For the first time since the BCS  held its first "national championship" game after the 1998 season,  there won't be any bowl game that can realistically be portrayed as a "national championship" game. 

This year's game can only be considered as giving the University of Alabama an opportunity to avenge its loss against Louisiana State University(LSU).  The two schools can only play for the championship of the western division of the Southeast  Conference(SEC).   Alabama cannot even claim the championship of the SEC from a victory because that would require Alabama to defeat eastern division champion , the University of Georgia. 

LSU cannot prove it deserves a national championship by defeating a school it has already defeated, particularly a school that mostly defeated the same schools that LSU defeated.   LSU needs to defeat the champion of another conference in the championship game to prove it is the best team in the country

An Alabama victory would indicate the two schools are equal rather than that Alabama is the best because  they would each have one victory over the other.  A third game would be necessary to prove Alabama was the better team. In those sports in which the champion must win multiple games against the other team, the champion must win a majority of the games.

The SEC will be the big loser in the game because it will lose its undefeated record in the game regardless of which team wins.   Alabama and LSU are both undefeated in the so-called championship game. One of them will  lose that status.

The NCAA does allow a conference runner up to play the conference champion for the national basketball championship, but only after the challenger has defeated the other teams in its bracket to get into the championship game.

The NFL allows the runner up in a division to play the division winner in a conference championship but only after the runner up has defeated two other teams.  Two teams in the same division cannot play each other in the Super Bowl.  The Super Bowl participants must be from different conferences.

Those who suffer from the delusion that a computer or sports writers, etc can choose the best two teams ignore the  fact that it isn't unusual for  teams rated by writers or computers  to lose to teams that are rated lower.

It's time for people to realize that the claim that a BCS bowl game is for a national championship is just a public relations gimmick.    The only valid way to determine a national football champion is for teams to earn their way into a championship game by defeating other teams that aspire to be the national champion.

Determining a legitimate NCAA major college football champion wouldn't necessarily require extending the college football season longer than it is now with the phony BCS championship game.    There would need to be a way to get the number of teams playing for the championship down to 8 for a 3-round tournament which could include some of the existing bowl games.

With the ongoing  conference changes, the number of conferences could change in the next few years.  Champions from smaller conferences could play qualifying games after the end of the season, possibly the same weekend some of the large conferences have their championship games.  The extra game would provide money for the schools and their conferences.

The first round of the tournament could come just before Christmas or be part of the New Year's day bowl games.  Having the first round on New Year's would be especially attractive for the Big 10 and Pac 12 because it would allow their champions to play in the Rose Bowl and still participate in a championship tournament.

The college bowl games aren't nearly as important as they used to be.  Most of them are on cable because they don't attract sufficient advertising to be worth a bidding war among the broadcast networks like there is for the Super Bowl.

A true championship tournament could be as popular as the NCAA basketball tournament is.  At the very least the schools participating in the tournament would make money for themselves and their conferences.

In 1980 President Jimmy Carter was in trouble with voters because of economic conditions and the capture of the American embassy in Iran by students. Democrats decided to renominate him in spite of efforts by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Gov. Jerry Brown to replace him as the Democratic presidential candidate.   Gov. Ronald Reagan buried  Carter in a landslide.   Republicans also gained control of the Senate and picked up 34 House seats.

Democratic incumbent President Lyndon Johnson  was in trouble in  1968  because of  his handling of the Vietnam War.   Johnson wisely decided to drop out of the race after a  strong showing in the New Hampshire  primary by Sen. Eugene McCarthy and the entry of Sen. Robert Kennedy into the race.   Although the assassination of  Kennedy robbed Democrats  of their best candidate, they  nearly won anyway in a close popular vote.  They retained control of the House and Senate.

Obama may be an even weaker candidate than Carter was.  Unemployment in the Carter administration was only 7.5% compared to over 9% under Obama.  Many voters are very upset about Obama's health care program.  As in 1968 there are widespread student protests about a national policy. 

Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush were all voted out of office with unemployment around 7.5%.   President Ronald Reagan is the only post Depression president to win reelection with unemployment over 6%, but Reagan had gotten unemployment down to 7.4%  from 10%.   If Obama is the Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate will likely  suggest voters ask themselves Reagan's  question in 1980: "are you better off than you were four years ago."

Republicans have already taken control of the House under Obama and will likely take over the Senate if GOP candidates can run against Obama.   Replacing Obama as the presidential candidate would free Democrats challenging Republican incumbents in the House of the need to support Obama's policies.  Democrats could suggest that voters needed to change the House of Representatives as well as the White House.

Democrats who think the Republican candidates have too many problems need to review the 1992 election.  Their candidate in 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton,  won in spite of questions about how he avoided  military service and possible involvement in the White Water savings and loan scandal that eventually led to his impeachment.

Changes in filing deadlines mean those wanting to challenge Obama cannot wait as long to decide as  Bobby  Kennedy did in 1968.   A few  Democrats must decide quickly whether to challenge Obama or risk sitting by and watching Republicans choose the next president. 

If Democrats want to win next year's presidential election, they need a new candidate.   President Barack Obama has very little chance of being reelected  in the current economic situation because he is clueless  about how to deal with the economy. 

His so-called "jobs bill" is just more of the same approach that hasn't worked.  Then there is the ticking time bomb in the deficit proposal he foolishly agreed to.

The election  laws in 1968 allowed potential presidential challengers to wait until the primary season had begun to enter the race.  Sen. Robert Kennedy had the opportunity to reconsider his decision to not run for president in 1968 after it became obvious that fellow Democrat President Lyndon Johnson was unlikely to win reelection.   Kennedy decided to run after Johnson's poor showing in the New Hampshire primary running against largely unknown Sen. Eugene McCarthy.    Many of those who voted  for McCarthy  falsely believed that McCarthy, who opposed the War in Vietnam,  wanted a stronger war effort

Two weeks after Kennedy announced he would run, Johnson dropped out of the race because of the situation in Vietnam.

Kennedy was well on the way to winning the nomination when he was stopped by an assassin's bullet.  Had he won the nomination, it is very likely he would have defeated Republican candidate Richard Nixon.  The assassination of Kennedy caused the Democrats to nominate  Vice President Hubert Humphrey instead. 

Obama's consistently low approval ratings  indicate he has little chance of reelection.   Democrats shouldn't let themselves be misled by worthless public opinion polls showing how he would supposedly do against potential Republican candidates.  Most voters  aren't paying close attention to those running for the Republican nomination and their final decisions may be influenced by whatever ads the Republican candidate and private groups run next fall.

Democrats need a dynamic candidate who knows how to appeal to independent voters.  Considering the low opinion voters have of Congress, the strongest candidate would be someone from outside of Washington.

If evolutionists are correct that biological life developed through a process of gradual changes, then it is far more likely that  some type of Intelligence Designed life rather than that life  developed without any intelligent controls.

Development through gradual change is the process humans use to produce things from automobiles to literary works to computer programs.  The original automakers developed a simple vehicle with some type of motor, wheels, chassis, etc.  Subsequent engineers modified these various components to produce faster, more efficient and safer vehicles.

Two groups of True Believers  control the debate over the origin of life.  The Evolutionists believe that life could only have developed from one original cell through a slow process of gradual changes that was not controlled by any type of Intelligent Being.  Creationists believe that God created life and the only way God could have created life was to zap each individual species into existence fully developed. 

Creationists don't explain why God would go to the trouble of designing life that can develop from a microscopic sized cell to something the size of an elephant or whale and then initially make  each one fully developed instead of creating the cells and letting them develop in some nutrient rich medium.   A being capable of creating a universe would be  capable of  creating an environment in which individual cells could develop into  fully sized forms.

Nor do they explain where this belief comes from.  Genesis says for the various life forms that God commanded the  earth  to "bring forth"  and the earth "brought forth".   That does not indicate God  created each species separately.  It indicates He ordered the earth to produce various classes of life forms such as plants or fish.

Both groups misunderstand the concept of Intelligent Design.  The Intelligence wouldn't necessarily be the God of Abraham.  The Designer might be inhabitants of a distant planet who put the necessarily biological  products in  comets and sent them throughout the  galaxy. A Designer might have controlled the initial development of biological life and then allowed it to change without control.  The Designer probably would not have made the first member of each species fully developed as Creationists believe. 

Both Creation and Evolution involve ancient ideas.  Charles Darwin didn't invent the idea of one species becoming another, he merely tried to come up with an argument for it.  The ancient Tibetan religion went so far as to suggest that humans descended from monkeys.  Darwin only suggested that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

The biggest argument for Intelligent Design is the extremely sophisticated characteristics of  biological life, especially animal life.  Presumably intelligent humans have only recently developed the necessary knowledge to duplicate the ability of the  sophisticated audio input output "devices", video input devices, etc. possessed by animals. It seems unlikely such devices could just have happened to develop. 

The cell itself  can be described as a computer because, like a computer, when it receives an input, it checks its memory for the appropriate instruction and then executes that instruction.  Biologists  refer to the  bases  that make up the DNA molecule using four letters, but they can also be represented by "zeros" and "ones" like in a computer.  Each link in the DNA molecule consists of one set of bases or the other("0" or "1").  Within a link one member of the set or the  other ("0" or "1") is attached to a specific side.

One approach an Intelligent Designer might have been likely to have used would have been to create one cell to serve as a prototype. The Designer could then have added different modifications  to the daughter cells of that original cell. A Designer unaffected by time might periodically have changed the design of life forms for various reasons including being bored with the older life forms.  

An Intelligent Designer could have developed subsystems like eyes, hearts, etc. by making specific genetic changes, but  development of such  subsystems through random genetic changes would be mathematically improbable at best.

Evolutionists ignore the fact that an environment capable of producing one cell would almost certainly produce millions of cells that would probably have begun with subtle differences.  Such cells could have had the ability to produce different sets of DNA and then "share" DNA when one cell ate another.       

Creationists and Evolutionists would have more believable theories if they would switch one of  the components of their theories.  Creationists  should be claiming that God started with a single cell and developed different species from it.  Evolutionists should claim that different species developed from separate cells with the necessary DNA to produce animals with hearts, skeletons, etc. as the animal developed.   

Granting  United Nations membership  to the Palestinians would create a vary dangerous precedent.   The Palestinians aren't the only ethnic group that  desire to have their own country independent of the one in which they live.  Nor are they the only group that has used violence to try to gain independence.

The Kurds have long desired to set up a country they would call Kurdistan including land currently a part of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran.    If the U.N. grants membership to the Palestinians, shouldn't it also grant membership to Kurdistan?  The Kurds have their own culture and language. 

The Palestinians are a collection of Arab peoples who happen to live within the boundaries of the nation of Israel.   They are called Palestinians not because they have a unique culture like the Kurds, but because they aren't Jewish.  The term "Palestine" was used by the Romans to refer to a geographic region rather than any specific ethnic group.
 
Might the area of Chechnya also qualify for U.N. membership?  What about the Basque region of Spain?   Could Tibetans argue that they should have U.N. membership even though the Chinese currently occupy the country?

If the Palestinians should get their own country because they are Muslims, what about the Uighur Muslims in China?

Many other countries have groups that might want their own country if they thought it were possible, particularly in those areas of the world where European nations arbitrarily forced different ethnic groups to live in the same country.   Granting U.N. membership to the Palestinians would encourage  members of these groups to develop nationalist aspirations.

There is nothing special about the Palestinians.   Many groups of people would like to have their own nations.   The U.N. cannot arbitrarily grant membership to the Palestinians and ignore the aspirations of the Kurds, Basques, etc.  

Nations that are considering voting for Palestinian membership should make sure they don't have groups that might make a similar request.

Over the last several thousand years regions of the Middle East have been controlled by whatever ethnic groups have been strongest at the time.  Some groups such as the Persians and Assyrians have established empires.  Others such as the Israelites have been content to control only small areas.  The current situation in Israel has been occurred many times in the past  and will likely to be repeated  in one country or another in the future.

The U.N. should not attempt to arbitrarily adjust national boundaries or decide which groups should have their own  countries.  Many of the ethnic problems in Asia and Africa are due in part to the arbitrary national boundaries imposed by imperialistic European nations   If the Palestinians, Kurds or other groups want their own nations they should  handle their own situations rather  having the U.N. impose a solution from outside.

"She Spies" was an NBC show that aired from September, 2004, through May, 2004.    The show used a similar format to Aaron Spelling's 70's ABC series "Charlie's Angels".

Like "Charlie's Angels", "She Spies" featured three women with a male supervisor who battled  evil doers. 

There were three major differences.  The "Spies" worked for a government spy agency rather than a private detective agency like the "Angels".  The "Angels" had been "good girls" who had become bored with the job duties they had had as police officers. The "Spies" were bad girls who were let out of jail to work for the government.  The "Angels" used their wits and feminine charms to outsmart the evil doers.  The "Spies" used martial arts much like Emma Peel on the 60's series "The Avengers".

Oh, there is one other difference, at least to my eyes.  The "Angels" were much better looking than the "Spies".

The new "Charlie's Angels" involves the Townsend Detective Agency  like the original show and  Charlie  only communicates with his  Angels by phone  with a man named Bosley  serving as their immediate supervisor.    However, the new "Angels"  resemble the "She Spies"  more than the original "Angels".  

The new "Angels" are bad girls like the "Spies".  One had been a cop, but she was a "dirty cop".  They are martial arts experts like the "Spies".  

The first episodes of the two series have an interesting similarity.   One of the  "She Spies" was temporarily incapacited and they needed to bring in another "bad girl" from jail as a temporary replacement. On the new "Charlie's Angels" one of the "Angels" is murdered and they have to hire another bad girl, who was a friend of the woman who was killed, as a  replacement.

The  first episode  begins with the Angels kicking in a door and assaulting the kidnappers to rescue  a teen who has been kidnapped by sex traffickers.  Then as they are leaving the area one of the Angels is blown up in her car.

The woman who becomes the new Angel is suspected by the Angels of  killing their partner.  When they go to her boat to ask her about it, the bad guys start firing at the boat with a machine gun from a helicopter.   The show ends with them beating up the bad guy in charge of the kidnapping operation.

If the first episode indicates what the rest of the series will be like, ABC needs to switch the show to the last hour of prime time from the first hour.  The show is too violent for that time period.   The show time is strange considering that the nonviolent "Body of Proof" airs in the third hour of prime time.

The new "Charlie's Angels" isn't ABC's first  venture with women who are experts in martial arts.  ABC produced "the Avengers" and the short lived "Honey West" series in the 60's.  Both series are available on DVD and would be a  better choice for viewers even though "Honey West" was in black and white. The Diana Rigg (Emma Peel) episodes of "the Avengers"  are particularly worth watching and not just because TV Guide picked Diana Rigg as the sexiest woman of the first 50 years of television.  Even in black and white,  Anne Francis is sexier than any of the new "Charlie's Angels"

Martial arts fans have an opportunity to see the original martial arts master, Bruce Lee, in action as Kato in reruns of "Green Hornet" on YOUTV.

I'm getting tired of Republicans crying that the "poor" rich shouldn't  have to pay  any more of "their" money  in federal taxes.   Republicans falsely claim that allowing those with high incomes to pay lower taxes will result in creation of new jobs.

Perhaps that is the case with entrepreneurs like Donald Trump or the owners of small businesses. 

However, many, if not most, of  those with high incomes, including corporate CEO's,   work for someone else.   They aren't going to use any tax cut money to create new jobs at their employers' businesses.  Many corporate executives look for ways to reduce the number of people working at their companies so more money will be available to pay them.

How many high income people really deserve the income they receive?  The Wall Street executives who wrecked the companies they worked for certainly didn't deserve the large bonuses they received from President Barack Obama. 

In 2005,  federal prosecutors got a conviction of Westar CEO David Wittig and assistant Douglas Lake for looting the corporation to increase their own income.  However,  a Supreme Court  ruling favorable to corporate executives receiving questionable compensation caused the conviction to be overturned and prevented another successful prosecution.   Wittig had been previously convicted of a crooked loan scheme with a Topeka banker who increased Wittig's line of credit so Wittig could loan him money for a real estate venture.   

NBA Hall of Famer Dennis Rodman told Jay Leno recently that the NBA really needed to restructure its labor contract because many teams were paying players $20 million a year just to sit on the bench.  Fans sometimes complain that some highly paid athletes don't play like they deserve what they are being paid.

The Christian Science Monitor reported in 2010 that 30 private college presidents had incomes of over one million.   How can anyone justify paying a college president a million a year, particularly considering the high cost of college?  Millionaire college presidents aren't likely to use their "tax cut" money to create jobs.  If they were interested in creating new jobs they  would take lower salaries.

Some major colleges pay athletic coaches million dollar salaries as if they were profit making businesses rather than charitable organizations.    College coaches are unlikely to use any tax cut money to create new jobs.  They are in coaching to make as much money as they can. 

The sports programs they work for are preoccupied with making money.  Schools jump from conference to conference depending upon how much money they can make.  Congress needs to consider taxing major college sports programs like professional sports teams. At the very least Congress should eliminate  the practice of allowing tax deductible "contributions"  to major college sports programs. Tax deductions for payments to organizations should be eliminated to those organizations that exist to help others.  College sports programs exist to make a profit in the form of high pay for sports employees.      

Colleges aren't the only "charities" that help their executives and coaches get rich.  Some charities pay very high salaries to their top executives.   Many environmental organizations pay multiple executives over $200,000  per year. 

The Boys and Girls Clubs of America at one time was paying its CEO nearly a million in salary and benefits.  The March of Dimes CEO has received over $600,000 a year.

Actor Charlie Sheen might have used some of his tax cut money for some "fun dates" but not to create permanent jobs.   A few actors may finance their own movies and  touring singers may be responsible for paying band members and "roadies".   How many overpaid actors use tax cut money to hire anyone other than domestic staff for their mansions.

If income were based on one's contribution to the welfare of society, farm workers would be much better paid than entertainers.

If Republicans want to use the tax system to encourage business owners  to add jobs, Congress should allow deduction for any expenses, including equipment purchases, associated with hiring new employees.  This approach would reward those who hire new employees.  The Republican approach rewards those owners who don't hire new employees by allowing them to keep more of their incomes.  The Republican approach also rewards those who have no interest in using the income they receive from their employers to hire new workers.

Many high income Democrats use their tax cut money to finance Democratic candidates.

I learned about the 9/11 attack a little later than most people.  I worked second shift and usually got up around 10:30.

When the clock radio came on the announcer wasn't making much sense to a brain that wasn't completely awake.  He was saying something about the Pentagon and Vice President Cheney with the word "unprecedented" being mentioned.  I thought at first that something had happened to Cheney.

I went into the living room and turned on the television to one of the news channels.  With the frequent replays of the morning's events it took some time for me to determine what had already happened and what was happening at that time.

I was glad that ABC New Commentator Paul Harvey had returned to work by 9/11.  He had been off for an extended period due to a throat problem, but had returned in August. Harvey had a positive attitude and frequently reminded his listeners that whatever the situation was it wasn't as bad as it seemed.  He recognized that emphasizing the negative made the situation seem worse than it was.

I wasn't surprised that something like the 9/11 attack had happened.  I wasn't expecting anything  of that scale, but I was expecting more terrorist attacks such as those that had been happening against American interests elsewhere in the world

The media had been reporting lapses in airline security for some time, so I wasn't surprised that terrorists might hijack airplanes. There had been movies about  terrorists using aircraft in this manner.  I wouldn't have expected President George W. Bush to anticipate such a possibility but the people at the FBI  and the CIA should have.

U.S. support for the tyrant known as the Shah of Iran had led to an attack on the American embassy in Tehran after the Iranian people overthrew him. 

After I learned the identities of the suspected hijackers I realized I was right that the decision to base American forces in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War was a very bad idea.  Western nations, including the U.S.,  have been pushing around Middle Eastern countries for too long. 

The basing of American forces in what Muslims regard as their Holy Land may have been enough to push some Saudis over the edge and  provoke them to commit suicide by flying planes into various American buildings.  The U.S. had ignored the significance of a previous attack on American forces in Saudi Arabia.
 
The Saudi government might have welcomed American bases to protect them from Iraq, but may of their citizens viewed the bases as the home of an foreign occupation force.

American leaders often seem ignorant of the fact that members of other cultures sometimes view the world and military conflicts differently from Americans.  The failure to recognize this difference in viewpoint hampered the  U.S. war effort in Vietnam.    

I learned from one of the recent broadcast 9/11 related documentaries that Osama bin Laden had wanted the U.S. to invade Afghanistan because he believed the U.S. would lose.  Bin Laden  may not have contemplated a traditional military victory.  Instead of  a traditional victory he may have been thinking in terms of dragging out the fighting until Americans got tired of the battles and left like they did in Vietnam.  

North Vietnam never won a major battle in Vietnam until  two years after  American forces left.  The Tet offensive was not a communist victory because they couldn't keep any places they took and much of the Viet Cong was destroyed.  When the U.S. left Vietnam its allies were in charge of the government that controlled  South Vietnam which was the American goal in Vietnam.  However, the American media had previously decided the war was lost because it lasted so long.   

Bin Laden may have been hoping for a similar outcome.   Dragging out the fighting until Americans decided they couldn't "win" would allow him, or his successors, to claim they had defeated  the "Great Satan" and use the "victory" as a recruiting tool.

The 9/11 attack was the start of a war that is continuing.  We cannot afford to abandon  the war effort just because  the war appears to be endless. Americans often mistakenly claim that the Vietnam War was the nation's longest war. Actually Vietnam was merely a conflict within the long running Cold War, as was the Korean War.   America stood firm in the Cold War and eventually the enemy quit. 

We must continue to stand up to the terrorists because if we don't take the war to them, they may bring the war back to us.   One of the reasons the terrorists haven't launched another major attack on the U.S. is because they are busy fighting our army.    
        

I suspect that many Americans will ignore the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks unless they are reminded in a way they cannot ignore.

When people know they are in a  war they often  use sirens to warn when the enemy is attacking.  No sirens were sounded to warn of 9/11 because Americans didn't realize they were under attack until the attacks were over.  The only plane for which a warning was given was brought down by its heroic passengers before it could reach its target.

The anniversary of the 9/11 attacks provides an opportunity to remind Americans that  the fact  9/11 happened means not only that such an attack can happen, but it could happen again if we become as complacent as we were ten years ago.

 No sirens sounded on 9/11/2001, but we could sound sirens this year to remind Americans that we are still in danger of a potential attack. 

For those in the Eastern time zone, storm sirens would sound at the exact time of each plane crash.  In the Central time zone, cities might do like they do with television  and sound the sirens while they are sounding in the Eastern time zone.  Due to the early hour of the first attacks, sirens in the Mountain time zone and farther west, particularly in Alaska and Hawaii, might sound at the same time of day as  the attacks.  The Central time zone might want to consider  a similar approach.

In communities without storm sirens,  emergency vehicle sirens might be used.  Truck air horns could be used in place in rural areas where there aren't any emergency vehicles.  Church bells were often used to warn of danger in the past and could be used along with sirens or instead of sirens.  This action would be particularly appropriate considering the anniversary will be on Sunday.

In addition to, or instead of,  the sirens, the emergency alert system for radio and television might transmit a reminder at the time of each attack.  There were four crashes and we have four living former presidents. Perhaps each of them could remind people of one of the attacks.

I've been watching 9/11 documentaries the last week.  Some of them have mentioned the failure to recognize the significance of information indicating the attack threat even among those whose profession was to watch for such threats.   A national feeling that the continental U.S. was some how immune from any significant foreign attack may have prevented people at the FBI and CIA from recognizing the threat. 

These professionals had forgotten  that  a similar failure to recognize a potential threat had allowed the Japanese to pull off a highly successful surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.  There is a theory that President Franklin Roosevelt withheld intelligence information from Pearl Harbor commanders.  Commanders at Pearl Harbor should have recognized there was a threat of attack without inside information because there was a war on.

Terrorist attacks had occurred in other parts of the world before 9/11.  People at the FBI and CIA should have been watching for any signs that someone might attack America itself.

The fact that no major attack has happened since 2001 may be causing some to feel the problem of terrorist attacks has been solved.   Those who feel this way are ignoring the fact that the terrorists most likely to get away with such an attack have been busy fighting our military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq.  

Those attempting terrorist acts in the U.S. have been  individuals who don't have the ability of the 9/11 hijackers or those who have conducted terrorist acts outside the U.S.  Some would be local terrorists have been so careless they have made the mistake of letting undercover officers become a part of their conspiracies.

There are a couple of interesting 9/11 series currently running.  "Inside 9/11" on the National Geographic Channel is an investigative series.  "Rising: Rebuilding  Ground Zero" on the Discovery and Science channels  deals with replacing the World Trade Center.  The episodes "Reclaiming the Skyline" follows construction of the tallest new building. One of the iron workers the show focuses on  had a father who was injured building the original World Trade Center.
 

For 45 years watching The Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy Telethon was what millions of families did on Labor Day.  The Telethon was  to Labor Day what fireworks were to the 4th of July and a turkey dinner to Thanksgiving.

This year the Muscular Dystrophy  Association has decided to replace  this holiday tradition with a  television show  on Labor Day Eve.  The 6-hour program will still be called a telethon, but Jerry Lewis won't be there and  it won't be live for most viewers unless MDA has different programs for each time zone. The program will start at 6 P.M. local time in each time zone and end at midnight.  Perhaps even the Eastern Time Zone will get a taped broadcast.

I hope the new approach works, but I doubt that a 6-hour program can do what the event did. 

The old telethon was an event with activities throughout the day.   Families would turn the tv on when they got up to see how much money had been raised.  They would see if there were any  fund raising activities they wanted to participate in. Perhaps they would go to the Mall or take advantage of a special offer at a local restaurant.  

In some homes kids  would tell their parents "I want to go out and collect money for Jerry's Kids."  After they collected the money their parents would take them to the tv station or other location to turn the money in and possibly be seen on television while they were doing it.

Many of today's parents had celebrated Labor Day in this manner since they were kids.

The daytime format allowed for people to participate in more fund raising events.   The new format  will limit the number of outside fund raising events because the program is so late in the day.  Most of the program will be on after dark, making it difficult for people to decide what events to attend with their children.  By the time they learn of the events on the program, it may be too late to get to the event and back home.   It's unlikely children will be able to go out and collect money to take to the station.     
 
A major advantage of the old time choice was that people who worked during the day didn't regularly watch any daytime programs so they didn't have to miss a favorite program to watch the telethon.   This year's prime time program will have to convince viewers of regular programs like "60 Minutes" to watch the telethon instead.  Other competition includes "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and, for Texans, a football game between Southern Methodist University and Texas A & M.

Many potential viewers attend church services on Sunday evening or engage in other evening activities.   I  suspect one reason the old telethon got so many pledges late in the telethon was due to those who had spent the weekend at the lake or beach returning home on Monday afternoon.   People who are at the lake Sunday evening probably won't watch the telethon although they might record it.

The decision to go with a prime time variety show ignores the fate of prime time variety shows.  They have trouble attracting viewers unless the show includes a contest like "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars".  Even Jay Leno couldn't attract viewers in prime time.  The telethon used to start in prime time on Sunday night, but, at least on WGN and  KAKE (Wichita), the start had been broadcast on a delayed basis.

Although the stars listed on the website can qualify as superstars, even superstars have trouble attracting a broad audience in today's musical entertainment world which makes it difficult for variety shows to attract a large prime time audience. .   The musical world is fractured into various genres.  Paul McCartney is one of the few superstars left from the 60's when many singers had a broad popular appeal.   Most who could appeal to a variety of audiences, like Johnny Cash and Ray Charles, are dead.  

I don't know about other viewers, but one aspect I liked about the old long telethon was the opportunity to see performers who weren't likely to appear on other shows.   We had the  opportunity to hear or see new performers as well as the established performers.

For many of  us the stars weren't the only reason to watch the old telethon.   Those with MD who appeared over several years became like neighbors or members of  the family.  I remember a couple of kids on the Wichita telethon with a non-fatal form of MD who grew up in front of our eyes.   I watch the WGN satellite station as well as the Wichita station  to keep up with Romania's "perfect 10" gymnast Nadia Comaneci and her husband, American gymnast Bart Conner.

A major advantage of the old live format was the ability to show how much money had been raised. People could watch the amount build.   That won't be possible with the new format because the show will be ending in the Eastern Time Zone long before it does in the Pacific Time Zone.  One possible reason for late donations on the old telethon was due to concern it  might not raise as much as the previous year and potential donors didn't want to disappoint Jerry.      
  
The MDA Telethon became a national institution in large part because  Jerry Lewis was one of the greatest entertainers of the mid-20th Century.  Jamie Foxx is the only younger performer who is currently in the same class as Lewis, although some others might eventually achieve that status.

MDA would have been much better off if Lewis had headed the first program in the new format.  Many would have watched just to see his last MDA appearance.  Some would have donated more to provide him with a  good send off.   The failure to explain why Lewis isn't going to be on this year is likely to cause some to skip this year's telethon because many assume the worst when explanations aren't provided.

I suppose it's too late for local stations to decide to go ahead and have a local Labor Day telethon without the benefit of a national show, but if they can do so they should try to.   Alternatively, they should consider starting their telethons early in the afternoon to encourage people to participate in fundraising events.

Local stations will have to do extensive advertising that emphasizes the new time.  Regular viewers may ignore reminders to watch the show if the ads don't prominently state the show will be on Sunday night instead of being a Monday telethon. Frequent stories on newscasts would be desirable.  Many viewers may not discover the new time until they turn the tv on late on Sunday night.  Some who go to bed early on Sunday night may get up Monday morning and wonder why they can't find the telethon.  

Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating appears justified because of the inadequacy of  the U.S. response to the debt issue.  Allowing the U.S. to keep the top rating would falsely indicate the U.S.  is doing the best it can to correct its debt problem.   American voters are choosing politicians who lack the ability or willingness to deal realistically with the U.S. debt problem.
 
I waited to write about Standard and Poor's  decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating because I wanted to think about it for awhile instead of taking a knee jerk reaction.  

Dealing with a major crisis requires a strong experienced president.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama is the weakest president since Gerald Ford.  Obama's only apparent skill is an ability to read a teleprompter.

A smart president would have recognized he couldn't change the minds of House members and ended the debate early  so he could prepare for a return match later.

Obama won the election because neither the  voters nor the media understand the qualifications for an effective president.   The President is the chief executive officer of the most powerful country in the world.  Electing an president without executive experience makes no more sense then asking a high school quarterback to play quarterback in the Super Bowl.

Too many voters will support someone who promises to do "this, that and the other thing" even though the candidate has never demonstrated an ability to deliver on his promises.   It's easy to make promises, but delivering on those promises can be difficult.  Any quarterback can say he will win the Super Bowl, but very few are capable of doing so.

Unfortunately,  many Republicans want to make the same mistake the Democrats did.   These Republicans support Michele Bachmann who is just as inexperienced and unprepared for the presidency as Obama was.

The deficit debate was  what we used to call the game of chicken.  Two cars would approach each other in the same lane. The driver who veered off first was "chicken".  Both sides seemed more interested in  scoring political points than in  conducting a serious discussion of the issue.  They reminded me of the old beer commercials in which one side yelled "less filling" and the other side yelled "great taste".

One editorial cartoonist suggested  the old Looney Tunes cartoon  debate in which Daffy Duck says "Rabbit Season" and Bugs Bunny says "Duck Season".  Bugs eventually gets Daffy to say "Duck Season", but Obama doesn't have Bugs Bunny's ability.  

Too many members of Congress are either incapable of understanding the nature of the deficit crisis or don't care about dealing with the deficit in a realistic manner.    Fixing the deficit will require  an increase in revenue, preferably a tax on those with surplus income. 

Cutting spending won't reduce the deficit as much as some expect because the federal government gets a kickback in the form of Social Security and income taxes from those it employs or  from businesses government, and its employees,  purchases from.  Money given to welfare recipients  goes to those they purchase goods and services from who in turn pay taxes.

If unemployment increases due to spending cuts, the next Congress may feel it needs to spend even more borrowed money to stimulate the economy.   

Republicans and their supporters seem incapable of understanding the fact that it is not the amount of money someone has, but the financial status of the United States that is important. The financial health of the U.S. determines what its money is worth.   For the rich, taxes are an investment in the financial health of the United States.   Reducing the deficit would improve the financial health of the U.S. and make the money the rich have worth more. 

There is a danger if the "rich" have too much money.  Money can be addictive.  As people obtain a certain amount of money  they start wanting more and more.   Like alcoholics they need more and more money to be satisfied.  

When the "rich" obtain too much money  a boom psychology can develop in which investors ignore the possibility of risk. They don't think they can lose money.  They may think the stock market can only go up as many believed in the 20's.

The crisis of 2008 occurred because the rich had too much money and had bid stock prices up too high because too many expected everything to go up "forever".  Many invested money in garbage like mortgage derivatives or gave it to crooks like Bernie Madoff who promised to make them even richer.  If they had invested it in taxes, the country's financial health would be better today and many of them wouldn't have lost so much.

 Talk about defaulting on debts incurred in the past  raises concerns that the U.S. might default on newer debts.  Those who started working  40 some years ago were told the Social Security taxes they were paying were for a pension program. They were loaning money to the federal government in return for a promise to provide them with retirement income.   Congress may have handled Social Security funds like the program was a Ponzi scheme, but "investors" (Social Security taxpayers) were told they were investing in a pension plan.

Social Security and Medicare are debts, not entitlements.  Benefits go to those who have paid in advance for them. 

If the current Congress decides to default on the promise of Social Security payments to those who will be retiring in the next few years because the program was poorly administered by previous Congresses, how can those who purchase U.S. government securities today be sure that a future Congress won't decide to default on that debt because Congress in 2011 was not borrowing responsibly.

Have those debating raising  the debt limit forgotten we are involved in the War on Terror which began  nearly 10 years?  A U.S. default on its debt would cause more damage to the U.S. than any terrorist action al Qaeda is likely to attempt.   If the U.S. defaults, al Qaeda could claim a major victory  by arguing that the U.S. war against al Qaeda forced  the country into bankruptcy.

President Barack Obama as Commander in Chief  has the duty and power to protect the U.S. from enemy threats including financial instability resulting in part from the need for military spending.   The U.S. won the Cold War  because of the Soviet Union's economic problems rather than from military action.

Al Qaeda can claim that the Soviet Union's economic problems were due in part to its conflict with Muslims in Afghanistan.  If the U.S. defaults while spending large sums fighting al Qaeda, the organization could convince more Muslims that it can take over the world by wearing down powerful nations.
 
If Congress cannot agree on raising the debt limit, Obama will have to do it unilaterally, although preferably with support from at least some congressional Democrats.  A Senate resolution urging action would be especially helpful.

The budget process contains a major flaw in that Congress simply appropriates money and leaves it up to the president to decide how much needs to be borrowed and which appropriations should be paid with borrowed money.  The budget should explicitly state how much is to be borrowed in a given year and what the borrowed money is to cover.

If Obama wants some specific authorization to act, the 14th  Amendment can be interpreted as giving the president specific authority to raise the debt limit.
 
If the 14th Amendment can be interpreted at one time to have allowed racially segregated schools and later to prohibit them, then the line about debts can be interpreted as allowing the president to ignore any "debt ceiling" law.  In case of a conflict between American laws the most recent law is considered valid.  If Congress sets a debt ceiling and then appropriates more money than revenue can cover,  the president can consider the subsequent appropriation to over ride the debt ceiling law.  Congress incurs the debt when it promises the money and the president is obligated to pay the debt regardless of what the debt ceiling might be.
 
One of the advantages of having a President is that a President can act  when Congress cannot which means that the nation is not paralyzed just because Congress is.

Presidents take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" whose goal is to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."  If Obama allows the U.S. to suffer economic calamity by failing to raise the debt limit he will have failed to fulfill that oath.

A president's need to fulfill his oath may sometimes require him to take actions that lack specific constitutional authorization.               
 
President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase even though he doubted he had  the constitutional authority to do so.    President Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves of Confederates even though he realized he had no constitutional authority to do so.

It could be argued that President Harry Truman infringed on congressional powers when he integrated the armed forces, as did President Bill Clinton when he implemented his "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military.

The U.S. cannot afford to default on its debts.  If Congress cannot deal with the situation in time, President must act to protect the nation and its Constitution from an economic calamity that could undermine the economy and the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, President Dunsel appears to be afraid to act. [For non-Trekkies, "dunsel" is a term used by midshipmen at Star Fleet Academy to describe a part with no useful purpose.]  News reports indicate he's concerned about legal technicalities.   

Why  is international lawbreaker Obama concerned about some minor legal questions?  No matter how laudable the elimination of Osama bin Laden might have been, Obama's decision to send an assassination team into another sovereign nation without that nation's permission violated  international law and the laws of Pakistan.    He and members of the assassination team could be prosecuted for war crimes at some future date.

Maybe he doesn't understand the political facts of economic calamities.  If default occurs, his political career will be over.  In today's political climate he might be impeached and some Senate Democrats may vote guilty to insure he isn't on next  year's ballot. 

Republicans might complain if he raises the debt ceiling, but they won't have public support.  Preventing default might not be as popular as killing bin Laden, but he would win support for taking strong decisive action to prevent a disaster.

Perhaps members of Congress have forgotten that we are a nation at war.  We cannot afford to have  the children on Capitol Hill playing silly political budget games while American lives are at risk in war zones and there are occasional attempts to conduct terrorist operations in America.

Republicans oppose tax increases for higher income groups because Republicans suffer from the delusion that the group consists solely of small business owners.  Many in the higher income group do not own small businesses and thus are not going to reduce hiring if their taxes go up or increase hiring if taxes are reduced.

Minimum wage dishwashers pay  a Social Security tax.  Business executives should be able to pay a tax on their income above  some amount (for example,  $200,000).  This tax could be imposed as a temporary tax until the deficit is eliminated and the country begins paying off its debt. 

The tax would be paid on gross income like the Social Security tax.  Executives of "non profit" organizations would be subject to the tax as well as executives of  for profit organizations.

Business owners wouldn't be subject to the tax.  It would be limited to those who are employed by others, including the highly paid "employees" of sports teams and television and movie production companies.  I doubt that Charlie Sheen will cut back on his female companionship and drug use if he has to pay a few more dollars in taxes.

Business executives aren't going to invest their money in new equipment for their employers even if they don't pay any income taxes.   Raising their taxes won't keep them from creating jobs as Republicans claim is the case with business owners.  Raising their taxes would help reduce the federal deficit. 

President Barack Obama calls tax provisions allowing companies to deduct the cost of aircraft are "loopholes" even though allowing companies to deduct the cost of new equipment creates jobs in other businesses particularly in American businesses as is the case with most aircraft purchases.

If Obama wants to eliminate loopholes he should eliminate the ability of corporations to deduct the full cost of the salaries of their highly paid executives when figuring taxes.  Government might allow a deduction only for the first $200,000 of each executive's pay when determining profit.  Alternatively,  government might allow deduction of executive salaries when determining profit, but impose a  special tax on  executive pay  comparable to the Social Security tax.  

Corporate income has traditionally been viewed in terms of profits which are the stockholders' income.  However, the corporation is more than stockholders.   Its financial beneficiaries include the people the corporation pays, particularly executives who can receive huge incomes even if the stockholders receive no incomes from the corporation.       

Companies already pay taxes on their hourly employees through the Social Security system.  Why should executive salaries get a tax break?  Perhaps this tax provision could be temporary depending upon the size of the deficit.

Congress should replace the capital gains tax associated with stock and commodities trading with a transaction tax.   Such a tax would provide a more predictable source of revenue and simplify tax collection while facilitating a tax increase during periods of high trading.  There would be no provision for a capital loss deduction on stocks held less than a period of years.   This change would not effect  the number of jobs.    The stock market in recent decades has at times been more of a gambling device than an investment facility.

The markets might drop briefly when the tax is implemented, but the markets would quickly adjust to the new cost and then ignore it.

Congress should increase the tax on casino gambling revenue and winnings.  Congress should eliminate any deduction for casino and race track gambling losses on visits when losses are greater than wins.  Increases in these taxes won't impact jobs.  Most people visit casinos for entertainment rather than income.

Cutting spending without adversely impacting the economy isn't as easy as Republicans believe.   For example, cutting Department of Defense purchases of equipment would mean the companies that produced the equipment would have to lay off workers.  Most Social Security recipients spend all the money they receive.  Cutting benefits would reduce their purchases  forcing layoffs  in businesses that recipients purchase goods and services from.

Major cuts will require Congress taking the time to evaluate each program to determine how to cut spending without cutting jobs in the private sector.   Some programs could be dropped because the private sector could take over financing. Until that happens Congress shouldn't  start any new funding programs and should delay the implementation of  major health care changes such as Obamacare until the deficit is under control.

Groups like Planned Parenthood could be financed by private donations if there is sufficient support in the private sector.  Programming for the Public Broadcast system could be financed by donations or by giving  commercial stations the option of  broadcasting a broader range of programming or providing programming to PBS.
 
Many of those who study climate claim that climate science is settled.  Thus there is no reason to continue spending tax money on climate research.  The only reason to spend tax money on science research is to learn something new. 

Since the days of Senator William Proxmire politicians and journalists have often ridiculed some federally funded "science" research.  Many of these projects may have been legitimate topics of research, but there was no real reason for the federal government to borrow money to fund them.  Congress should consider a moratorium on science research until it can  establish guidelines for what can be funded.

Congress should immediately end all funding for operations in Libya.  If the Europeans want to spend money taking control of Libyan oil they should spend their own money.  Bombing campaigns are notoriously ineffective in causing countries to surrender.  Many historians believe even the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WWII were not responsible for Japan's surrender because the government was about to surrender anyway.

The most important principle taught in the graduate business economics course I took at the University of Kansas is:  "There is no free lunch."

Many wealthy Republicans either don't  understand that "you can't get something for nothing" or don't understand how the value of their assets depends upon the federal government providing them with a safe and financially stable environment in which to make their fortunes.

The term "free lunch" comes from the practice of some nineteenth century bars placing a "free lunch" on the bar for those who purchased drinks that might have a higher price than at other bars or be watered down.  The meats were usually heavily salted to protect against spoilage which could induce patrons to purchase more overpriced drinks. 

The founding fathers recognized that a federal government was necessary to their economic well being.  Modern Republicans  don't understand the need  for a financially healthy federal government.

Americans don't get rich solely through their own efforts, but by taking advantage of opportunities and protections within the economic system managed by government.  

For example, the federal government helps finance new technology such as computers.  Government protects companies that invest in new inventions by preventing competitors from copying the technology without payment.

Government provides businesses with educated employees and protects against foreign and domestic sources of violence.  

One of the most important purely economic actions of the federal government is maintaining the integrity of the money supply.  Effective commerce requires that everyone have confidence in whatever is used as "money" particularly when the "money" is stored in computers and transferred from computer to computer.

The federal deficit poses a major threat to the integrity of America's money.  Wealthy anti-tax Republicans don't understand that a federal default would reduce their wealth more than a slight tax increase would.  What is important is not the amount of dollars and other assets that one owns but the value of those dollars and other assets.

Allowing a default would be the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet or burning it in the fireplace.

Wealth lost through default would be gone forever.   Money invested as taxes would eventually come back to those paying increased taxes.

For higher income individuals taxes are a form of investment.  Individual businesses invest in government to finance those amenities  such as roads and airports that  all businesses share as well as financing other activities such as national defense.  Businesses get a return on the investment by taking advantage of the economic environment provided by government.    

Biologists talk about the food chain and how very small plants and animals become the food for small animals  which are then food for increasingly larger animals.  If something happens to the small life forms the larger animals will eventually have trouble finding food.  

The economy has what might be called a money chain.  Those at the bottom of the chain pay their money to individuals and businesses in exchange for goods and services.   These individuals and businesses then purchase from those higher up on the money chain.

Some wealthy anti-tax Republicans don't understand that cutting Social Security payments to reduce the deficit would reduce their income.   Most Social Security recipients spend everything they get.  If their benefits are reduced they will buy less.  Some companies they purchase goods and services from may have to lay people off to cut costs.  The result would be less money moving up the money chain to those on top.

 The collapse of Wall Street a few years ago occurred because the rich had too much money.  They had trouble finding enough real assets to invest in so they bid stock prices up too high and then began investing in garbage like mortgage derivatives.

One of the my favorite things on Jay Leno's Tonight show is the Jaywalking segment when  he has  people on the street demonstrate what they don't know.   Those with the worst answers can win  an opportunity to compete as a Jaywalk All Stars.

When it comes to understanding America's legal system, Jay would easily make it as a Jaywalk All Star.

What Jay and other jury bashers don't understand is that American law prohibits a jury from finding a defendant guilty unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jurors are required to base their decisions on  the evidence presented in court and prohibited from seeking the opinion of talk show nitwits about  how they should vote.   Those who know too much about the case  before the trial or have formed opinions about the case are not supposed to serve on the jury.

The jurors who voted "not guilty" in the Casey Anthony trial were doing what the law required them to do as were the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial.

The prosecution claimed that Casey Anthony deliberately used duct tape to smother her daughter Caylee, yet failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that  Caylee died from being smothered by duct tape.  That failure to prove how Caylee died meant there was reasonable doubt about Casey deliberately killing her daughter and the law required the jury to vote "not guilty" regardless of what jurors might have wanted to do.  

In the O.J. Simpson  trial the prosecution  claimed that the killer wore  a certain pair of gloves.  When those gloves were shown to be too small for O.J., that meant there was reasonable doubt that O.J. was the killer.  As Johnnie Cochran pointed out in rhyme "if it doesn't fit, you must [by law] acquit."

Jay sometimes refers to the Robert Blake case while ignoring the fact that the prosecution failed to connect Blake to the murder weapon.  That failure meant that someone else could have pulled the trigger and thus there was reasonable doubt that Blake committed the crime.

Those who rely on the media for information about criminal cases fail to understand that in the early stages of an investigation the government has a monopoly on releasing information and can make all sorts of claims that cannot be substantiated. Some information may be provided by government officials who don't really know anything and are passing along what is essentially office gossip.  That is why people should be skeptical of any crime related information from unnamed sources.  An unnamed source may want to remain anonymous because he or she is lying.

Members of media lynch mobs continue to operate on the assumption that the original information was true regardless of what may be admitted in the trial.   They have already decided that the accused is "guilty, guilty, guilty" and they won't let new facts changes their minds.

I don't recall most of the false information about the Simpson murder case but I do recall one of the most glaring overstatements.  LAPD had claimed that "there was blood all over the place" in O.J.'s residence.  However, in court they were forced to admit that "blood all over the place" meant one blood drop here, another over there and still another way over there.