anyone could have ever imagined. For it is the Resurrection of Christ that gives us hope and strengthens our faith in times of trial.
As human beings, we experience suffering and death in many forms. Whether the loss of a loved one or a friend, the end of a marriage or long-term relationship, the loss of employment, or the loss of our homes and other possessions we hold dear, death manifests itself in many ways. But no matter what shape it takes, death can and will ultimately be succeeded by a resurrection.
I can sense that my resurrection is coming. Signs are popping up that this difficult, arduous time in my life is coming to an end, and that a transition to a new stage is already in process. I anticipate that this will be accompanied by a renewed sense of joy, one which will be greatly welcome! How amazing it is that this is all happening during this time of year, when Easter is fast approaching and the Resurrection of Christ will be celebrated around the world.
I hope that all of you who have suffered over the past year can also take solace in this, and that you too realize that no matter how great the pain, a resurrection will come. It may already be on its way. Hang in there, and to all of my Christian friends, Happy Holy Week!
This is a time of year for all of us to reflect on our lives, especially the disappointments, troubles, and sorrows we've endured over the past year. It provides us with a unique opportunity to view our pain and suffering in the context of Christ's own passion and death.
All of us, no matter how hard we try to live a good life, endure pain and suffering. It's part of the human condition, and something none of us can avoid. I know I've had my fair share over the past year, losing my job, having three surgeries, mourning the loss of my grandmother, and watching helplessly as my 6 year-old nephew was diagnosed with a horrible disease. I think all of us have a year like that at some point during our lives.
But no matter how difficult the struggle may be, we can take comfort in the fact that we are not alone. God Himself knows our suffering. He put Himself in our position by taking the form of a man, and then accepting and even embracing a tragic, brutal death. The agony in the garden, the scourging at the pillar, the crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion form the five sorrowful mysteries of the Holy Rosary, and they paint for us the picture of the extreme affliction Christ suffered during his last hours.
For me, it is a comfort to know that God understands our pain. He has been there before, and He knows exactly what we are going through. In fact, He knows a lot more about it than us, because His fate was far more painful and cruel than anything we will ever endure throughout the course of our lives.
But the greatest part about it all has to do with what followed this historic atrocity. Though a righteous man who lived his life for others was unjustly accused, convicted, tortured, and executed, the final result was greater than anyone could have ever imagined. For it is the Resurrection of Christ that gives us hope and strengthens our faith in times of trial.
As human beings, we experience suffering and death in many forms. Whether the loss of a loved one or a friend, the end of a marriage or long-term relationship, the loss of employment, or the loss of our homes and other possessions we hold dear, death manifests itself in many ways. But no matter what shape it takes, death can and will ultimately be succeeded by a resurrection.
I can sense that my resurrection is coming. Signs are popping up that this difficult, arduous time in my life is coming to an end, and that a transition to a new stage is already in process. I anticipate that this will be accompanied by a renewed sense of joy, one which will be greatly welcome! How amazing it is that this is all happening during this time of year, when Easter is fast approaching and the Resurrection of Christ will be celebrated around the world.
I hope that all of you who have suffered over the past year can also take solace in this, and that you too realize that no matter how great the pain, a resurrection will come. It may already be on its way. Hang in there, and to all of my Christian friends, Happy Holy Week!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Time for the Church to Get Tough With "Catholic" Politicians
Those who know me are well aware that I am a blue-blood Catholic to the heart. Always have been and always will be. I embrace the teaching of the Church, from Her doctrines on abortion to euthanasia to the Immaculate Conception of Mary to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
But just because I pray every day, go to Mass every Sunday, and do my best to live out my Catholic faith on a daily basis doesn't mean that I have to defend my bishops in each and every thing they do. Lord knows they've made several mistakes, and as human beings they will continue to do so.
One thing I've been saying for years is that the Church needs to involve itself more in the ongoing debates that have shaped and will continue to shape our society. Too many of our bishops are content to hide in their cathedrals, and though they often give the impression that they're taking an active role in policy-making, in reality they aren't doing all they can do.
There are many leaders in our government who call themselves Catholics. They go to Church on Sunday with their families, put their money in the collection basket, and give everyone the impression that they're devout followers of Christ. Yet when they go into the chamber of the statehouse or the Capitol to cast a vote on a hot-button social issue, whether abortion, euthanasia, or gay marriage, they go against the teaching of the Church. How do they justify this?
What they have said is this. While they may personally be opposed to abortion or gay marriage, they have to represent the majority of their constituents and need to set their personal beliefs aside. Do you buy that? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The logic in that statement is flawed for several reasons. First of all, if you are really the devout Catholic you proclaim yourself to be, how can you go against your conscience? In reality, what you're doing is selling out. Second, if your constituents elected you and they're aware of your faith, why would you go against the teachings of that faith? Weren't they aware that they were getting a Catholic in office? Unless of course you ran on the platform of, "I won't let my beliefs interfere with the job." In which case you're selling out again.
Third, engaging in this practice means you believe that morality is subjective. Abortion may be wrong for you, but it doesn't have to be wrong for anyone else. Well, that's just totally bogus. Any evil act, whether murder, robbery, rape, or adultery is wrong regardless of who commits it. It can't be right for one and wrong for another. Morality is objective, not subjective. Unless of course you think that the Muslim terrorists who truly believe they're right in killing infidels through suicide bombings and beheadings are justified in their actions.
The bottom line is that politicians who play this game are the biggest phonies of them all. They want society to perceive them as loyal Catholics who go to Church with their families. They want to be viewed as good stewards who donate their time, talent, and treasure. But they also want to remain popular enough to hold public office so they can remain in a position of power, authority, and high social status. Does this sound like a sellout to you? Sure seems that way to me.
You can't have it both ways. But the Church is letting them do it. Why? You got me.
Here's a recent example that illustrates my point perfectly. Last month, the Maryland House of Delegates killed a bill that sought to legalize gay marriage. That's the good news. The bad news is that several "Catholic" politicians in Maryland's state government stood on the wrong side of the issue. I find that extremely distressing.
Governor Martin O'Malley, a graduate of the Catholic University of America and a parishioner at St. Mary's in Annapolis, promised to sign the bill if it got to his desk. Speaker Mike Busch, a graduate of St. Mary's High School who actually returned to his alma mater to teach before seeking public office, was very outspoken in endorsing the bill. And who was the bill's original sponsor? None other than State Senator Richard Madaleno, a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School.
Supposedly all of these men met with Church leaders to discuss the bill before it was introduced. But it's clear that this was nothing more than a formality. They did what they felt they had to do to give the Church the impression that they're listening. They did what they needed to do to justify their own actions as "Catholics." But they knew all along what they were going to do, and they went ahead and did it. That is, they tried, but in the end they failed.
In response to this travesty, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, lamented the apparent lack of clarity and conviction in the Archdiocese's catechesis on marriage. Alright, that's a start. I agree wholeheartedly with him that the Church needs to be more firm and more clear in articulating Her doctrine on faith and morals. But how does that remedy the current situation?
U.S. Bishops need to take a stand, once and for all. They need to form a united front against the assault on the Church and on Her teachings, and they need to start hitting back. They allow themselves to be played for fools, standing back and watching while politicians like O'Malley, Busch, and Madaleno leave their Catholic faith at the statehouse entrance. Why do they continue to do this?
I suppose it could be that they would argue that Jesus would never publicly condemn or excommunicate these men. After all, he was loving, kind, gentle, merciful, and compassionate.
While Christ was all of those things, he was also quick to stand up for the truth, even when it meant scolding those who were in power. He didn't hesitate to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and vendors in the temple and throw them out. Sorry, but to me this doesn't sound like a guy who would let these politicians get away with what they're doing. Did he not say that with great power comes great responsibility? He'd call them out on it, at the very least. Our bishops won't even do that.
I've heard it said that the bishops are also afraid of the negative publicity that would come with such a move. No doubt there would be a backlash from the liberal media, but they already bash the Church whenever the opportunity presents itself. So how could taking a stand against hypocritical politicians possibly make things worse?
Another possibility, and one I try not to think about for fear that it may be the correct answer to my question, is that they don't want to alienate these leaders from their parishes. Chances are they donate a great deal of money to the Church, and there is a certain status that is associated with having the governor or speaker sitting in your pews every Sunday. But does this really mean we should kowtow to them? If so, then our bishops are selling out every bit as much as the politicians.
One point no one can argue is that religion does not have nearly as prominent a place in our society as it did in the first half of the 20th century. Granted, there are many, many reasons for that. But unless our bishops stop subscribing to the doctrine of wimpism, we're never going to regain that prominence.
Allow me to conclude with this. To me, the most misunderstood passage in the gospels is the one where Jesus utters, "Turn the other cheek." It has become a hallmark for Christians over the years, but its meaning has been completely twisted by the faulty translation.
Jesus never said, "Turn the other cheek." What he said was, "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, then give him your left cheek." How is that different, you ask? Well, just as it is today, back then the vast majority of people were right-handed. In order to slap someone on the right cheek, you'd have to give them a backhand slap.
Striking someone with the back of your hand is demeaning. It's as if you're dismissing the person completely, implying that they're somehow beneath you. So what Jesus meant is this. Don't let anyone belittle you. Don't let anyone make you out to be less than who you are. Stand up for yourself. And though he may not have actually said it, I believe he'd like for us to hit back if the onslaught continued.
And that is what our bishops need to do. Start hitting back. Speak out against these politicians. Condemn their actions. You don't have to issue a proclamation that they're going to hell. Just tell the world how hypocritical they are. Tell them that they have no business receiving Communion when they show up in Church on Sunday. These are the things we need to start doing if we're ever going to be relevant again. Otherwise, the entire world will go to hell: literally and figuratively.
But just because I pray every day, go to Mass every Sunday, and do my best to live out my Catholic faith on a daily basis doesn't mean that I have to defend my bishops in each and every thing they do. Lord knows they've made several mistakes, and as human beings they will continue to do so.
One thing I've been saying for years is that the Church needs to involve itself more in the ongoing debates that have shaped and will continue to shape our society. Too many of our bishops are content to hide in their cathedrals, and though they often give the impression that they're taking an active role in policy-making, in reality they aren't doing all they can do.
There are many leaders in our government who call themselves Catholics. They go to Church on Sunday with their families, put their money in the collection basket, and give everyone the impression that they're devout followers of Christ. Yet when they go into the chamber of the statehouse or the Capitol to cast a vote on a hot-button social issue, whether abortion, euthanasia, or gay marriage, they go against the teaching of the Church. How do they justify this?
What they have said is this. While they may personally be opposed to abortion or gay marriage, they have to represent the majority of their constituents and need to set their personal beliefs aside. Do you buy that? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The logic in that statement is flawed for several reasons. First of all, if you are really the devout Catholic you proclaim yourself to be, how can you go against your conscience? In reality, what you're doing is selling out. Second, if your constituents elected you and they're aware of your faith, why would you go against the teachings of that faith? Weren't they aware that they were getting a Catholic in office? Unless of course you ran on the platform of, "I won't let my beliefs interfere with the job." In which case you're selling out again.
Third, engaging in this practice means you believe that morality is subjective. Abortion may be wrong for you, but it doesn't have to be wrong for anyone else. Well, that's just totally bogus. Any evil act, whether murder, robbery, rape, or adultery is wrong regardless of who commits it. It can't be right for one and wrong for another. Morality is objective, not subjective. Unless of course you think that the Muslim terrorists who truly believe they're right in killing infidels through suicide bombings and beheadings are justified in their actions.
The bottom line is that politicians who play this game are the biggest phonies of them all. They want society to perceive them as loyal Catholics who go to Church with their families. They want to be viewed as good stewards who donate their time, talent, and treasure. But they also want to remain popular enough to hold public office so they can remain in a position of power, authority, and high social status. Does this sound like a sellout to you? Sure seems that way to me.
You can't have it both ways. But the Church is letting them do it. Why? You got me.
Here's a recent example that illustrates my point perfectly. Last month, the Maryland House of Delegates killed a bill that sought to legalize gay marriage. That's the good news. The bad news is that several "Catholic" politicians in Maryland's state government stood on the wrong side of the issue. I find that extremely distressing.
Governor Martin O'Malley, a graduate of the Catholic University of America and a parishioner at St. Mary's in Annapolis, promised to sign the bill if it got to his desk. Speaker Mike Busch, a graduate of St. Mary's High School who actually returned to his alma mater to teach before seeking public office, was very outspoken in endorsing the bill. And who was the bill's original sponsor? None other than State Senator Richard Madaleno, a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School.
Supposedly all of these men met with Church leaders to discuss the bill before it was introduced. But it's clear that this was nothing more than a formality. They did what they felt they had to do to give the Church the impression that they're listening. They did what they needed to do to justify their own actions as "Catholics." But they knew all along what they were going to do, and they went ahead and did it. That is, they tried, but in the end they failed.
In response to this travesty, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, lamented the apparent lack of clarity and conviction in the Archdiocese's catechesis on marriage. Alright, that's a start. I agree wholeheartedly with him that the Church needs to be more firm and more clear in articulating Her doctrine on faith and morals. But how does that remedy the current situation?
U.S. Bishops need to take a stand, once and for all. They need to form a united front against the assault on the Church and on Her teachings, and they need to start hitting back. They allow themselves to be played for fools, standing back and watching while politicians like O'Malley, Busch, and Madaleno leave their Catholic faith at the statehouse entrance. Why do they continue to do this?
I suppose it could be that they would argue that Jesus would never publicly condemn or excommunicate these men. After all, he was loving, kind, gentle, merciful, and compassionate.
While Christ was all of those things, he was also quick to stand up for the truth, even when it meant scolding those who were in power. He didn't hesitate to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and vendors in the temple and throw them out. Sorry, but to me this doesn't sound like a guy who would let these politicians get away with what they're doing. Did he not say that with great power comes great responsibility? He'd call them out on it, at the very least. Our bishops won't even do that.
I've heard it said that the bishops are also afraid of the negative publicity that would come with such a move. No doubt there would be a backlash from the liberal media, but they already bash the Church whenever the opportunity presents itself. So how could taking a stand against hypocritical politicians possibly make things worse?
Another possibility, and one I try not to think about for fear that it may be the correct answer to my question, is that they don't want to alienate these leaders from their parishes. Chances are they donate a great deal of money to the Church, and there is a certain status that is associated with having the governor or speaker sitting in your pews every Sunday. But does this really mean we should kowtow to them? If so, then our bishops are selling out every bit as much as the politicians.
One point no one can argue is that religion does not have nearly as prominent a place in our society as it did in the first half of the 20th century. Granted, there are many, many reasons for that. But unless our bishops stop subscribing to the doctrine of wimpism, we're never going to regain that prominence.
Allow me to conclude with this. To me, the most misunderstood passage in the gospels is the one where Jesus utters, "Turn the other cheek." It has become a hallmark for Christians over the years, but its meaning has been completely twisted by the faulty translation.
Jesus never said, "Turn the other cheek." What he said was, "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, then give him your left cheek." How is that different, you ask? Well, just as it is today, back then the vast majority of people were right-handed. In order to slap someone on the right cheek, you'd have to give them a backhand slap.
Striking someone with the back of your hand is demeaning. It's as if you're dismissing the person completely, implying that they're somehow beneath you. So what Jesus meant is this. Don't let anyone belittle you. Don't let anyone make you out to be less than who you are. Stand up for yourself. And though he may not have actually said it, I believe he'd like for us to hit back if the onslaught continued.
And that is what our bishops need to do. Start hitting back. Speak out against these politicians. Condemn their actions. You don't have to issue a proclamation that they're going to hell. Just tell the world how hypocritical they are. Tell them that they have no business receiving Communion when they show up in Church on Sunday. These are the things we need to start doing if we're ever going to be relevant again. Otherwise, the entire world will go to hell: literally and figuratively.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Edge's Retirement from WWE Proves One Thing: Pro Wrestling Is Not All That Fake
A bomb was dropped on WWE Monday Night Raw last night as Adam "Edge" Copeland announced his retirement from the WWE. It left most of the WWE Universe stunned.
Granted, he's been talking about retiring for some time now. In my blog post last week on Wrestlemania, I even mentioned that. I was surprised that they didn't use him to put Del Rio over at their biggest event of the year, considering Del Rio is one of their up and coming stars.
But no one expected this. Not even Edge. Apparently he'd been having some instances where he lost feeling in his arms. When the WWE sent him for testing, the doctors concluded that he would have to retire from wrestling immediately.
About eight years ago, Copeland suffered a serious neck injury that required his cervical vertebrae to be fused. Ultimately, it was this injury that caused him to be diagnosed with spinal stenosis, and ended a decorated 15-year career that included 14 tag team championships and 11 World Championships.
In his retirement speech last night, he started by saying, "There are a lot of people out there who don't think that the WWE hurts." He couldn't have been more right.
I've been a fan of pro wrestling for 30 years, since I was a boy. My brother and I would watch it religiously every Saturday morning, during the days when Bob Backlund was champion and the stars who graced the ring were all-time greats like Andre the Giant, Sgt. Slaughter, and Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka.
But there have been plenty of people over the years who have mocked me for being a WWE fan. "It's so fake," they'd say. "How can you watch that crap?"
Well the people who decry wrestling for being fake should try getting into the ring for a five-minute match. Then they'd see just how real it is.
Sure, when the combatants swing their fists at one another they're very careful not to knock each other's teeth out. Yes, when they stomp with their boots they're careful not to flatten their opponent's face.
But sometimes, they've been known to miss. Plenty of guys get "busted open the hard way," as they call it in the wrestling business. Broken noses, broken orbital bones, eye injuries...they're all far more common than you might think.
And if you believe that falling all over the ring and outside of it doesn't hurt, then think again. These guys take a lot of bumps in even a match that only lasts a few minutes. Learning how to fall without breaking your neck is an art in and of itself.
But once again, they sometimes miss. They may not time it perfectly enough. They may slip up, or get pushed harder by their opponent than they anticipated. So much can go wrong. And this is usually where the more serious injuries occur.
One must also keep in mind that WWE superstars log several thousand miles a week, traveling to many different locations for live events. There may only be two shows televised per week (Raw and Smackdown), but they're also doing plenty of house shows every week in addition to the TV tapings. For those who may not know, a house show is a live event that is not televised.
Those who don't understand the business also don't understand how so many pro wrestlers have died at such a young age over the past few decades. The answer is simple. For all its glory and glamour, the wrestling business is one of the most demanding careers an athlete can have. The traveling, the number of events they do that force them to take bumps night in and night out...it all takes its toll. And still they have to find time to work out, keep themselves in shape, and practice polishing their in-ring skills while they're maintaining a grueling schedule.
This is what has caused so many wrestlers to turn to painkillers. Wrestling is fake, you say? Tell that to the guys who can barely get out of bed the morning after a 10-minute match. But it gets worse. The painkillers cause you to feel extremely lethargic, making it almost impossible to perform in the ring. So they take uppers along with them in order to compensate.
And that is where the trouble begins. Once you start mixing drugs, things can get ugly. If you're taking steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs to stay huge and ripped, then it's even worse. The combination of it all makes for a lethal concoction that has cost many a young wrestler his very life.
To those who have no respect for WWE or its superstars, I say you should reconsider. These people deserve respect and admiration for putting their bodies on the line night in and night out to entertain the masses. The bumps are real, the injuries are real, and I highly doubt that 99.9% of the WWE haters could last even one week in the business.
I'll be sad to see Edge go, because I've always been a big fan of his. I love his style in the ring, and his mic skills were fantastic. He didn't take steroids to try and get ahead, though he admitted trying them once and seeing after one cycle that they weren't for him. He set out to fulfill a dream he had since he was 10 years old, and he achieved it through passion, dedication, and hard work. How can you not admire someone like that?
But I am happy for one reason. I'm happy that they diagnosed this condition before the guy ended up in a wheelchair. He's still young, only 37, and he has his whole life ahead of him. It would have been a shame to see him live that life incapacitated, so at least now he can go on and do other things to be productive.
I have teased my family and friends over the years about becoming a WWE superstar myself. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't at least think about it from time to time. But when I look back, I have to say that I'm glad I never pursued that dream. I'm not sure the hectic travel schedule and the physical toll it takes on one's body would have been something I'd been enthusiastic about.
That's why I respect the men and women of WWE who get into that ring and put their bodies on the line. Those who don't should have just one conversation with Adam Copeland, and I think they'd quickly change their mind. Good luck, Edge, in whatever you decide to do. You'll be missed.
Granted, he's been talking about retiring for some time now. In my blog post last week on Wrestlemania, I even mentioned that. I was surprised that they didn't use him to put Del Rio over at their biggest event of the year, considering Del Rio is one of their up and coming stars.
But no one expected this. Not even Edge. Apparently he'd been having some instances where he lost feeling in his arms. When the WWE sent him for testing, the doctors concluded that he would have to retire from wrestling immediately.
About eight years ago, Copeland suffered a serious neck injury that required his cervical vertebrae to be fused. Ultimately, it was this injury that caused him to be diagnosed with spinal stenosis, and ended a decorated 15-year career that included 14 tag team championships and 11 World Championships.
In his retirement speech last night, he started by saying, "There are a lot of people out there who don't think that the WWE hurts." He couldn't have been more right.
I've been a fan of pro wrestling for 30 years, since I was a boy. My brother and I would watch it religiously every Saturday morning, during the days when Bob Backlund was champion and the stars who graced the ring were all-time greats like Andre the Giant, Sgt. Slaughter, and Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka.
But there have been plenty of people over the years who have mocked me for being a WWE fan. "It's so fake," they'd say. "How can you watch that crap?"
Well the people who decry wrestling for being fake should try getting into the ring for a five-minute match. Then they'd see just how real it is.
Sure, when the combatants swing their fists at one another they're very careful not to knock each other's teeth out. Yes, when they stomp with their boots they're careful not to flatten their opponent's face.
But sometimes, they've been known to miss. Plenty of guys get "busted open the hard way," as they call it in the wrestling business. Broken noses, broken orbital bones, eye injuries...they're all far more common than you might think.
And if you believe that falling all over the ring and outside of it doesn't hurt, then think again. These guys take a lot of bumps in even a match that only lasts a few minutes. Learning how to fall without breaking your neck is an art in and of itself.
But once again, they sometimes miss. They may not time it perfectly enough. They may slip up, or get pushed harder by their opponent than they anticipated. So much can go wrong. And this is usually where the more serious injuries occur.
One must also keep in mind that WWE superstars log several thousand miles a week, traveling to many different locations for live events. There may only be two shows televised per week (Raw and Smackdown), but they're also doing plenty of house shows every week in addition to the TV tapings. For those who may not know, a house show is a live event that is not televised.
Those who don't understand the business also don't understand how so many pro wrestlers have died at such a young age over the past few decades. The answer is simple. For all its glory and glamour, the wrestling business is one of the most demanding careers an athlete can have. The traveling, the number of events they do that force them to take bumps night in and night out...it all takes its toll. And still they have to find time to work out, keep themselves in shape, and practice polishing their in-ring skills while they're maintaining a grueling schedule.
This is what has caused so many wrestlers to turn to painkillers. Wrestling is fake, you say? Tell that to the guys who can barely get out of bed the morning after a 10-minute match. But it gets worse. The painkillers cause you to feel extremely lethargic, making it almost impossible to perform in the ring. So they take uppers along with them in order to compensate.
And that is where the trouble begins. Once you start mixing drugs, things can get ugly. If you're taking steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs to stay huge and ripped, then it's even worse. The combination of it all makes for a lethal concoction that has cost many a young wrestler his very life.
To those who have no respect for WWE or its superstars, I say you should reconsider. These people deserve respect and admiration for putting their bodies on the line night in and night out to entertain the masses. The bumps are real, the injuries are real, and I highly doubt that 99.9% of the WWE haters could last even one week in the business.
I'll be sad to see Edge go, because I've always been a big fan of his. I love his style in the ring, and his mic skills were fantastic. He didn't take steroids to try and get ahead, though he admitted trying them once and seeing after one cycle that they weren't for him. He set out to fulfill a dream he had since he was 10 years old, and he achieved it through passion, dedication, and hard work. How can you not admire someone like that?
But I am happy for one reason. I'm happy that they diagnosed this condition before the guy ended up in a wheelchair. He's still young, only 37, and he has his whole life ahead of him. It would have been a shame to see him live that life incapacitated, so at least now he can go on and do other things to be productive.
I have teased my family and friends over the years about becoming a WWE superstar myself. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't at least think about it from time to time. But when I look back, I have to say that I'm glad I never pursued that dream. I'm not sure the hectic travel schedule and the physical toll it takes on one's body would have been something I'd been enthusiastic about.
That's why I respect the men and women of WWE who get into that ring and put their bodies on the line. Those who don't should have just one conversation with Adam Copeland, and I think they'd quickly change their mind. Good luck, Edge, in whatever you decide to do. You'll be missed.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Boehner Gets the Job Done
In my blog post last Friday, I said unequivocally that I would not want to be John Boehner. In my estimation, the House Speaker was caught in between a rock and a hard place, and I didn't see any way out of it. But kudos to him, for he not only found an escape, but he also scored a major victory for the Republican party.
I know that Tea Party members are crying and screaming that the budget cuts are a mere drop in the ocean of debt, and they're right. But what else could the Speaker have done? The fact is that the GOP only controls one half of one third of the federal government. You don't have to be a math major to figure out what this equation means. When it comes to the White House and Capitol Hill, Democrats > Republicans.
But despite that imbalance, Boehner somehow managed to tip the scales in favor of the GOP. Our starting point was $61 billion. The Democrats starting point was $0. The final amount of cuts made totals $38.5 billion. Again, simple arithmetic can tell you who got the better end of that deal.
Stll, reactions were mixed among many prominent Republicans. On his weekly Fox News show over the weekend, Mike Huckabee praised the deal and couldn't give John Boehner enough accolades. He said that it was the best we could have done under the circumstances, and that the Republicans should claim victory and move on. Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour commented that it was a good starting point, though we still had a long way to go.
But others weren't as quick to hail the budget agreement. Rick Santorum didn't even mention it in a campaign speech, and both Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann decried the deal, even voting against the measure in the House.
And that, my friends, is where John Boehner will be a far more effective House Speaker than Nancy Pelosi ever was. Pelosi was known to crack the whip much more frequently and severely than she should have, forcing many of her Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of bills that were unpopular in their districts. There is no question that her tactics backfired, and her two-year reign of terror was definitely a factor in the Republicans' landslide victories last November.
Boehner, on the other hand, is playing it much cooler. He understands that the Tea Party caucus was elected to impose massive spending cuts in Washington. He knows that they have to stand their ground and stick to their guns. He also knew that he had enough votes to pass his budget deal, so rather than crack the whip, he essentially told the Tea Party reps, "Do what you have to do."
I agree with Mike Huckabee that the Republicans need to step up immediately and publicly proclaim this as a victory for them and the taxpayers. It may be only a small step in the right direction, but it's a step nonetheless.
Those who urged the Republicans not to compromise were misguided. Given the current state of Washington, nothing less than compromise was going to get a deal done. If we don't want to compromise and we want to see trillions cut from the budget instead of billions, then there are two things we need to do. Get Obama out of the White House, and oust the 23 Democratic Senators who are up for re-election. Neither of those can happen until next year, so for now we have to live with not getting everything that we want.
The 2011 budget battle was only round one in what promises to be a real slobberknocker. The more arduous tasks lie ahead, namely the debate on whether to raise the debt ceiling and the process of approving a budget for 2012.
We already know what to expect from the Democrats. We got a glimpse of their strategy last week, when they accused the GOP of putting women's lives at risk and seeing to it that seniors would starve. This is how they operate. They turn every ideological battle into an emotional one because their logic is totally flawed. All they could do is implement scare tactics and say ridiculous things on the Senate floor, like how a certain Senate Majority Leader's nine granddaughters might be deprived mammograms due to budget cuts by the big, bad Republicans. Give me a break.
Things like this will be magnified a thousand times when Paul Ryan's 2012 budget is presented in the House. It includes major reforms to entitlement programs, tax cuts, and is projected to yield $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. That promises to be a lightning rod for more vicious, despicable attacks from Democrats, who will paint Ryan as the grim reaper and warn all Americans of impending doom and gloom.
And let's not forget that the Tea Party caucus is going to say that even Ryan's budget doesn't go far enough. There is talk of an alternative plan that was formed by some House Republicans, one that makes more cuts and balances the budget in far less time. Here we go again.
But the battle over the debt ceiling is the more pressing matter, as Tim Geithner has announced that America will reach its debt limit by mid-May at the latest. That's only one month away, so expect more rancor from Capitol Hill over the next few weeks.
Oh, and one last note. In my post "London Bridge is Falling Down," dated two weeks ago (that would be Monday, March 28th), I said the following in regard to the budget deal: "My best guess is that the final number will be between $30 billion and $40 billion, but most likely at the higher end of that range."
Remember, the doctor is always right. ;)
I know that Tea Party members are crying and screaming that the budget cuts are a mere drop in the ocean of debt, and they're right. But what else could the Speaker have done? The fact is that the GOP only controls one half of one third of the federal government. You don't have to be a math major to figure out what this equation means. When it comes to the White House and Capitol Hill, Democrats > Republicans.
But despite that imbalance, Boehner somehow managed to tip the scales in favor of the GOP. Our starting point was $61 billion. The Democrats starting point was $0. The final amount of cuts made totals $38.5 billion. Again, simple arithmetic can tell you who got the better end of that deal.
Stll, reactions were mixed among many prominent Republicans. On his weekly Fox News show over the weekend, Mike Huckabee praised the deal and couldn't give John Boehner enough accolades. He said that it was the best we could have done under the circumstances, and that the Republicans should claim victory and move on. Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour commented that it was a good starting point, though we still had a long way to go.
But others weren't as quick to hail the budget agreement. Rick Santorum didn't even mention it in a campaign speech, and both Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann decried the deal, even voting against the measure in the House.
And that, my friends, is where John Boehner will be a far more effective House Speaker than Nancy Pelosi ever was. Pelosi was known to crack the whip much more frequently and severely than she should have, forcing many of her Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of bills that were unpopular in their districts. There is no question that her tactics backfired, and her two-year reign of terror was definitely a factor in the Republicans' landslide victories last November.
Boehner, on the other hand, is playing it much cooler. He understands that the Tea Party caucus was elected to impose massive spending cuts in Washington. He knows that they have to stand their ground and stick to their guns. He also knew that he had enough votes to pass his budget deal, so rather than crack the whip, he essentially told the Tea Party reps, "Do what you have to do."
I agree with Mike Huckabee that the Republicans need to step up immediately and publicly proclaim this as a victory for them and the taxpayers. It may be only a small step in the right direction, but it's a step nonetheless.
Those who urged the Republicans not to compromise were misguided. Given the current state of Washington, nothing less than compromise was going to get a deal done. If we don't want to compromise and we want to see trillions cut from the budget instead of billions, then there are two things we need to do. Get Obama out of the White House, and oust the 23 Democratic Senators who are up for re-election. Neither of those can happen until next year, so for now we have to live with not getting everything that we want.
The 2011 budget battle was only round one in what promises to be a real slobberknocker. The more arduous tasks lie ahead, namely the debate on whether to raise the debt ceiling and the process of approving a budget for 2012.
We already know what to expect from the Democrats. We got a glimpse of their strategy last week, when they accused the GOP of putting women's lives at risk and seeing to it that seniors would starve. This is how they operate. They turn every ideological battle into an emotional one because their logic is totally flawed. All they could do is implement scare tactics and say ridiculous things on the Senate floor, like how a certain Senate Majority Leader's nine granddaughters might be deprived mammograms due to budget cuts by the big, bad Republicans. Give me a break.
Things like this will be magnified a thousand times when Paul Ryan's 2012 budget is presented in the House. It includes major reforms to entitlement programs, tax cuts, and is projected to yield $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. That promises to be a lightning rod for more vicious, despicable attacks from Democrats, who will paint Ryan as the grim reaper and warn all Americans of impending doom and gloom.
And let's not forget that the Tea Party caucus is going to say that even Ryan's budget doesn't go far enough. There is talk of an alternative plan that was formed by some House Republicans, one that makes more cuts and balances the budget in far less time. Here we go again.
But the battle over the debt ceiling is the more pressing matter, as Tim Geithner has announced that America will reach its debt limit by mid-May at the latest. That's only one month away, so expect more rancor from Capitol Hill over the next few weeks.
Oh, and one last note. In my post "London Bridge is Falling Down," dated two weeks ago (that would be Monday, March 28th), I said the following in regard to the budget deal: "My best guess is that the final number will be between $30 billion and $40 billion, but most likely at the higher end of that range."
Remember, the doctor is always right. ;)
Friday, April 8, 2011
When Will the Democrats Get It? We're Broke!!!
As I write this post, there are eleventh hour negotiations going on in Washington to avert the first government shutdown since 1995. I discussed the issue last week when it was announced that Republicans and Democrats were getting closer to a budget agreement. My prediction was that there would be a compromise that would result in anywhere from $30 billion to $40 billion in cuts, with the final number being closer to $40 billion. As it turns out, the Republicans are indeed holding firm at $40 billion, while the Democrats are refusing to budge from $34.5 billion.
On the surface, they're only $5.5 billion apart. Thus it would seem that an agreement can easily be worked out before midnight to keep the government running. But I'm afraid it's not that simple.
As the old adage goes, "It's quality, not quantity, that matters." The real issue has more to do with the type of cuts that are made rather than the overall amount of dollars. The GOP wants funding slashed for Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, and Obamacare, while the Democrats are opposed to defunding any of those entities.
Democrats are attacking the GOP for infusing politics into the budget debate, stating that hot-button social issues like abortion and the healthcare bill should be set aside as we strive to pay our bills. But in reality, it is the Democrats who are playing politics.
While the Republicans have been straightforward and honest in their proposal, the Democrats have been secretive and nebulous. The GOP has not only put forth a specific number from day one, but also outlined the areas where the cuts are to be allocated. Senate Democrats never crafted a proposal with a specific number, nor have they named specific areas where cuts should be made.
And there is a very good reason for that. The left would rather let the GOP make the first move and assail them for the content of their proposal. It's impossible for the Republicans to fire back in the same manner, because the Democrats never unveiled a plan. How can you criticize the components of a proposal when you don't even know what they are?
On the exterior, Democrats are conceding that spending cuts are necessary. But they're only doing that because they have to. The voices of American voters last November reverberated throughout the halls of Congress, and even the most liberal lawmakers know that failing to agree to spending cuts would be the equivalent of political suicide.
But they're trying to have it both ways. They're saying they want cuts, but at the same time they're not showing that they're serious about it. They continue to protect liberal causes from having their budgets slashed, and they have continuously put up obstacles during the budget debate.
Meanwhile, the president has sat idly by on the sidelines, watching it all play out. He has shown throughout his term that he has no leadership ability, and would rather delegate even the most crucial of tasks rather than step up to the plate. It wasn't until this week that he actually invited congressional leaders to the White House to broker a deal. Thank you, Mr. President. It's a little late though, don't you think?
When are the Democrats going to get it through their heads that our country is over $14 trillion in debt, and that the more debt we incur, the weaker our country becomes? They continue to mortgage our children's future without giving it a second thought, as if we had an endless supply of money to keep throwing away.
This is precisely why America needs someone like Chris Christie in the White House. The governor of New Jersey has taken a novel approach to governing: be completely honest with your constituents. He has informed us all of our dire fiscal situation, when he could have just continued spending to make everyone happy and maintain the votes needed for re-election. He could have passed the buck down the line to his successors, like all the governors that came before him. But he didn't. He has taken a stand and done what is right, regardless of whether or not it's popular.
But he won't be running for the presidency in 2012. And so we need to find someone else who can take this same approach and apply it on the federal level. Someone who is honest enough and tough enough to take a stand and stop the insanity. It's easy to sell the house and get re-elected for it. Just keep spending. Give people what they want and make them happy. Leave the mess behind for someone else to clean up.
Unless we put an end to this, our country will go to hell in a hurry. In fact, as scary as it is to admit, we're almost there. Current economic forecasts have us going broke in my lifetime if we don't change the way we govern. If you had told me when I was younger that I would live to see the day when my country went bankrupt, I never would have believed you. Not in a million years.
This is no time for politics. Programs that are unnecessary need to go. There is absolutely no need to keep funding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. The country will manage to survive without the National Endowment for the Arts. Many of these programs are nice to have, but how can you have them if you can't afford them?
We have 14 hours to work something out, or the government will shut down and the blame game will begin. In fact, it already has. Democrats and Republicans have taken several shots at one another through the media, and that will only get worse if a deal does not get done. The key question though will be, "Who will the people ultimately blame if the government does shut down?" Will Republicans or Democrats get most of the blame? Will people hold the President accountable or make Congress the target of their anger?
I'll say this much. I really wouldn't want to be Speaker John Boehner. Not today. He is caught between Scylla and Charybdis, as whatever choice he makes will have far-reaching implications for his standing as Speaker of the House.
If he sides with the dozens of freshman lawmakers who were bolstered by the Tea Party, then it will be impossible to cut a deal with Democrats. If he compromises and agrees to less cuts and the elimination of political riders, then he will cause a split in his own party. If he decides to go ahead and pass a budget in the House with mostly Democratic votes, then he may even be ousted as Speaker.
It wasn't too long ago that we saw him shedding tears in public for his rise to prominence. It was a beautiful story of how a young boy, one of twelve children, helped out the family business by sweeping the floors of the bar that his father owned. He worked his way up the ranks to one day get elected to Congress, and then became Speaker of the House. But now, when the smoke clears from this impending debacle, he may be shedding tears for another reason.
I'm not sure which way he'll go, but it is my hope that he holds his ground and sides with the Tea Party. Despite what some may think, I don't see how a government shutdown will hurt the Republicans. After all, they put their proposal on the table. They passed their budget in the House. It is the Democratic-led Senate and our Democratic president who have done nothing but stand around with their hands in their pockets.
The American people sent a clear message last November: "Hey Washington, CUT SPENDING!" The Republicans have tried to do just that, and they can't possibly be reviled for it. At least not by the majority of American voters. Stand your ground, Mr. Boehner, and don't give in to the scare tactics. Someone has to follow Chris Christie's example, and at this point in time, it's not going to be Harry Reid or Barack Obama. It has to be you. The question is, "Are you tough enough to take the heat?" If not, then you may have to get out of the kitchen.
On the surface, they're only $5.5 billion apart. Thus it would seem that an agreement can easily be worked out before midnight to keep the government running. But I'm afraid it's not that simple.
As the old adage goes, "It's quality, not quantity, that matters." The real issue has more to do with the type of cuts that are made rather than the overall amount of dollars. The GOP wants funding slashed for Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, and Obamacare, while the Democrats are opposed to defunding any of those entities.
Democrats are attacking the GOP for infusing politics into the budget debate, stating that hot-button social issues like abortion and the healthcare bill should be set aside as we strive to pay our bills. But in reality, it is the Democrats who are playing politics.
While the Republicans have been straightforward and honest in their proposal, the Democrats have been secretive and nebulous. The GOP has not only put forth a specific number from day one, but also outlined the areas where the cuts are to be allocated. Senate Democrats never crafted a proposal with a specific number, nor have they named specific areas where cuts should be made.
And there is a very good reason for that. The left would rather let the GOP make the first move and assail them for the content of their proposal. It's impossible for the Republicans to fire back in the same manner, because the Democrats never unveiled a plan. How can you criticize the components of a proposal when you don't even know what they are?
On the exterior, Democrats are conceding that spending cuts are necessary. But they're only doing that because they have to. The voices of American voters last November reverberated throughout the halls of Congress, and even the most liberal lawmakers know that failing to agree to spending cuts would be the equivalent of political suicide.
But they're trying to have it both ways. They're saying they want cuts, but at the same time they're not showing that they're serious about it. They continue to protect liberal causes from having their budgets slashed, and they have continuously put up obstacles during the budget debate.
Meanwhile, the president has sat idly by on the sidelines, watching it all play out. He has shown throughout his term that he has no leadership ability, and would rather delegate even the most crucial of tasks rather than step up to the plate. It wasn't until this week that he actually invited congressional leaders to the White House to broker a deal. Thank you, Mr. President. It's a little late though, don't you think?
When are the Democrats going to get it through their heads that our country is over $14 trillion in debt, and that the more debt we incur, the weaker our country becomes? They continue to mortgage our children's future without giving it a second thought, as if we had an endless supply of money to keep throwing away.
This is precisely why America needs someone like Chris Christie in the White House. The governor of New Jersey has taken a novel approach to governing: be completely honest with your constituents. He has informed us all of our dire fiscal situation, when he could have just continued spending to make everyone happy and maintain the votes needed for re-election. He could have passed the buck down the line to his successors, like all the governors that came before him. But he didn't. He has taken a stand and done what is right, regardless of whether or not it's popular.
But he won't be running for the presidency in 2012. And so we need to find someone else who can take this same approach and apply it on the federal level. Someone who is honest enough and tough enough to take a stand and stop the insanity. It's easy to sell the house and get re-elected for it. Just keep spending. Give people what they want and make them happy. Leave the mess behind for someone else to clean up.
Unless we put an end to this, our country will go to hell in a hurry. In fact, as scary as it is to admit, we're almost there. Current economic forecasts have us going broke in my lifetime if we don't change the way we govern. If you had told me when I was younger that I would live to see the day when my country went bankrupt, I never would have believed you. Not in a million years.
This is no time for politics. Programs that are unnecessary need to go. There is absolutely no need to keep funding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. The country will manage to survive without the National Endowment for the Arts. Many of these programs are nice to have, but how can you have them if you can't afford them?
We have 14 hours to work something out, or the government will shut down and the blame game will begin. In fact, it already has. Democrats and Republicans have taken several shots at one another through the media, and that will only get worse if a deal does not get done. The key question though will be, "Who will the people ultimately blame if the government does shut down?" Will Republicans or Democrats get most of the blame? Will people hold the President accountable or make Congress the target of their anger?
I'll say this much. I really wouldn't want to be Speaker John Boehner. Not today. He is caught between Scylla and Charybdis, as whatever choice he makes will have far-reaching implications for his standing as Speaker of the House.
If he sides with the dozens of freshman lawmakers who were bolstered by the Tea Party, then it will be impossible to cut a deal with Democrats. If he compromises and agrees to less cuts and the elimination of political riders, then he will cause a split in his own party. If he decides to go ahead and pass a budget in the House with mostly Democratic votes, then he may even be ousted as Speaker.
It wasn't too long ago that we saw him shedding tears in public for his rise to prominence. It was a beautiful story of how a young boy, one of twelve children, helped out the family business by sweeping the floors of the bar that his father owned. He worked his way up the ranks to one day get elected to Congress, and then became Speaker of the House. But now, when the smoke clears from this impending debacle, he may be shedding tears for another reason.
I'm not sure which way he'll go, but it is my hope that he holds his ground and sides with the Tea Party. Despite what some may think, I don't see how a government shutdown will hurt the Republicans. After all, they put their proposal on the table. They passed their budget in the House. It is the Democratic-led Senate and our Democratic president who have done nothing but stand around with their hands in their pockets.
The American people sent a clear message last November: "Hey Washington, CUT SPENDING!" The Republicans have tried to do just that, and they can't possibly be reviled for it. At least not by the majority of American voters. Stand your ground, Mr. Boehner, and don't give in to the scare tactics. Someone has to follow Chris Christie's example, and at this point in time, it's not going to be Harry Reid or Barack Obama. It has to be you. The question is, "Are you tough enough to take the heat?" If not, then you may have to get out of the kitchen.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Doctrine of Wimpism
It's hard to believe that the country is already gearing up for the 2012 presidential election. The Republican field is crowded with candidates who are jockeying for position by making frequent visits to Iowa and New Hampshire. Even President Obama announced his re-election bid earlier this week.
We already know what the hot-button issues are going to be this time around. First and foremost will be the economy. Republicans will unleash a relentless attack on Obama for his failed stimulus, out-of-control spending, and the fact that the national debt has increased significantly under his watch.
They'll also spend a lot of time and money exposing the evils of Obamacare. All the polls that indicate the majority of Americans oppose Obama's healthcare law are sure to come back to bite him, unless he conjures up some kind of miracle over the next year to win the people over.
But another major issue will be America's standing as a world superpower. Even this early in the game, potential GOP candidates are decrying Obama for bowing to other world leaders (literally and figuratively), apologizing for America's supposed past egregiousness, and his refusal to use phrases like "war on terror," even going so far as to attempt to charge the 9/11 terrorists as common criminals. Thankfully he just recently backed off from that position and will now try them in military courts.
Whether we want to admit or not, America is weaker in the eyes of the world today than arguably any other time over the past 150 years. Our military is over-extended, we are deeply in debt, and our country is sharply divided along ideological lines. They may not do so openly, but I firmly believe that countries like China and Saudi Arabia are laughing at us behind our backs.
There is no question that we are at a critical juncture in American history. If we keep going down the path we're headed, we will lose our standing as the world's dominant superpower and our children will be inheriting a very different country than the one you and I grew up in.
I don't know if you've seen the advertisement from Citizens Against Government Waste in which a Chinese professor addresses a lecture hall full of students in the year 2030. He talks about great empires that have fallen throughout history, including Rome and the British Empire. Then he brings up the United States, citing that we turned our backs on the principles that made us a great nation. We tried to tax and spend ourselves out of a recession, and failed miserably in our healthcare reform. The professor notes that China owned most of our debt and utters the line, "Of course, they work for us now." This incites rousing laughter from the dozens of Chinese students in the room.
It's enough to give you a chill down your spine for one major reason. This is something that could easily happen if we continue going the way we're going. It's rooted in reality, not fantasy.
So how do we change course and prevent this from occurring? There are many things we need to do, but one action that must take place immediately is ending once and for all what I call the "doctrine of wimpism." It's time for America to start getting tough.
We continue to allow both OPEC and China to push us around. OPEC does whatever it wants when it comes to pricing oil, even cutting production to keep prices where they want them. They have never looked out for our interests, only for their own. You might say that you can't blame them, but here's the problem. We're the first ones to come to Saudi Arabia's need when they request security for the Arabian peninsula, or when they ask us to help innocent civilians in Libya. They call, and immediately we answer.
Yet when we asked them to help us in the past as astronomical oil prices squeezed American consumers, they refused. Can someone please explain to me how this works?
Look at it this way. Say you owned a company that specialized in providing security. You have a vendor from whom you purchase all your materials: weapons, armor, technological gadgets, etc. The vendor starts having some problems with thugs who are threatening his business, and comes to you for help. You gladly provide him with the security ne needs, at no charge. Why do you do this? Because you consider him a friend in need, and you are only too glad to help.
Then the unthinkable occurs. While you're providing free security to protect his business, he suddenly doubles the prices of everything he sells you. You ask why, and you suggest ways that he might be able to keep prices down. But he basically responds by saying, "This is the way it is, and there's nothing I can do about it."
Now, tell me what you would do? Would you continue to provide free security, all the while paying the massive price increases he just slapped you with? If so, then you're a fool. I would hope that you would stand up for yourself and do one of two things. You could either charge him for the security you're providing to offset the price increase, or pull out your security people and leave him to fend for his own. On top of that, you'd do whatever you could to find another way to obtain the supplies you need for your business.
As sad as it is to say, America is the fool providing free security while our vendor (in this case, for oil) continues to jack up the prices. I cannot fathom why we allow the Arabs to take advantage of us in this way. We need a leader who will stand up to them, someone who will say, "Pay us for the security we provide, or find your own security." Believe me, that will get their attention. They'll come to the negotiating table very quickly if we gave such an ultimatum.
Then there's China. As much as President Obama wants to believe it, China is no friend of the United States. They manipulate their currency, and they take our jobs and our businesses. Since the Chinese government tramples all over the rights of its citizens, labor there is very cheap (almost slave labor, in fact), and there are virtually no environmental regulations to deal with. But instead of calling them out on it, our president would rather hold sumptuous feasts at the White House in honor of the Chinese Prime Minister.
In a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump said that he would slap China with a 25% tariff. That may sound a bit harsh, but I agree with Trump that something needs to be done. We're serving as the whipping post for the world, and if we don't start standing up for ourselves, the lashes will only increase in both frequency and severity.
O'Reilly dismissed Trump's tough talk, citing that there would be repercussions for any bullish action we take against OPEC and China. But what could they possibly do to us? Will the Saudis stop selling us oil? I doubt it. We're one of their biggest customers, and they need us as much as we need them. Will China start selling U.S. bonds? Go right ahead, I say. That will hurt them as much as it would hurt us, if not more.
Get ready to watch the GOP field assail Obama for his perceived weakness as the leader of the free world. With candidates like Donald Trump in the mix, there's sure to be a lot of talk about re-establishing America's image and standing as the world's dominant superpower. Even if Trump doesn't earn the nomination, he can have a major impact if his views resonate with voters. For the winner may have to take a long, hard look at Trump's positions and consider incorporating them into his or her own platform.
It's time to stand up, America. This isn't about being a bully or even a "tough guy." It's about standing up for yourself and making sure that others don't take advantage of you. It has more to do with being smart than being aggressive or forceful. We need to once again show the world who's in charge. If we don't, then someone else will seize our crown, most likely China. There's still time to ensure that the commercial from Citizens Against Government Waste is not prophetic, but we need to act and we need to act now. It's clear that our current leader is not the one to do it, so we're going to have to find one who will in 2012. I hope and pray that we do so.
We already know what the hot-button issues are going to be this time around. First and foremost will be the economy. Republicans will unleash a relentless attack on Obama for his failed stimulus, out-of-control spending, and the fact that the national debt has increased significantly under his watch.
They'll also spend a lot of time and money exposing the evils of Obamacare. All the polls that indicate the majority of Americans oppose Obama's healthcare law are sure to come back to bite him, unless he conjures up some kind of miracle over the next year to win the people over.
But another major issue will be America's standing as a world superpower. Even this early in the game, potential GOP candidates are decrying Obama for bowing to other world leaders (literally and figuratively), apologizing for America's supposed past egregiousness, and his refusal to use phrases like "war on terror," even going so far as to attempt to charge the 9/11 terrorists as common criminals. Thankfully he just recently backed off from that position and will now try them in military courts.
Whether we want to admit or not, America is weaker in the eyes of the world today than arguably any other time over the past 150 years. Our military is over-extended, we are deeply in debt, and our country is sharply divided along ideological lines. They may not do so openly, but I firmly believe that countries like China and Saudi Arabia are laughing at us behind our backs.
There is no question that we are at a critical juncture in American history. If we keep going down the path we're headed, we will lose our standing as the world's dominant superpower and our children will be inheriting a very different country than the one you and I grew up in.
I don't know if you've seen the advertisement from Citizens Against Government Waste in which a Chinese professor addresses a lecture hall full of students in the year 2030. He talks about great empires that have fallen throughout history, including Rome and the British Empire. Then he brings up the United States, citing that we turned our backs on the principles that made us a great nation. We tried to tax and spend ourselves out of a recession, and failed miserably in our healthcare reform. The professor notes that China owned most of our debt and utters the line, "Of course, they work for us now." This incites rousing laughter from the dozens of Chinese students in the room.
It's enough to give you a chill down your spine for one major reason. This is something that could easily happen if we continue going the way we're going. It's rooted in reality, not fantasy.
So how do we change course and prevent this from occurring? There are many things we need to do, but one action that must take place immediately is ending once and for all what I call the "doctrine of wimpism." It's time for America to start getting tough.
We continue to allow both OPEC and China to push us around. OPEC does whatever it wants when it comes to pricing oil, even cutting production to keep prices where they want them. They have never looked out for our interests, only for their own. You might say that you can't blame them, but here's the problem. We're the first ones to come to Saudi Arabia's need when they request security for the Arabian peninsula, or when they ask us to help innocent civilians in Libya. They call, and immediately we answer.
Yet when we asked them to help us in the past as astronomical oil prices squeezed American consumers, they refused. Can someone please explain to me how this works?
Look at it this way. Say you owned a company that specialized in providing security. You have a vendor from whom you purchase all your materials: weapons, armor, technological gadgets, etc. The vendor starts having some problems with thugs who are threatening his business, and comes to you for help. You gladly provide him with the security ne needs, at no charge. Why do you do this? Because you consider him a friend in need, and you are only too glad to help.
Then the unthinkable occurs. While you're providing free security to protect his business, he suddenly doubles the prices of everything he sells you. You ask why, and you suggest ways that he might be able to keep prices down. But he basically responds by saying, "This is the way it is, and there's nothing I can do about it."
Now, tell me what you would do? Would you continue to provide free security, all the while paying the massive price increases he just slapped you with? If so, then you're a fool. I would hope that you would stand up for yourself and do one of two things. You could either charge him for the security you're providing to offset the price increase, or pull out your security people and leave him to fend for his own. On top of that, you'd do whatever you could to find another way to obtain the supplies you need for your business.
As sad as it is to say, America is the fool providing free security while our vendor (in this case, for oil) continues to jack up the prices. I cannot fathom why we allow the Arabs to take advantage of us in this way. We need a leader who will stand up to them, someone who will say, "Pay us for the security we provide, or find your own security." Believe me, that will get their attention. They'll come to the negotiating table very quickly if we gave such an ultimatum.
Then there's China. As much as President Obama wants to believe it, China is no friend of the United States. They manipulate their currency, and they take our jobs and our businesses. Since the Chinese government tramples all over the rights of its citizens, labor there is very cheap (almost slave labor, in fact), and there are virtually no environmental regulations to deal with. But instead of calling them out on it, our president would rather hold sumptuous feasts at the White House in honor of the Chinese Prime Minister.
In a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump said that he would slap China with a 25% tariff. That may sound a bit harsh, but I agree with Trump that something needs to be done. We're serving as the whipping post for the world, and if we don't start standing up for ourselves, the lashes will only increase in both frequency and severity.
O'Reilly dismissed Trump's tough talk, citing that there would be repercussions for any bullish action we take against OPEC and China. But what could they possibly do to us? Will the Saudis stop selling us oil? I doubt it. We're one of their biggest customers, and they need us as much as we need them. Will China start selling U.S. bonds? Go right ahead, I say. That will hurt them as much as it would hurt us, if not more.
Get ready to watch the GOP field assail Obama for his perceived weakness as the leader of the free world. With candidates like Donald Trump in the mix, there's sure to be a lot of talk about re-establishing America's image and standing as the world's dominant superpower. Even if Trump doesn't earn the nomination, he can have a major impact if his views resonate with voters. For the winner may have to take a long, hard look at Trump's positions and consider incorporating them into his or her own platform.
It's time to stand up, America. This isn't about being a bully or even a "tough guy." It's about standing up for yourself and making sure that others don't take advantage of you. It has more to do with being smart than being aggressive or forceful. We need to once again show the world who's in charge. If we don't, then someone else will seize our crown, most likely China. There's still time to ensure that the commercial from Citizens Against Government Waste is not prophetic, but we need to act and we need to act now. It's clear that our current leader is not the one to do it, so we're going to have to find one who will in 2012. I hope and pray that we do so.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Victory for Conservatives as Supreme Court Approves School Vouchers
All the talk in Washington this week has been about the budget deadline, and understandably so. But something monumental happened yesterday that has been taking a backseat to all the finger-pointing and grandstanding going on in the halls of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Arizona school voucher program that the ACLU decried as unconstitutional, scoring a huge victory for conservatives everywhere.
The justices ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy forming the majority. Elena Kagan wrote her first dissent, and Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision. Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote a separate opinion that outlined an even stronger position on the issue.
As you can probably guess, the ACLU argued that the program is unconstitutional because it improperly directs taxpayer funds to religious schools. But that position was rebuked since the law only allows taxpayers to direct their own tax dollars to religious schools. So as far as the majority was concerned, the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue because their tax money was not being used for the program.
The attacks on religion in our country never cease to amaze me. I laugh when organizations like the ACLU claim that religious views are being forced onto them, and that public funds should never be used for anything remotely tied to organized religion. How about the fact that they're trying to force their secular views onto us? Shouldn't we, the taxpayers, have a say in how our taxes are utilized by the government?
Growing up in Jersey City, my parents sent me to Catholic school after realizing that the public school system was unsafe and that I would not be academically challenged. They paid their property taxes like any other citizen, and incurred the extra cost of Catholic school tuition. They did this despite the fact that we were not rich and both of my parents were blue collar, working class people.
I am forever grateful for their sacrifice, and I know I wouldn't be where I am today if they hadn't made it. But in my view, they got shortchanged. There is no reason why they should not have been permitted to allocate their tax dollars to pay the tuition for both me and my brother to attend Catholic school. To me, it's a matter of personal liberty. They should have had that freedom to choose the best education for their children, but instead they had to support schools that they were not benefitting from.
The first time I heard of school vouchers was when Bret Schundler was elected mayor of Jersey City in the late '80s. He took a special interest in educational policy, and school vouchers were a cause that he championed right up through his gubernatorial campaign. Unfortunately, he lost the election to McGreevey, and suddenly there was no further talk of school vouchers in New Jersey. Rest assured that the NJEA, which is vehemently opposed to school vouchers, did everything they could to see that Schundler was defeated.
But after Chris Christie was elected governor in 2009, he named Schundler as his Commissioner of Education, and it suddenly became clear that the school voucher issue was returning to the forefront. Even after the fallout between the two that resulted in Schundler's dismissal, Christie continues to tout school choice as something that is badly needed in our state.
Why is it that the left is constantly attacking programs like school vouchers? Why do they fight so ferociously to take bibles and the doctrine of creationism out of public schools? Yet we on the religious right sit back and watch as our tax dollars are used to fund organizations like Planned Parenthood, and thus indirectly support countless abortions every year?
Religion has been under relentless duress in this country for quite some time. Those of us who believe in one nation under God and don't want to see our great country fall victim to atheism need to do something about it. Sometimes I feel as though we fall into the trap of becoming passive, since we strive to emulate a Savior who was gentle, loving, and forgiving. Hence it's not in our nature to retaliate against the forces that want to eradicate religion once and for all.
But we need to get with the program. Christ may have been gentle, merciful, and all those wonderful things, but he was also firm in standing up for what was right. He put the Pharisees in their place when they challenged him. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers and those who were buying and selling in the temple. He didn't back down in defending the truth.
It is in this way that we need to follow his example. One can sense that the tide is starting to turn, and we have to put the pedal to the floor in order to keep up the momentum. Yesterday's victory at the Supreme Court was not insignificant. The House of Representatives is pushing to withdraw all public funding for Planned Parenthood, and to repeal a healthcare law that goes against core Christian convictions in so many ways. Thus there is reason to be optimistic when you see the leaders we currently have in place.
But we need more of them. If we're going to make significant progress, then we need to take back the White House and the Senate in 2012. That is what we as Christians can do to defend our religious faith. We can elect leaders who will support us in our beliefs, and not use our tax dollars to support causes that are diametrically opposed to those beliefs.
Yesterday's victory at the Supreme Court was a victory for conservatives, organized religion, and personal freedoms. It was also a defeat for atheists, secularists, and even public employee unions that don't want to see any money taken away from the public schools. It was a monumental, historic decision that could help turn the tide in the battle between secularism and the religious right. I hope that it will, and I remain hopeful that America will one day see the grave mistake it made when it turned away from God, and that it will do everything it can to correct it.
The justices ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy forming the majority. Elena Kagan wrote her first dissent, and Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision. Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote a separate opinion that outlined an even stronger position on the issue.
As you can probably guess, the ACLU argued that the program is unconstitutional because it improperly directs taxpayer funds to religious schools. But that position was rebuked since the law only allows taxpayers to direct their own tax dollars to religious schools. So as far as the majority was concerned, the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue because their tax money was not being used for the program.
The attacks on religion in our country never cease to amaze me. I laugh when organizations like the ACLU claim that religious views are being forced onto them, and that public funds should never be used for anything remotely tied to organized religion. How about the fact that they're trying to force their secular views onto us? Shouldn't we, the taxpayers, have a say in how our taxes are utilized by the government?
Growing up in Jersey City, my parents sent me to Catholic school after realizing that the public school system was unsafe and that I would not be academically challenged. They paid their property taxes like any other citizen, and incurred the extra cost of Catholic school tuition. They did this despite the fact that we were not rich and both of my parents were blue collar, working class people.
I am forever grateful for their sacrifice, and I know I wouldn't be where I am today if they hadn't made it. But in my view, they got shortchanged. There is no reason why they should not have been permitted to allocate their tax dollars to pay the tuition for both me and my brother to attend Catholic school. To me, it's a matter of personal liberty. They should have had that freedom to choose the best education for their children, but instead they had to support schools that they were not benefitting from.
The first time I heard of school vouchers was when Bret Schundler was elected mayor of Jersey City in the late '80s. He took a special interest in educational policy, and school vouchers were a cause that he championed right up through his gubernatorial campaign. Unfortunately, he lost the election to McGreevey, and suddenly there was no further talk of school vouchers in New Jersey. Rest assured that the NJEA, which is vehemently opposed to school vouchers, did everything they could to see that Schundler was defeated.
But after Chris Christie was elected governor in 2009, he named Schundler as his Commissioner of Education, and it suddenly became clear that the school voucher issue was returning to the forefront. Even after the fallout between the two that resulted in Schundler's dismissal, Christie continues to tout school choice as something that is badly needed in our state.
Why is it that the left is constantly attacking programs like school vouchers? Why do they fight so ferociously to take bibles and the doctrine of creationism out of public schools? Yet we on the religious right sit back and watch as our tax dollars are used to fund organizations like Planned Parenthood, and thus indirectly support countless abortions every year?
Religion has been under relentless duress in this country for quite some time. Those of us who believe in one nation under God and don't want to see our great country fall victim to atheism need to do something about it. Sometimes I feel as though we fall into the trap of becoming passive, since we strive to emulate a Savior who was gentle, loving, and forgiving. Hence it's not in our nature to retaliate against the forces that want to eradicate religion once and for all.
But we need to get with the program. Christ may have been gentle, merciful, and all those wonderful things, but he was also firm in standing up for what was right. He put the Pharisees in their place when they challenged him. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers and those who were buying and selling in the temple. He didn't back down in defending the truth.
It is in this way that we need to follow his example. One can sense that the tide is starting to turn, and we have to put the pedal to the floor in order to keep up the momentum. Yesterday's victory at the Supreme Court was not insignificant. The House of Representatives is pushing to withdraw all public funding for Planned Parenthood, and to repeal a healthcare law that goes against core Christian convictions in so many ways. Thus there is reason to be optimistic when you see the leaders we currently have in place.
But we need more of them. If we're going to make significant progress, then we need to take back the White House and the Senate in 2012. That is what we as Christians can do to defend our religious faith. We can elect leaders who will support us in our beliefs, and not use our tax dollars to support causes that are diametrically opposed to those beliefs.
Yesterday's victory at the Supreme Court was a victory for conservatives, organized religion, and personal freedoms. It was also a defeat for atheists, secularists, and even public employee unions that don't want to see any money taken away from the public schools. It was a monumental, historic decision that could help turn the tide in the battle between secularism and the religious right. I hope that it will, and I remain hopeful that America will one day see the grave mistake it made when it turned away from God, and that it will do everything it can to correct it.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Wrestlemania XXVII Shows That WWE Creative Team is Losing Its Way
Like millions of other fans in the WWE Universe, I was tuned in from 7pm to 11pm last night viewing the annual star-studded Wrestlemania spectacular. They advertise it as the granddaddy of them all, the biggest event of the year, even bigger than the Super Bowl according to one Vincent Kennedy McMahon...but somehow, it failed to live up to the hype. In fact, it fell very, very far short.
So what happened? Where did they go wrong? Hmm...where do I even begin?
I guess we can start with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, who served as the special guest host. No doubt the WWE Universe was thrilled when this was announced, as evidenced by the thunderous ovation he received in his return to Monday Night Raw. I had my fears that he would be underused for this event, leaving devout WWE fans everywhere extremely disappointed. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened.
As expected, he strutted down to the ring to kick things off and gave one of his usual "electrifying" monologues. That was fine. But the backstage segments where they featured him throughout the night were ridiculous. Mae Young pinching his butt? Come on. Pee-Wee Herman? Please. The only interesting part was when he came face-to-face with Stone Cold Steve Austin. But that lasted all of one minute. He did play a role in the night's final match, but I'll address that later when I get to the main event.
I was very disappointed that we did not get to see the Daniel Bryan vs. Sheamus match, which had been previously advertised. Apparently, some numbskull felt it would be better served as a dark match. Then they revised the format and made these two up and coming stars part of an impromptu 22-man battle royal instead. Are you kidding me?
When will the creative team get it when it comes to Daniel Bryan? The fans love him. I know that he's undersized, but when he was fired last year for breaking the "Benoit rule," the crowds clamored for his return. His technical skills and overall offensive ability make him fun to watch, and not allowing that match to go on as scheduled was a disservice to him and to the fans.
Ditto for Sheamus. He had a fabulous 2009, and deservedly so. A two-time champion who garnered the praise of HHH for his work ethic, Sheamus showed us that he has the combination of in-ring ability and mic skills to go far in this business. But someone on Raw's creative team has suddenly turned against him, and his character has been buried over the past few months. Whoever that person is, he needs to get a clue and start pushing Sheamus again, as he was beginning to establish himself as one of the top heels in WWE.
I was surprised to see the World Heavyweight Championship match start things off, though I understand why they did it. But what surprised me even more was that Alberto Del Rio did not go over. Can someone in WWE creative please explain why they have pushed this guy so hard for so long, even crowning him as winner of this year's Royal Rumble, only to lose and get his Rolls Royce destroyed at Wrestlemania? Edge has been talking retirement for some time now, so this was a great opportunity to use him and put Del Rio over. But they blew it.
The eight-man tag team match was an utter travesty. First off, they buried their Intercontinental Champion and Tag Team Champs by having the Corre suffer a quick defeat. While I am not a huge fan of Gabriel and Slater, I think WWE is really missing the boat with Wade Barrett. This guy has it, and he deserves a big push. To take him out of Nexus and put him back in another group where he isn't even the leader makes absolutely no sense. He should have been allowed out on his own, and I think he would have done a nice job at Wrestlemania if they had him feud with one of the established babyfaces.
This match was so poor that it left me asking, "How did Big Show and Kane feel about being featured in this turkey?" Well, here is my hypothesis on how the conservation went as the two of them walked down the entrance ramp together:
Big Show: Can you believe that after all our years of service to this company, they're putting us in this atrocity of a match at Wrestlemania?
Kane: I know. It sucks, doesn't it? At least they're only giving it two minutes.
Big Show: Thank God. I don't want to be in there any longer than I have to. Let's just get it over with and then make a beeline for the locker room.
Kane: Agreed. Then maybe you and I can have a sit-down with the boss this week to straighten things out.
I'm not exaggerating. That match really lasted all of two minutes. Crazy.
Speaking of wasting talent, what the hell were they thinking when they put John Morrison in the match with Snooki? Huh? Morrison is arguably the most athletic guy in WWE. He's in the best shape, as evidenced by his incredible abs, and he uses parkour to train himself for the aerial maneuvers he performs on a regular basis. I had predicted last year that he would be the winner of this year's Money in the Bank ladder match.
But of course that didn't happen, since WWE decided not to have the annual MITB competition. I guess they felt that his talents would be utilized more efficiently in this ludicrous spectacle, where he chased Dolph Ziggler from the ring after he interfered with little miss "Jersey Shore." Unreal.
Then to have Snooki pin Michelle McCool for the win? Are you serious? Anyone reading this might think I'm pulling a belated April Fool's prank, but sadly that is not the case. Yes, it's true. Snooki now has more victories at Wrestlemania than Jerry "The King" Lawler (I'll get to that in a minute). What a smack in the face to the Divas. Those ladies work hard all year to get a chance to show their skills at Wrestlemania. Yet most of them were not used, including the champion herself, Eve, and the two that were wound up losing to a pint-sized loudmouth from a trashy reality show.
I have to give Michael Cole credit, because he has done an excellent job over the past year of establishing his heel persona. WWE did an excellent job building it up, and somehow we all knew it was going to culminate in a massive beatdown at the hands of Jerry Lawler at Wrestlemania. Well, I guess that sort of happened, but not quite. Another young grappler, Jack Swagger, was totally wasted by being cast as Cole's trainer. I know that Swagger's lisp made it difficult to get him over, but the guy has impressive technical skills, as evidenced by his illustrious career at the University of Oklahoma. He deserved better.
I accurately predicted that Austin would give Swagger the Stunner, and it was great to see Cole tapping non-stop while trapped in Lawler's ankle lock as Stone Cold repeatedly asked if he was giving up. But what followed left me somewhat stupefied. First, why did Booker T get stunned by Austin after joining the post-match celebration? I wasn't feeling that. Then the GM reverses the decision, awards the victory to Cole, and poor Josh Matthews, who merely read the GM's email, gets stunned himself. What was that all about?
Everyone anticipated that Undertaker-HHH would be the best match of the night, and it was. But unfortunately, that isn't saying much, is it? Their age showed in the ring, as they basically slogged their way through the match. There was no flow, and though they tried a few daring stunts, in the end the match paled in comparison to those between Taker and HBK over the past two years. The finish was poor, and I can't possibly believe that it was scripted that way. There must have been a legitimate injury that forced one of the two to call an audible, though as of this moment nothing has been revealed. It looked as if HHH might have injured his left shoulder by the way his left arm was dangling, but who knows.
They really oversold the effect that the match had on both of them, and I was growing weary while watching them limp, stumble, fall, etc. as they left the ring. Finally, when it was somehow determined that the Undertaker would need assistance, I started yelling, "Get him out of there already!" It was a total waste of 5-10 minutes, all of which could have been applied toward another match.
Before I get to the main event, I'll quickly state that Orton-Punk and Rhodes-Mysterio were decent matches. Punk-Orton was the second best match of the night, and it ended just as I thought it would. But I hope they reunite CM Punk with the Nexus, because he is perfect in that role. As leader of the Nexus, he firmly entrenched himself as the number one heel in all of WWE.
I'm glad that at least one young guy got put over, as Rhodes earned the victory over Rey. Granted, he had to do it by using his knee brace, but a win is a win I suppose. Hopefully they'll continue to build him up.
Finally, the main event was a major disappointment. Throughout the entire night, we could gauge, even from the comfort of our living rooms, that the crowd reaction was somewhat less than exuberant. But the Cena-Miz match was the epitome of this fact, as I only noticed one drunken fan in the front row who was actually into it. I had correctly predicted that Rock would cost Cena the match by interfering, which he ultimately did after a double count-out and an ignored announcement from the anonymous GM. But the way it went down was shoddy, and it certainly doesn't help Miz. Once again, he won with outside help, leaving his credibility as champion very much in question.
So what happens now? A Cena-Rock feud? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? We'll see what happens on Raw tonight.
I guess the main point of this blog post is that WWE creative needs to get their butts in gear. If I were the CEO of the company, I'd have fired every one of them after last night's debacle. So much talent went unused, so many of the young guys got buried rather than put over, and even the way they utilized celebrities like Snoop Dogg was misguided and pretty much way off the mark. Wrestlemania XXVII will not go down as one of the better ones. In fact, it will probably go down as one of the worst. As a WWE fan for over 30 years, I don't anticipate losing my interest any time soon. But yesterday was a major step in the wrong direction, and if they don't correct it, then they'll be sure to suffer the consequences.
So what happened? Where did they go wrong? Hmm...where do I even begin?
I guess we can start with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, who served as the special guest host. No doubt the WWE Universe was thrilled when this was announced, as evidenced by the thunderous ovation he received in his return to Monday Night Raw. I had my fears that he would be underused for this event, leaving devout WWE fans everywhere extremely disappointed. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened.
As expected, he strutted down to the ring to kick things off and gave one of his usual "electrifying" monologues. That was fine. But the backstage segments where they featured him throughout the night were ridiculous. Mae Young pinching his butt? Come on. Pee-Wee Herman? Please. The only interesting part was when he came face-to-face with Stone Cold Steve Austin. But that lasted all of one minute. He did play a role in the night's final match, but I'll address that later when I get to the main event.
I was very disappointed that we did not get to see the Daniel Bryan vs. Sheamus match, which had been previously advertised. Apparently, some numbskull felt it would be better served as a dark match. Then they revised the format and made these two up and coming stars part of an impromptu 22-man battle royal instead. Are you kidding me?
When will the creative team get it when it comes to Daniel Bryan? The fans love him. I know that he's undersized, but when he was fired last year for breaking the "Benoit rule," the crowds clamored for his return. His technical skills and overall offensive ability make him fun to watch, and not allowing that match to go on as scheduled was a disservice to him and to the fans.
Ditto for Sheamus. He had a fabulous 2009, and deservedly so. A two-time champion who garnered the praise of HHH for his work ethic, Sheamus showed us that he has the combination of in-ring ability and mic skills to go far in this business. But someone on Raw's creative team has suddenly turned against him, and his character has been buried over the past few months. Whoever that person is, he needs to get a clue and start pushing Sheamus again, as he was beginning to establish himself as one of the top heels in WWE.
I was surprised to see the World Heavyweight Championship match start things off, though I understand why they did it. But what surprised me even more was that Alberto Del Rio did not go over. Can someone in WWE creative please explain why they have pushed this guy so hard for so long, even crowning him as winner of this year's Royal Rumble, only to lose and get his Rolls Royce destroyed at Wrestlemania? Edge has been talking retirement for some time now, so this was a great opportunity to use him and put Del Rio over. But they blew it.
The eight-man tag team match was an utter travesty. First off, they buried their Intercontinental Champion and Tag Team Champs by having the Corre suffer a quick defeat. While I am not a huge fan of Gabriel and Slater, I think WWE is really missing the boat with Wade Barrett. This guy has it, and he deserves a big push. To take him out of Nexus and put him back in another group where he isn't even the leader makes absolutely no sense. He should have been allowed out on his own, and I think he would have done a nice job at Wrestlemania if they had him feud with one of the established babyfaces.
This match was so poor that it left me asking, "How did Big Show and Kane feel about being featured in this turkey?" Well, here is my hypothesis on how the conservation went as the two of them walked down the entrance ramp together:
Big Show: Can you believe that after all our years of service to this company, they're putting us in this atrocity of a match at Wrestlemania?
Kane: I know. It sucks, doesn't it? At least they're only giving it two minutes.
Big Show: Thank God. I don't want to be in there any longer than I have to. Let's just get it over with and then make a beeline for the locker room.
Kane: Agreed. Then maybe you and I can have a sit-down with the boss this week to straighten things out.
I'm not exaggerating. That match really lasted all of two minutes. Crazy.
Speaking of wasting talent, what the hell were they thinking when they put John Morrison in the match with Snooki? Huh? Morrison is arguably the most athletic guy in WWE. He's in the best shape, as evidenced by his incredible abs, and he uses parkour to train himself for the aerial maneuvers he performs on a regular basis. I had predicted last year that he would be the winner of this year's Money in the Bank ladder match.
But of course that didn't happen, since WWE decided not to have the annual MITB competition. I guess they felt that his talents would be utilized more efficiently in this ludicrous spectacle, where he chased Dolph Ziggler from the ring after he interfered with little miss "Jersey Shore." Unreal.
Then to have Snooki pin Michelle McCool for the win? Are you serious? Anyone reading this might think I'm pulling a belated April Fool's prank, but sadly that is not the case. Yes, it's true. Snooki now has more victories at Wrestlemania than Jerry "The King" Lawler (I'll get to that in a minute). What a smack in the face to the Divas. Those ladies work hard all year to get a chance to show their skills at Wrestlemania. Yet most of them were not used, including the champion herself, Eve, and the two that were wound up losing to a pint-sized loudmouth from a trashy reality show.
I have to give Michael Cole credit, because he has done an excellent job over the past year of establishing his heel persona. WWE did an excellent job building it up, and somehow we all knew it was going to culminate in a massive beatdown at the hands of Jerry Lawler at Wrestlemania. Well, I guess that sort of happened, but not quite. Another young grappler, Jack Swagger, was totally wasted by being cast as Cole's trainer. I know that Swagger's lisp made it difficult to get him over, but the guy has impressive technical skills, as evidenced by his illustrious career at the University of Oklahoma. He deserved better.
I accurately predicted that Austin would give Swagger the Stunner, and it was great to see Cole tapping non-stop while trapped in Lawler's ankle lock as Stone Cold repeatedly asked if he was giving up. But what followed left me somewhat stupefied. First, why did Booker T get stunned by Austin after joining the post-match celebration? I wasn't feeling that. Then the GM reverses the decision, awards the victory to Cole, and poor Josh Matthews, who merely read the GM's email, gets stunned himself. What was that all about?
Everyone anticipated that Undertaker-HHH would be the best match of the night, and it was. But unfortunately, that isn't saying much, is it? Their age showed in the ring, as they basically slogged their way through the match. There was no flow, and though they tried a few daring stunts, in the end the match paled in comparison to those between Taker and HBK over the past two years. The finish was poor, and I can't possibly believe that it was scripted that way. There must have been a legitimate injury that forced one of the two to call an audible, though as of this moment nothing has been revealed. It looked as if HHH might have injured his left shoulder by the way his left arm was dangling, but who knows.
They really oversold the effect that the match had on both of them, and I was growing weary while watching them limp, stumble, fall, etc. as they left the ring. Finally, when it was somehow determined that the Undertaker would need assistance, I started yelling, "Get him out of there already!" It was a total waste of 5-10 minutes, all of which could have been applied toward another match.
Before I get to the main event, I'll quickly state that Orton-Punk and Rhodes-Mysterio were decent matches. Punk-Orton was the second best match of the night, and it ended just as I thought it would. But I hope they reunite CM Punk with the Nexus, because he is perfect in that role. As leader of the Nexus, he firmly entrenched himself as the number one heel in all of WWE.
I'm glad that at least one young guy got put over, as Rhodes earned the victory over Rey. Granted, he had to do it by using his knee brace, but a win is a win I suppose. Hopefully they'll continue to build him up.
Finally, the main event was a major disappointment. Throughout the entire night, we could gauge, even from the comfort of our living rooms, that the crowd reaction was somewhat less than exuberant. But the Cena-Miz match was the epitome of this fact, as I only noticed one drunken fan in the front row who was actually into it. I had correctly predicted that Rock would cost Cena the match by interfering, which he ultimately did after a double count-out and an ignored announcement from the anonymous GM. But the way it went down was shoddy, and it certainly doesn't help Miz. Once again, he won with outside help, leaving his credibility as champion very much in question.
So what happens now? A Cena-Rock feud? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? We'll see what happens on Raw tonight.
I guess the main point of this blog post is that WWE creative needs to get their butts in gear. If I were the CEO of the company, I'd have fired every one of them after last night's debacle. So much talent went unused, so many of the young guys got buried rather than put over, and even the way they utilized celebrities like Snoop Dogg was misguided and pretty much way off the mark. Wrestlemania XXVII will not go down as one of the better ones. In fact, it will probably go down as one of the worst. As a WWE fan for over 30 years, I don't anticipate losing my interest any time soon. But yesterday was a major step in the wrong direction, and if they don't correct it, then they'll be sure to suffer the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)