Bowl Schedule courtesy of The Hammer

BCS Games
DATE	GAME	LOCATION	TV	TIME	MATCHUP	TICKETS
Jan. 7	BCS Title	Miami, Fla.	ESPN	8:30 p.m.	No. 1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs. No. 2 Alabama (12-1)	Buy now
Jan. 3	Fiesta	Glendale, Ariz.	ESPN	8:30 p.m.	No. 5 Oregon (11-1) vs. No. 7 Kansas State (11-1)	Buy now
Jan. 2	Sugar	New Orleans, La.	ESPN	8:30 p.m.	No. 4 Florida (11-1) vs. No. 22 Louisville (10-2)	Buy now
Jan. 1	Orange	Miami, Fla.	ESPN	8:30 p.m.	No. 13 Florida State (11-2) vs. No. 16 N. Illinois (12-1)	Buy now
Jan. 1	Rose	Pasadena, Calif.	ESPN	5 p.m.	No. 8 Stanford (11-2) vs. Wisconsin (8-5)	Buy now
Non-BCS Games
Jan. 6	GoDaddy.com	Mobile, Ala.	ESPN	9 p.m.	No. 25 Kent State (11-2) vs. Arkansas State (9-3)	Buy now
Jan. 5	BBVA Compass	Birmingham, Ala.	ESPN	1 p.m.	Pittsburgh (6-6) vs. Ole Miss (6-6)	Buy now
Jan. 4	Cotton	Arlington, Texas	FOX	8 p.m.	No. 10 Texas A&M (10-2) vs. No. 12 Oklahoma (10-2)	Buy now
Jan. 1	Capital One	Orlando, Fla.	ABC	1 p.m.	No. 6 Georgia (11-2) vs. No. 23 Nebraska (10-3)	Buy now
Jan. 1	Outback	Tampa, Fla.	ESPN	1 p.m.	No. 11 South Carolina (10-2) vs. No. 19 Michigan (8-4)	Buy now
Jan. 1	Heart of Dallas	Dallas, Texas	ESPNU	Noon	Purdue (6-6) vs. Oklahoma State (7-5)	Buy now
Jan. 1	Gator	Jacksonville, Fla.	ESPN2	Noon	Mississippi State (8-4) vs. No. 21 Northwestern (9-3)	Buy now
Dec. 31	Chick-fil-A	Atlanta, Ga.	ESPN	7:30 p.m.	No. 9 LSU (10-2) vs. No. 14 Clemson (10-2)	Buy now
Dec. 31	Liberty	Memphis, Tenn.	ESPN	3:30 p.m.	Iowa State (6-6) vs. Tulsa (10-3)	Buy now
Dec. 31	Sun	El Paso, Texas	CBS	2 p.m.	USC (7-5) vs. Georgia Tech (6-7)	Buy now
Dec. 31	Music City	Nashville, Tenn.	ESPN	Noon	N.C. State (7-5) vs. Vanderbilt (8-4)	Buy now
Dec. 29	Buffalo Wild Wings	Tempe, Ariz.	ESPN	10:15 p.m.	TCU (7-5) vs. Michigan State (6-6)	Buy now
Dec. 29	Alamo	San Antonio, Texas	ESPN	6:45 p.m.	Texas (8-4) vs. No. 15 Oregon State (9-3)	Buy now
Dec. 29	Kraft Fight Hunger	San Francisco, Calif.	ESPN2	4 p.m.	Navy (7-4) vs. Arizona State (7-5)	Buy now
Dec. 29	Pinstripe	Bronx, N.Y.	ESPN	3:15 p.m.	West Virginia (7-5) vs. Syracuse (7-5)	Buy now
Dec. 29	Armed Forces	Fort Worth, Texas	ESPN	11:45 a.m.	Rice (6-6) vs. Air Force (6-6)	Buy now
Dec. 28	Meineke Car Care	Houston, Texas	ESPN	9 p.m.	Minnesota (6-6) vs. Texas Tech (7-5)	Buy now
Dec. 28	Russell Athletic	Orlando, Fla.	ESPN	5:30 p.m.	Rutgers (9-3) vs. Virginia Tech (6-6)	Buy now
Dec. 28	Independence	Shreveport, La.	ESPN	2 p.m.	Ohio (8-4) vs. Louisiana-Monore (8-4)	Buy now
Dec. 27	Military	Washington D.C.	ESPN	3 p.m.	No. 24 San Jose State (10-2) vs. Bowling Green (8-4)	Buy now
Dec. 27	Belk	Charlotte, N.C.	ESPN	6:30 p.m.	Cincinnati (9-3) vs. Duke (6-6)	Buy now
Dec. 27	Holiday	San Diego, Calif.	ESPN	9:45 p.m.	Baylor (7-5) vs. No. 17 UCLA (9-4)	Buy now
Dec. 26	Little Caesars Pizza	Detroit, Mich.	ESPN	7:30 p.m.	Central Michigan (6-6) vs. Western Kentucky (7-5)	Buy now
Dec. 24	Hawaii	Honolulu, Hawaii	ESPN	8 p.m.	Fresno State (9-3) vs. SMU (6-6)	Buy now
Dec. 22	Maaco Las Vegas	Las Vegas, Nev.	ESPN	3:30 p.m.	Boise State (10-2) vs. Washington (7-5)	Buy now
Dec. 22	New Orleans	New Orleans, La.	ESPN	Noon	East Carolina (8-4) vs. Louisiana-Lafayette (8-4)	Buy now
Dec. 21	Beef O'Brady's	St. Petersburg, Fla.	ESPN	7:30 p.m.	UCF (9-4) vs. Ball State (9-3)	Buy now
Dec. 20	Poinsettia	San Diego, Calif.	ESPN	8 p.m.	BYU (7-5) vs. San Diego State (9-3)	Buy now
Dec. 15	Famous Idaho Potato	Boise, Idaho	ESPN	4:30 p.m.	No. 18 Utah State (10-2) vs. Toledo (9-3)	Buy now
Dec. 15	New Mexico	Albuquerque, N.M.	ESPN	1 p.m.	Nevada (7-5) vs. Arizona (7-5)	Buy now

Do as I Say, Not as I Do Department

The Washington Post--which heartily endorsed President Obama--has decided to move up its 2013 dividend payment to stockholders (including that noted "soak the rich" advocate Warren Buffet) to December 27 2012, so as to allow said shareholders to benefit from the 15% rate on capital gains/dividend income rather than the feared increased rate that President Obama advocates for and which many believe will be part of a compromise with Republicans, if one occurs.

The hypocrisy here is abundant but certainly not unexpected.  

Amerika or America?

Ok, I'm going to go off the rails a bit here so bear with me.

This is an advert for a book I've been reading lately. Ordinarily I'd have finished it by now but the fact is I can only take it in small doses. It is a really unfair, nakedly slanderous portrayal of Southerners using cherry-picked facts, libelous misrepresentations and outright lies to feed the prejudices and misconceptions of liberals, whom I would guess have never been to the South, have no desire to go to the South and never will go to the South. But that's not all it is. It is an attack on supposed intransigent conservative thought and the folly of trying to change such a backward, ignorant culture into something the rest of the country can live with. The author represents progressives as victims held hostage by semi-literate Rednecks thereby impeding their inevitable march towards economic and social justice as defined by...well progressives. His writing style is often humorous but invariable mean-spirited and vicious with an air of conceit and superiority which I'm sure plays well in some areas of the country. The New York Times reviewed the book so have a look if you're interested in what they think: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/books/better-off-without-em-by-chuck-thompson.html?_r=0.

Now ordinarily I'd use something like this to drag my Yankee friends over the coals a bit. I've never been shy about poking fun at other cultures, races, religions; you name it. My feeling is everybody is just a little too uptight about our differences and frankly as long as you don't ask me to subsidize your lifestyle, religion, sex et cetera I don't care. But that's not the world we live in now. And although I find this book infuriatingly dishonest, I very much appreciate the author actually coming out and saying, for the record, what is obviously liberal/progressive orthodoxy.

Therefore I have to concede the author's point. You are Better Off Without 'Em ; and us you. I cannot see this country surviving in it's present form much longer, and for a number of reasons, first being cultural. Once we all spoke the same language, we had lots of differences but we shared a uniquely American identity of patriotism, respect for family, hard work, ingenuity and a strong commitment to the rule of law and liberty; all the things that talk show conservatives call "American Exceptionalism". This is not the case anymore. We have two diametrically opposed philosophies at odds with each other,  a divided country with no possibility of political reconciliation or compromise. An animal born with two heads always dies, and so it goes with countries.

The country is not the country anymore. Some say we conservatives lost the country with this election, I say we lost it with Simpson-Mizzoli in 1986. Amnesty was a bad precedent that encouraged lawbreaking and rewarded lawbreakers. Now, nearly thirty years later Hispanic unmarried mothers on the dole and MS-13 gangbangers tip the electoral scales for progressives. As Pat Buchanan said, conservatives will either do something about illegal immigrants or illegal immigrants will do something about conservatives. Well now they have.

We have illegitimacy rates (otherwise know as future criminals, welfare whores, anything but productive law abiding citizens) at 70% for African-Americans, 60% Hispanics, 40% Whites and 22% Asians. High School dropout rates for minorities are already high, what will they look like in 10-20 years? And the only thing higher are minority birth rates. We live in a global economy. Just how well will we be able to compete in a high-tech future with the majority of our citizens uneducated, unmotivated, with a sense of entitlement, and the rest old, decrepit and on social security. Clearly the progressive welfare-state model is untenable.

With social turmoil comes economic turmoil comes political turmoil. America will not stand in its present form. I have no idea when or how it will eventually come to pass,  I just know it will. But rather than the country being torn apart along geographic, ethnic or cultural boundaries it should be along philosophical lines. Let the progressives go one way and the Constitutionalists another. Lincoln famously said "A house divided against itself cannot stand." For those of us who value liberty (both economic and political), who understand rights and obligations and the proper role of the state, for us the choice must be made in the very near future to stay or go.

So, harsh but enlightened warning based on facts or crazy as hell Redneck refighting the Civil War? You be the judge, but time will tell.

On Sports Radio

As some of you know, I am a political animal.  This aspect of my nature was on full display during the recent Presidential contest, but readers got only a glimpse into the sickness with which I was aflicted.

I am also a defense consultant, with my clients located mostly 75 miles (at least) away.  I spend a good deal of time in my car, with the radio or (some of you) on my cell phone as my company.  For the vast majority of the past six months, I listened to two radio stations on Satellite Radio--Politics of the US (POTUS) and Patriot (Conservative).  I would switch between the two, when POTUS (which tries to go down the middle but often fails) veered too far left, and when the red meat guys on Patriot went over the edge.

This practice left me exhausted.  I find it difficult to listen to either now.  My sense of dread and fatalism tells me we made our bed, now it is time to lie in it.

So I've changed my listening habits (note to self:  buy new Teaching Company Courses, pass old ones to Mudge) and I've become a great fan of ESPN radio.  The thing I love about it is that there is the same KIND of conflict found in politics (for instance, whether Kobe Bryant's 30K points makes him one of the top 5 players of all time, or even the best Laker--or whether the Jets should start Sanchez, McElroy or Tebow)--accompanied by analysis of guys who really know their stuff.  What is MISSING from this equation is even an ounce of give a damn on my part.  I have no dog in these fights, and so I listen to them in bemusement, sometimes take a position based on whatever vestigial knowledge I have, but rarely, if ever, CARE.  It is delightful.  I am renewed. 

I find myself thinking that there must be a great number of Americans who look at politics the same exact way.  What lucky people they are.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

Surely there is something bothering you today, right?  What is it?  Get it off your chest...better in than out!

Obama's Strategy?

Yesterday Mitch McConnell tried to get a vote on the President's tax plan, the one Tim Geithner presented a few days ago. No dice said Harry Reid. In fact, the Democrats have shown no urgency in addressing the issue (crisis) apart from beating up on the Republicans. Poor Boehner is clueless, he still thinks the Democrats are interested in cutting a deal. This guy ain't the brightest bulb on the tree.

So, after hour of intense thought, pints upon pints of IPA and several major-league, premium stogies, I have concluded the Democrats actually want to "go over the cliff". There's just too much good stuff there in terms of tax hikes etc. to pass up. Now, in the spring, when the economy is in the tank and those who have a job see their paycheck shrink significantly, the Democrats will push "tax relief" for the middle-class (along with massive spending increases for "stimulus") to mitigate the Republican caused, politically motivated recession all designed to "sabotage" Obama's second term. It's a win win for team Obama!!

  

Dana Milbank is a Despicable Human Being

From his position as a Washington Post opinion writer, Dana Milbank puts forward a number of reliably lefty opinions.  Usually couched in disaffected snark, Milbank is one of the poseurs of our modern media who like to think that they skewer all sides equally.  Every now and then, Milbank will criticize a Democrat, but his bile is usually reserved for Republicans.  Nowhere has that bile been more on display than in his coverage of Mitt Romney over the past two years. Here's a link to a Google search of two words --"milbank" and "Romney".  Scan through the headlines and acquaint yourself with his uniformly negative view of Governor Romney. And then, read this. 

That's right.  After two years of almost consistently negative coverage of Mitt Romney, Presidential Candidate, Dana Milbank decides to take pot-shots at him for having the temerity to return to private life rather than wade into the current fiscal crisis debate.  Here's Milbank:  " But his failure to engage now, at a time when he could have the most clout, reinforces the impression that his candidacy was less about principle and patriotism than about him."  I'm sorry Mr. Milbank, but for two solid years at the highest level possible, Mitt Romney attempted to define a vision in which the fiscal crisis we currently face would be minimized through his policies.  HE was the guy in Iowa and New Hampshire in the cold, HE was the guy who got in the ring, HE was the guy who poured his heart and soul into his quest to help solve these problems as President.  And you know what?  We picked the other guy.  Not only did we pick the other guy, but we picked a guy who uniformly criticized virtually every single aspect of Romney's approach to economic stewardship.  Put another way, Romney and Obama represented one of the clearest choices offered American voters in since Reagan/Carter, and we chose Obama.  And all along the way, you aided and abetted that choice.

Now all of a sudden, Milbank would have Romney's service?  All of a sudden, Milbank has respect for Romney's capability and ideas?  All of a sudden, Milbank believes that a Democratic Party that savaged Romney's candidacy and ideology is going to embrace him as a visionary?

This is an execrable hit-piece.  And it is logically stupid.

Christmas Comes Early for Republicans

 

 

Debbie's sticking around for another term at the DNC. 

Hooray!

Robert Samuelson the Bad Faith of Democrats

The always readable Robert Samuelson had a column in the WaPost yesterday on something I've been talking about quite a bit around here.  To the extent that there is "income inequality" in this country, a good deal of it can be directly laid at the feet of redistributionist policies that take money from the young and productive and provide it to the old and sick.  Obviously, some of this is good and required...but it is out of kilter and contributing to the economic mess we move steadily toward.

Samuelson nails it here.  If Republicans are being asked to compromise on taxes and tax rates, Democrats will have to compromise on entitlements, including Social Security.  We can no longer afford as a nation to indulge ourselves in the fantasy that Social Security is not an entitlement. 

Republicans Should Embrace Simpson Bowles

I've seen some sharp Republican thinkers raise this as an option in the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, and I'm inclined to think it might be a smart idea.  It is smart for a couple of reasons, most of which are covered in this passage from the link:

"Simpson-Bowles, for all its faults, was conducted in an open and transparent manner and brought disparate political players into a room to forge a serious compromise. It overhauls and streamlines our byzantine tax code, takes some important first steps on entitlements, and reduces and caps federal spending. On substance, I’d wager that it would be considerably better than anything Obama and Boehner might produce after weeks of behind-closed-doors acrimony with the proverbial gun to their heads. Politically, it paints Democrats into a tough corner. Republicans could make a grand show of reluctantly supporting Simpson-Bowles for the betterment of the country. Ideally, the press conference would be led by Paul Ryan, who might explain why he voted against the plan as a commissioner, but is now willing to set aside some of his strong ideological preferences to move the nation forward. They would remind viewers that the proposal they’re now backing only exists because President Obama specifically and publicly asked for it. Plus, more Democrats than Republicans voted for it, including Harry Reid’s top lieutenant in the Senate. Put simply, Simpson-Bowles represents the very embodiment of bipartisan collaboration and problem solving — precisely the sort of thing “moderates,” the media, and the public are always demanding. It would be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to paint the plan as radical or draconian in light of the commission’s origins and participants. The GOP’s “party of no” problem would also be hugely diminished; after all, they would have just signed on to the president’s commission, with the previously recalcitrant Paul Ryan magnanimously leading the way. It would be fascinating to watch the president and his allies try to denounce and reject the very proposal he called for."

Best of all though, it would definitively reveal the tendentiousness of the President and his negotiating team, by forcing the Press to cover the clear difference between the "balance" of Simpson Bowles and the ridiculosity of the President's latest, unserious proposal ($900B in immediate tax increases, $600B in deferred tax increases, $400B in spending cuts sometime in the future....).

Paul Ryan voted against Simpson Bowles because it left healthcare/Obamacare off the table-something with which I have no problem.  That said, swallowing hard and voting for it now makes much more sense, now that the voting public declined its opportunity to rehash Obamacare by re-electing its architect.  Time to move on--for now--to fix the larger issues.  Come back to Obamacare when you have the votes to do so.