Obama Continually "Plays Dumb" as a Defense Mechanism

I'm not going to dress this up, or even have an intro leading up to this point, I'm just going to come out and say it: I am bothered by Barack Obama's ability to "play dumb" any time there is some sort of scandal that arrives with someone either close to him, or that he has associated with in the past.

The most recent string of not knowing is in regards to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. As can be seen in this article from Bloomberg.com, Obama states “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening."

Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe he is just avoiding it. However, Obama senior advisor David Axelrod states in a Fox News interview on November 23, 2008 that Obama had been in contact with the Governor (see this article from ABC News). Then the Obama camp says that Axelrod "mispoke" in regards to any conversation ever taking place between Obama and Blagojevich. I am sick and tired of these people saying one thing until problems arise and then immediately denying or denouncing anything that was said in the past.

It's also funny that magically, Tony Rezko's name seems to pop up once again in this scandal involving the Illinois Governor. There is another questionable Barry association that may or may not be linked to Obama, but people are just passing it off as if it's nothing.

How many associations does Barry have to continually cover up? When it was Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama claimed that he was never aware of any controversial teachings or sayings going on in that Chicago church which he attended for 20 years. (See this article from ABC News to reference, or just do a google search on the subject).

In regards to Bill Ayers, the story has changed numerous times...from a guy who just lived in the neighborhood, to just two guys serving on a community education board together, to even Ayers saying that Obama is a close family friend. There was a list posted from the AP in regards to Obama's questionable associations that mentions Bill Ayers and references when he said they hardly knew each other. Well? Which is it?

My point is that it seems very troublesome to me that Barry Obama continually just has no clue what's going on around him while he's in Chicago. If this guy is so unaware of everything that's going on in a city of around 2.9 million people, how in God's name am I supposed to hope that he will be able to effectively run the country? In regards to National Security, you can't just "not know" or be "unaware" of things going on in the world. You have to be one hundred percent on top of your game.

Once again, it seems as if there is stuff right in front of the American public's face, but the right questions are not being asked. How much more stuff does this guy have to be unaware of? Will he ever own up to knowing anything?

Now, I understand the Obama-maniacs will just dismiss this off as junk conversation, as their savior can do no wrong. However, I have said before (as you can find in earlier blogs on this site) that Obama's associations should without a doubt be questioned. I am not surprised at what's going on in the news, just saddened by the entire thing.

Playing dumb can only get you so far, eventually you will have to own up to your actions and associations - no matter who you are.

-The Rocker-

A Day without Responsibility is More of an Accurate Representation.

So, I have decided to ignore this issue for a long time, because in my mind, there are way more important things going on in the world. Currently, there are riots in Greece, a Governer of Illinois under arrest, tensions in the middle east, Russia's dealings with Chavez and other dictators...you name it, and there's a lot more worldly events going on.

However, I am finally so irritated by this issue, that I have to mention something about it. I don't want to dwell on it, I don't want to keep discussing it, but I think that something needs to be said.

The Associated Press reports that there is a movement to call in to work this Wednesday if you are gay. I find this idea not only lacking in common sense, but just overall irritating.

For starters, all of the mess of protests with people over Prop 8 should have ended when the bill was voted on. In the true democratic fashion, the issue was proposed, and voted upon, and all is said and done. For example - I am not happy that Barack Obama got elected. I will be crticial of his administration and I will have a watchful eye on the government, but I am not calling for his removal from office, or a recount of the vote or anything of the sort. So let's get that clear - it's time for the gay community to stop bitching about this.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying whether I agree with Prop 8 one way or another. Like I said, it's low on my priority list. If I remember correctly, in the state of California, domestic partnerships are still allowed - just not marriage. In essence, if you really want to look at it, marriage is a thing that typically takes place in the church, and I don't think at any time any church is going to change its stance on gay marriage.

Now, let's adress this idea of "A Day without A Gay." The economy is currently in hard times, and from any office I have been to or worked in, there hasn't ever been some sort of open discussion relating to whether or not anyone in the office is gay or not. Hell, even in my band we have a gay member (I won't say who), and it wasn't or never has been an issue. The point is that you should be keeping your personal life at home, and your work while in the office. The people who are really going to suffer from this sort of "protest" are the employer. The person who has given these individuals jobs, and let them come work for them. It can't be an issue with the employer if all of these people are currently employed. So, all they are doing is being irresponsible and hurting the business - a business in which they aren't persecuted in if they are currently employed.

Let me put it in these terms: it is not responsible under any fashion to just skip out on a day to work. For example, if we are playing a show or are on tour, myself, other band members, and management are not going to tolerate someone skipping out "just because," or for any reason that is against anything signed in a contract or against the good will for the band. A band is a business. You come to work, you do your job, and you make sure to help the sucess of all that are involved, including yourself. The same principles hold true in any workplace as well. Home and work are two seperate entities.

So, this is why I am speaking about this issue. I find it irritating, and very irresponsible. I will commend the organizer, Sean Hetherington for at least telling high school kids not to skip school and college students not to skip their exams. This shows at least some form of responsibility and that he is at least pondering the impact of how this may affect people's lives.

However, people are responsible for their own decisions, and nobody should complain if you are in trouble for a no-call-no-show to the office, restaurant, store, or wherever you may work. Keep in mind before you call into work that there are plenty of other hardworking Americans who are out of work right now and would love to be employed. It is okay to protest, it is okay to voice your opinion on a matter, but if you aren't doing it with any degree of civility or regards to those around you, then you aren't making the right kind of political statement at all.

-The Rocker-

RE: Sean Avery's Suspension - Restriction of Free Speech, NHL Publicity Stunt, or Justified Offense?

I am a lifelong Dallas Stars fan. I was happy when the Stars signed Sean Avery because he is a talented hockey player. I thought that the Stars had the leadership on the team from the coach and the veteran players to be able to handle Sean Avery. I was wrong. The team that did very well last year is playing like a different team this year, and the most obvious change is the addition of a player with a cancerous attitude. For that reason alone I would fire him.

As for the remarks that Sean Avery made. As previously discussed, I can not stand disrespect. It is my number one irritant. Sean Avery was extremely disrespectful to his ex-girlfriend and Dion Phaneuf. This is not what I would consider trash-talking. Trash-talking is saying that Dion Phaneuf is a weak player or that he has the first name of a Hannah Montana fan. Delving into the personal relationship of a player and his girlfriend is the same reprehensible disrespect as mocking the pregnancy of a Vice-Presidential candidate's 17-year old daughter. I feel a strong need to put a crowbar in between something like this and trash-talking. I played sports my whole life. I know that in the heat of competition that people talk about mom's, wives, girlfriends, and about anything that can be imagined. In my opinion, there is a difference between two athletes yelling these things during competition and one athlete bringing it up to the media outside of competition. It is similar to the differences between slander and satire. Sean Avery was not talking trash, he was disrespecting two people by discussing their personal relationship with the media.

As for the question of where we draw the line when it comes to people speaking their mind freely, that line is where Sean Avery signed his name to play for the Dallas Stars and the National Hockey League. Free speech is about the government preventing you from speaking your mind, but it has nothing to do with your employer. If one of the people that works in my bank says something that I feel is detrimental to my business, then I will punish them. Sean Avery is employed by the NHL and the Stars, they can terminate his employment as per his contract. And that is that. The NHL felt that Sean Avery's statement was bad for the image of the league and outside the realm of behavior they are willing to accept, so they punished him. Try telling the customers of the business that you work for that another employee enjoys picking up your "sloppy seconds", let some of the customers complain to your boss about what you said, and see what happens.

I think the indefinite suspension was a rare smart move by the NHL front office. They did not know how to punish Avery (mostly because they didn't know exactly how upset their sponsors would be) so they suspended him indefintely and set a date to review the suspension. So basically, they have for sure suspended him for 2 games (one of which was the Flames game he would have been killed in, which would have been bad for the league image) and gave themselves enough time to gauge the reaction to the comments so they could set an appropriate punishment. This was a smart move. Now the league can talk to Avery and hand out a punishment in accordance to how the situation has played out over the last couple of days.

I do agree entirely with the Rocker that as a society, Americans have become far too sensitive to things. Political correctness is a violation of our freedom of speech. While Avery can say whatever he wants, as long as he does not work for the NHL, the average American can not escape the prosecution of political correctness without removing himself from the society completely. I do think it is important that we act with respect for one another, but we must also keep the expectation of respect within reason. I say Merry Christmas because I celebrate Christmas, not because I am disrespecting the other holidays (or people that do not celebrate at all). But the politically correct thing to say is Happy Holidays and in some cases I would be chastised for saying Merry Christmas. That is a violation of my freedom to exercise my faith and express myself by select members of society.

Luckily, politically correct on this blog only means that you vote Republican, which is the correct thing to do politically.

-The Banker-

Sean Avery's Suspension - Restriction of Free Speech, NHL Publicity Stunt, or Justified Offense?

So, there's a few things about me that are just common fact:

a). I love music
b). I love politics
c). I love hockey

These are three of the main components to the genetic makeup of The Rocker. Now, not only do I love hockey, but my team is (and always will be) the Dallas Stars. So, while it totally doesn't fit in with the theme of the last few months, i'm going to leave Libs and Conservatives aside and analyze what is currently going on with Dallas Stars winger Sean Avery. You know, this guy:



Now, in case you don't pay attention to hockey, or are wondering "why in the hell is the rocker talking about Sean Avery," it's because he was recently suspended indefinitely for his remarks to TSN before Tuesday's game against Calgary. According to various news outlets, Avery's comments were as follows:

"I'm really happy to be back in Calgary, I love Canada. I just want to comment on how it's become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds. I don't know what that's about, but enjoy the game tonight."

The "sloppy seconds" Avery is referring to is most likely ex-girlfriend Elisha Cuthbert, who currently is dating Calgary Flames defenseman Dion Phaneuf. Apparently, this results in an indefinte suspension for Mr. Avery, pending a hearing on Thursday Dec. 4 with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. The question I have to ask is this: are they really serious?

Now, without a question, Sean Avery's comments are inappropriate. He is a public figure, and should know better than to get on camera and say something like that. However, he has been known as an antagonist, so this should come as no big surprise. What bothers me the most is that it's just trash talking. I find it really hard to believe that a guy like Todd Bertuzzi can maliciously slam someone's face into the ice and still be able to play hockey, yet Avery runs his mouth and is in huge trouble with the NHL. The National Hockey League is looking at everything under NHL By-Law 17 and Article 6 of the NHL Constitution, which basically states that his actions are inappropriate to the game.

My problem with this is that the punishment seems a little harsh. At what point do we draw the line when it comes with people's speech and actions? At what point is it not okay for people to speak their mind freely? Avery should be reprimanded in some fashion for acting like a child, but I don't think he should be banished from the game. This is where the "publicity stunt" theory comes into play. In the US, it's no big stranger that hockey takes a backseat to some of the more popular sports - football, baseball, and yes...even basketball. Something like this will dominate the sports news for at least a couple of days, and can maybe help bolster ratings.

Or, you could be of the opinion that Avery is getting what he deserves. If you are, my bet would be that you are also for complete government intervention and bigger government, and this sort of thing makes perfect sense to you. If so, then it's obvious we are going to disagree on a lot of things, not just hockey. If you are one of the people who voted for Obama and loves the Detroit Red Wings, then we will disagree on everything.

My point is that I really don't support restricting anyone's speech in such a fashion. I think we have become too oversensitive to everything in this country these days. Everyone is so worried about "political correctness" that you can hardly speak without offending someone. Besides, you don't think that these players say even worse things to each other on the ice? So the trash talking is purely acceptable, as long as it isn't in the face of the media, is that it?

I think a public apology is in order, but to suspend someone over this is stupid. That's as simple as I can put it - it's just stupid. We live in a world where everyone is so scared to offend someone that we over-react and behave in this fashion. Whatever happened to some good old fashioned trash talking, and then letting the players duke it out on the ice?

Here's the video of the comment in case you were curious:



-The Rocker-

Black Friday, Hippies, and a rant

This morning at a Long Island Wal Mart a man was trampled to death and a pregnant woman was thrown to the ground. All this happened while a mob of people were fighting to be the first in the store for Black Friday shopping. Just to review....A MAN WAS TRAMPLED TO DEATH BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED TO SHOP! We live in a country that has the amazing ability to be a nation of great charity and compassion, while at the same time be a nation of unbridled selfishness and greed. Sadly, the holiday season tends to be the time of the year that brings out the best and the worst that our nation has to offer.

The grotesque spectacle at the Wal Mart in Long Island is a sad testament and example of the worst of our nation. In a moment of frenzy, all concern for the safety of others and all respect for other people was disregarded in the name of selfishness and greed. TVs and laptops were ultimately more important than human beings to the members of that mob. Now, clearly if you asked the individuals in that mob if they would kill someone for a discounted piece of electronics, they would say no. (Of course this is in theory) But their actions tell a different tale. Why would a group of people that understand the value of human life in relation to material possessions act in a manner contrary to that knowledge?

Selfishness.

Pure and simple, the people in that mob were only concerned with themselves. It isn't that they didn't value human life, it is just that they were not considering it because they were too involved with their own desires. These people were too consumed with themselves to consider the people around them. These are the same people that cut other people off in traffic because they have no consideration for the cars around them. They are the people that talk in theaters because they don't care about the other movie goers. They are the people that yell at the waitstaff at a restaurant. They are the people that care about nothing more than themselves and their immediate happiness. They are the people that forget the important caveat of American liberties. One man's rights stop where another man's begin.

How have we as a nation gotten to this point? Why are we so self-consumed that we make donations to charity for the tax write-off and community service is a term best known as a punishment for guilt? I personally blame hippies.

The counter-cultural movement of the sixties introduced an entire generation of Americans to a lifestyle of self-gratification. A lifestyle in which one's only concern was in the happiness that one was feeling in each moment. To quote Grateful Dead guitarist, Bob Weir, "It was about exploration, finding new ways of expression, being aware of one's existence." Basically, it was about yourself. The reason this is noteworthy is that it was counter to the culture of the rest of the nation, in which the focus was on the family, or the community, or the nation. The hippie culture taught Americans that it was cool to worry only about your own personal gratification. Drugs were fine because they made you feel good. Having a job was not necessary as long as you were happy in poverty. Now the problem with this movement is not really that a large number of people wasted their lives. These people had children and raised their children in this toxic culture. But the true damage of the counter-culture was that because of the new media of television, an entire nation of youth were exposed to this self centered ideology. This type of ideology appealed to the 18-25 year old demographic. Television and marketing like to target the 18-25 year old demographic. So, the hippie movement became a major national story, thus feeding the movement to young Americans all of the country. An entire generation of frustrated youth, upset about Vietnam, the draft, and searching for an identity of their own, were drawn to this movement of self-indulgence.

This generation is now in charge of this nation. They run our companies. They market our products. They establish our cultural norms because they control our media. They have raised a generation of children in a materialistic and self-centered existence. They have created a secular society in which the only person that matters is yourself. Christmas is about gifts. It is no longer about family and a celebration of faith, it is about increasing retail sales and getting good deals on products we have been sold on.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that America was only able to have a democracy because it was a religious nation. His point was not that democracy was divinely inspired, it was that in a nation with such tremendous freedom, the only way that civility and order can be maintained is if the citizens had an intrinsic ethical code that self-governed their use of those freedoms as to not harm others.

The problem with having the freedoms that are present in a democracy is that it requires the citizens to be responsible for the proper use of those freedoms. Responsibility accompanies freedom. This is why modern liberals are such fans of larger government. Large government takes the responsibility away from the individuals. This allows individuals to do nothing more than focus on themselves and their own self-gratification. If the government is taking care of the crap that people don't want to do, then people just get to do whatever they want without care. As Homer Simpson so eloquently put it while running for Sanitation Commissioner, "Can't someone else do it?" This line of thinking is the offspring of the hippie movement and its message of self-indulgence. It has permeated our culture and creates days like Black Friday and tragedies like a man getting trampled to death because of a sale.

Sorry for the random and extensive post. It is the Rocker's fault for taking me to a metal show.

-The Banker

The election and other thoughts - a time for action.

I have thought long and hard about this election. I have listened to different sides, different viewpoints - Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian...you name it. I have held my tongue for a few weeks and tried to formulate my thoughts correctly - as to make sure that I did not rush to any snap judgement.

The time has come to let my voice be heard, my friends.

For starters, I will say that it is historic that a black man was elected President of the United States of America. I don't think anyone will deny that in all cases, it was and is an impressive victory. Let us not also forget that many African Americans have also paved the way for this - such as Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and others.

However in regards to the Obama victory, that is where my praise will end.

This is a call for all Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone else out there with an open mind to listen to these words that I have to say: this fight has just begun.

While I am willing to give Barry O and his administration a chance, I am not for a second about to turn my back on the principles which I embrace, or the ideals which make up who I am. That being said, I will be critical of this administration, just as I am and will be critical of anyone in office - Republican or Democrat. While a portion of America was busy crying "hope" and "change" and any other clever slogan that was thrown at them - I shuddered, because all I could see was an overwhelming majority of idiots elected to congress, and a President that coupled with these people, is here to fringe on the liberty of the modern American. A president who has proposed policies that punish the private sector, and try and put everything closer to government control. I want you to mark my words: it is not the government's job to tell me, you, or any other hardworking American what to do with our money, where it should go, or who to "spread the wealth around" to. Ronald Reagan said it best in his farewell address - "As government expands, liberty contracts."

This is where the Republican party and conservatives failed in the general election. We ran a guy who would not speak up against Obama, and we were so silenced by a completely biased media (just think of Matthews saying he gets a "tingle up his leg" or later saying that it is his job to make sure this administration succeeds - whatever happened to a non biased media?), and we were so silenced by every crazed Obama voter shouting off their mindless crap. My advice to Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians (yes, all of you who voted for Bob Barr or who understood some of the great things that Ron Paul had to say in the primaries), and everyone else out there - DO NOT BE SILENCED. They can try to silence you, but let your voice be heard loud and proud - now is your time to let your voice ring through - so that America can hear what you have to say.

This idea of unity as it is being phrased by so many people these days to me is bullshit. Excuse my language - but there is no eloquent way I can put it. The very idea that Barry O is here to say "hey America, I am here to save you of all your ills and unite everyone" and then it will magically happen is ludicrous to me. I do not honestly think that with a wave of his magic wand, Barack Obama is here to cure society of its ills. I am against National Healthcare. I do not agree with bastardizing any of the work our men and women in the armed forces have done. I do not agree with this idea of punishing those who succeed and basically stealing from hard working americans and redistributing that money to the bottom portion of those who already do not pay any income tax (can you say welfare? if we encourage this behavior, it gives individuals the impression that there is no reason to be motivated, no reason to try and succeed. Why try and go far if the the government will take it away from you as you succeed, or just let you skate by if you are lazy?) I do not agree with the idea of a higher capital gains tax. I think the fairness doctrine is anything but fair, and desecrates one of our basic rights - free political speech. I am against giving more federal aid to failing industry - such as this bailout (for the record, I am angry at Republican and Democrat for passing the bailout. Much like no child left behind, it is a bipartisan failure). I am against the idea that government should take care of everything - that common good for all man can only be achieved through government intervention. In my mind - this is one of the stark differences that I find between liberals and conservatives. Liberals will have a "pay at the voting booth" sort of mentality - as if voting for a government that may allocate your money to where they see fit is a way of "charity," but are typically less likely to give to any sort. The conservative philosophy revolves around helping the individual - not a "just giving at the voting booth" style of philosophy. To clarify - more government intervention means less freedom for the American people. This pseudo-socialist/marxist theory proposed is not what this country was founded upon.

I feel like this is turning into an angry rant, and I do not mean it to be. My point is that I am not going to sit here and act like everything is going to be fine. It's not. I understand that you cannot win all the time - and in this case, I was on the losing side of the battle. I feel like many people - McCain was not my first choice, but once Barry opened his mouth with such theories, or such associations came to light (Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc) - then I had no choice but to support McCain and hope he would prevail over Barry.

Now, this isn't to say I don't think there should be some restructuring going on. The Republicans increased the size of government. That was bad. The war in Iraq was certainly mishandled in some respects. This is certainly unfortunate. The stock market has definitely seen better days. There needs to be certain things in the system fixed. But - I do not think turning our back on capitalism, free market, and the very basic principles awarded to us in this constitution are the answer. Taxing the corporations more and more and more is certainly not a good way to "jump start" the economy. It's biting the hand that feeds, and is only going to have a negative effect on the American public.

I do not want to see this country fail. I would much rather eat every one of these words, and say "well, I was wrong" and have this country turn the path in the right direction. I love America and wish her well every single moment of every single day. So - in some ways, I would like to see people come together. But there has to be a normal system of checks and balances, and I feel that is the job of any of those with an open mind to speak out when warranted. Do not let the marxists take over your country. Do not let more government intervention be seen as the way of the future (see my blog on the de-privitization of 401k plans for an example). Listen to what others on the other side have to say - you will not be right 100 percent of the time - but on that token, either will they.

The Republican party needs to restructure. They need to get some of the old blood out there, and get some new, exciting, young blood in. While we cannot do anything in a presidential fashion for four years, let's concentrate on getting the right people in office in 2010, and showing Reid and Pelosi that they do not run this country. This is a country for we the people, and it is our job to tell government what to do - not the other way around.

-The Rocker-

Uniting the States of America

The election is over. Barack Obama is our President-elect. Congratulations to Obama and all of his supports for a fantastic campaign, and for helping to make American history. America having its first African-American president is a source of pride as well as a testament to the progress we have made as a nation. In forty years, we have gone from African-Americans being unable to eat at certain restaurants to having an African-American as the leader of the free world. Not enough can be said about the millions of men and women that have helped pave the way for the progress that has been made and I can not begin to understand the joy being felt by African-Americans.

For the millions of Americans that did not vote for Obama, it is now time to respect the democratic process that we love and cherish as Americans. It is time to support our new president and do everything in our power to help him be the best president that he can be. That does not mean blindly following him, but it does mean giving him the respect owed to the president. No one should oppose Obama because he is a democrat. No one should hope that Obama fails for political or personal reasons. All Americans need to be united around our leader and support him in making our nation a better place.

However, that does not mean that Obama is above criticism. If an American disagrees with the decisions or the policies of Obama, then it is that person's right to voice the opposition. As long as the opposition is done with respect. For example, I am opposed to the idea of another stimulus package, so I will oppose Obama in instituting another stimulus package. I am not opposing Obama, I am opposing his policy and decision.

(On a side note, people need to stop being so disrespectful to President Bush. You can disagree with someone without being disrespectful. History will be the judge of his presidency, there is no need to heap insults on the man that has served our nation for the last eight years. The American people have voted in new leadership. Piling disdain on the Bush administration is in no way constructive for our country and makes those insulting him look like children ganging up to pick on the unpopular kid.)

As far as unity is concerned, our country would be better off if our political parties could work together. Unfortunately, neither party is willing to make the first step with any conviction. Speeches are words, and words can lie. Actions are different. One of the parties needs to act in a bipartisan manner instead of just criticize the other party for not being bipartisan. A huge step in the right direction would be for Americans to stop saying idiotic things like "I hate Nancy Pelosi" or "Sarah Palin is stupid". Until Americans get over making politics about people instead of making politics about ideas, then we aren't going to get any unity.

At this point, it would make the most sense for Republicans to make this gesture. The GOP is out of power and needs to make changes in order to change that. The GOP needs to spend the next two years working with Democrats to solve problems. The GOP needs to spend the next two years making its message about the issues and not the individuals in the Democratic party. The GOP needs to work with Democrats on fixing the economy, reforming the tax code, securing energy independence, and defeating terrorists. Bipartisan solutions that have the public in mind are the solutions that stand the test of time. Partisan solutions that are put in place in spite of the other party die as soon as power changes. We need our representatives to put common support behind the solutions for our nation. Americans are entitled to a government that is solution driven, not power driven.

People can rally around a common cause or a vision, as long as they don't hate each other.

-The Banker-

Harry Reid trying to oust Joe Lieberman from his post is not an example of bipartisanship.

So I know many of you are awaiting my thoughts on the election, and just give it another day or so...I am taking my time to formulate my thoughts as to how I feel about the election, and what I think vs. what I would like to see happen over the next four years.

However right now, there's something that I would like to discuss. I have been seeing a lot of people say things like "now is the time of unity" and "we must all come together in a spirit of bipartisanship." Now, obviously for many of these people these statements are just talking points, and things they are recycling heard from speeches by Barack Obama - as a colleague of mine who is saying such things has done nothing but complain about the Republican party since 2000. He's no supporter of bipartisanship, he is just posing as an advocate of such in order to save face in the end. This way he can create an illuson that allows him to mask who he really is. Truth be told, these democrats that are screaming "unity" and "bipartisan" will be the first people to throw the other party under the bus the minute something goes wrong as to avoid any blame for their or their party's own actions. The democrat's senate reaction to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a clear cut example of this. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and others did not desire or need any help from the Republican party. Then, once the bailout was on the table, suddenly they wanted help from the Republicans to fit their own agenda, all of the time just pointing blame squarely on the Republican party - whom they were asking to vote on the bailout. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me either.

That being said, let's look at what's going on right now. Harry Reid (I shudder every time I say his name) is now trying to remove Senator Lieberman of his post as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as a direct result of Lieberman's breaking party ranks and siding with Senator John McCain during McCain's 2008 Presidential bid. Now, call me crazy, but I fail to see how calling for the removal of someone who was once the Vice Presidential candidate for your own party because he made a decision you don't like is helping. This is no call for unity - it is a slap in the face to a man for doing something that Harry Reid did not deem acceptable. Now correct me if I am wrong, but Lieberman was once a democrat, and then is now an Independent who caucuses with the Democratic party. Thus, such a decision pushed by Harry Reid is anything but bipartisan - it is "I don't like what you've done, how dare you speak out against me...you are out of here, pal."

No final decision has yet been made, but I would not be surprised if we see this style of thuggery in the coming months.

The article I reference can be seen here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D949NQPG3&show_article=1

-The Rocker-

Retirement accounts such as 401k plans are meant to help people save money for retirement. So why do democrats want to do away with them?

Teresa Ghilarducci.

Does this name sound familiar to you?

She is a Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City.

She is also out of her damn mind.

Why do I make such a claim? Because Teresa Ghilarducci has been speaking at committee hearings held by House Democrats regarding her views to de-privatize 401k retirement plans, and make them government programs. Let that just sink in for a second: she wants to do away with 401k plans geared towards Americans saving their income away for retirement and make them Government sponsored entities.

Sounds logical enough, right? Barney Frank did such a great job with Fannie and Freddie, he's exactly the type of person I want in charge with my retirement. Let me say this right off the bat - the federal government is the last group of people I want touching my retirement accounts.

To get into it, let's cover the basics: a 401k is a retirement account, typically sponsored by an employer. It is what is called a defined contributions account, meaning that the participant in the plan makes contributions to the plan from his/her paycheck before taxes. It is up to the participant how much money they want to contribute, and in most cases, the employer will match a certain amount. Employers may differ in what they match or when an employee is vested - in other words, they are eligible to receive a certain amount of that money from the employer upon withdrawal. For example, if an employer matches 100% of the first 6% an employee contributes on what is called a tiered vesting schedule of 5 years, that means that while the employee is contributing, they are eligible for a percentage of that money from the employer each year until they are fully vested at the end of 5 years. This means that withdrawal after 1 year would leave the participant eligible for their contributions, their earnings, and 20% of the employer's contributions. After 2 years it would be the same, only 40% of employer contributions, and so on...until after five years, when the employee would be fully vested.

It is up to an individual how aggressive they want their 401k portfolio to be - they can invest in high risk mutual funds such as those centered around stocks, or low risk funds, such as those that invest in a money market or bonds. The idea is that the account grows over time, and rises and falls with the reflective changes in the market. A typical mutual fund in a money market will have a rate of return on 6-9% on someone's investments. This is the value of the market. The account grows over time, and when the participant is ready to take their money out, they can pay any taxes up front on their earnings (since the money is deducted out of the pay check pre-tax) and then have the money for retirement. It should be noted that some plans do allow money to be taken out after taxes on a paycheck, but the traditional 401k plan has money taken out pre-tax.

There, now you have your history. Remember the original point of this blog? That's right, it was to call out Teresa Ghilarducci.

Once again, let's look at what this woman wants to do. I cannot stress this enough, because it needs to be beaten into people's heads until they understand. Teresa Ghilarducci wants to eliminate 401k plans under the private investment sector (all of you who work for mutual fund companies can kiss your jobs goodbye if this happens), and make them a government entity. She wants to take the money set aside by hard working Americans and trust it to the Federal Government - The same federal government that was in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which just had to undergo a 700 billion dollar bailout.

According to an interview with Ms. Ghilarducci, the rich are contributing 20 thousand dollars to their 401k plans a year, and this is unfair, because not everyone can contribute such an amount. The first problem with this statement is that it is quite simply wrong. There is a thing called the 402g limit. The 402g limit is a maximum amount that someone can contribute to his or her 401k plan. The 402g limit in 2008 is the same as it was in 2007 - $15,500 dollars. Therefore, Dr. Ghilarducci - no one can contribute 20k to a plan - it's illegal. No investment firm will allow you contribute over the 402g limit. They get fined, and the plans are set up to contribute over time, or to just simply stop once the limit is reached.

Second fallacy - according to Theresa Ghilarducci, the "middle class" is getting screwed since they can't contribute as much. Wrong. There are plenty of people who make let's say 70,000 a year (yes, this is part of the middle class) who give the maximum contribution pre-tax. I can honestly say this because I have worked in the industry and the average person contributing to a plan does not make loads of money. Many people just believe in the power of a free market or desire better retirement and contribute all they can.

Ironically, those making large 6 figure salaries are typically deemed ineligible for investing in 401k plans. They must open up an IRA or a brokerage account. You heard me right, they cannot even have a 401k. That means the vast majority of these people who are investing in 401k accounts are not millionaires, they are not the uber-rich, they are not the top 1% of the country, they are middle class Americans.

Why are these idiots so quick to try and place blame on people who have succeeded and made money for themselves?

Theresa Ghilarducci, your idiocricy continues to just baffle me.

The logic just gets more twisted. Under her proposal, the maximum contribution per participant would be 5,000 dollars. This is 10,500 dollars less than the maximum contribution per year under the current 402g limit. However, it's okay according to Dr. Ghilarducci, because those contributing that much "don't need it" anyway.

Really? Who is Theresa Ghilarducci to decide what Americans should do with their money? Who the hell is she to decide how much money someone does or doesn't need? Isn't this money that people are putting away for their retirement?

So let me get this straight - if you are making too much money, you don't need to contribute because you make too much or have saved too much anyway. Let's make it a government sponsored entity, and restrict the amount of money you can put in your 401k plan.

What's the term Barry Obama liked to use? "Spreading the weath?" This sure sounds like a clear cut example of it to me.

If you won't say it, then I will: SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST.

Now, stay with me here...when you look at the average of the stock market over the long term, the typical rate of return is (as noted before) 6-9%. To be safe, let's just go with 7%. Under her plan, she would offer an across the board rate of return of 3 percent. Without even having to do the math, let's just think about this...if you have seven thousand dollars growing at a rate of 3 percent a year for 30 years, or seven thousand dollars growing at a rate of 7 percent a year for 30 years, which earns more? Once again, this wouldn't even be possible under her plan, as the max contribution per participant would be 5 thousand dollars.

I fail to see the logic in this plan.

I understand that the market is at a down turn. However, the market has ups and downs. Any investor will tell you this. The point of playing the market is to stay with it, through large highs and lows...because in the end, the average rate of return will still be good enough to put you in the positive.

These huge evil tax breaks for 401k plans that Dr. G speaks of are not huge evil tax breaks at all. There are fees associated with plans, and yes - they do go to the people at the investment firm. But they aren't all rich because of it. Since it is a defined contributions employer sponsored plan and not a brokerage account, there is no commission, no huge benefit for those people.

Not to mention if we make it a government entity, someone still has to manage it, and someone still has to watch the plan. This idea that government knows best over the private sector is absolutely absurd.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, people. Your socialist meal tastes stale and moldy, and I want no part of it.

So let's review: under this idea the investor cannot invest as much, the government has more control over the normal citizen's life (yes, the average middle class American), and people who work for investment firms will be left looking for new jobs (over thousands suffering job loss). Yet, we are one more step to government control and a socialist country. In addition, millions upon millions of dollars that could have been earned by the normal honest investor will never see the light of day, because they have never had a chance to grow in a free market economy. They will be swept up in a whirlwind of government control.

No thank you. My hope is that ordinary Americans will wake up, and realize these theories proposed by people are destroying ordinary Americans, not helping them.

My advice to Teresa Ghilarducci? Leave my country the hell alone. You are a socialist, and I am not surprised you are supporting Barry Obama. You are doing more harm than good. Stop trying to hurt this country, just leave it the hell alone.

Wow - turns out the rocker knows a thing or two. Go figure.

-The Rocker-

A perfect example of people hearing only what they want to hear...

I think sometimes people should think before they type things. I am constantly amused by the absurdity of people who only hear what they want to hear. What I am saying is this: when you have something to say, consider all the facts. Supporters of Barack Obama more than supporters of any other candidate in the history of Presidential elections seem so willing to jump on anything without question.

Before I get into it, a buddy of mine had a usual one sided blog post on the internet today. I also love the cuteness of his language, as he calls the McCain campaign the "McSame" campaign. Clever. I hope he stayed up all night thinking about that. Anyway, here is the post, which I will riff on in a moment:

The McSame campagin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists and therfore questioning his charachter and ability to lead... desperate, I know.

Now let's have a look at the man that McCain picked to be his presidential transition chief. The person charged with planning the McCain administration, William Timmons, lobbied for Saddam Hussein in an effort to get the international community off his back.

http://www. huffingtonpost. com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595. html

Okay, so let's take a moment to think about what we are reading here. Now, the article states that William Timmons, the Transition Chief of Mr. McCain has worked closely with two lobbyists who helped "ease sanctions against Saddam Hussein's political regime."

Okay, so this is unfortunate, and clearly not something that is favorable. I will be just as critical of John McCain as I will be of Barry Obama.

So, that being said - let's look at this article. This article appears in a completely partisan "news" source - you won't find a single article that ever says Obama, Pelosi, Reid, or any of the lot has done anything negative. So first problem - if you are going to cite a news source, please cite one that is not of questionable character or does not have a partisan bias. Flaw #1.

Now, the association of William Timmons to Saddam Husssein is as I mentioned, not desirable. Should McCain maybe consider someone else for the job as a result? Sure. There is not conclusive evidence to support that Timmons is guilty of anything, but it certainly couldn't hurt McCain to get another Transition Chief. I can admit to that.

Now, let's take another moment to think of the man's job - he is the Transition Chief for John McCain. That is his only job. He is not a foreign policy advisor, he is not an economic advisor, he will be the Transition Chief.

More importantly, the bulletin post I copied links McCain indirectly to Saddam. So, here's the problem - did McCain's Transition Chief possibly work with lobbyists who had a connection to Saddam? Yes. Did John McCain? No. So it is tied to William Timmons, not John McCain.

Now, let's look at the way the first sentence of the bulletin post is phrased, and I quote: "The McSame campagin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists and therfore questioning his charachter and ability to lead... desperate, I know."

Now, McCain was never my top choice for the ticket. In fact, he was not even the man I voted for in the primary. He does things that I agree with, but does and says some other things that I disagree with - he is certainly not my ideal politician. However, should John McCain question Barack Obama's associations? Absolutely. The problem with the bulletin post is that Barack Obama is directly linked to people such as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Directly linked. Yet, somehow these associations are dismissed by people like my friend posting the bulletin. He is not at all critical of his own party - meaning he will do or agree with anything they place on the table. That is not keeping an open mind, that is not being objective, it's absurd. It's absurd to think any particular party will do things that you 100 percent agree with. It's perfectly okay to disagree with your party from time to time.

So let's look at some of these outstanding people - Bill Ayers. The founder and member of the Weather Underground group - who is responsible for bombing the following: The New York City Police Headquarters, The United States Capitol Building, and The Pentagon. This is a man who has served on committees with Barack Obama (The Woods Fund of Chicago) and if you notice - Obama's associations with Ayers have changed over the years. He has gone from just a guy who lived in the neighborhood of Senator Obama to a guy who has served on committees of, etc etc. Why does this keep changing? Is this a person I want a politician directly linked to? A person who shows no remorse and says he did not do enough damage years ago? No. Absolutely not.

Then there's Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Barry Obama "spiritual advisor" for 20 years. The man who is on camera saying things such as "...not god bless America, God damn America." The man who has plenty of off color remarks from the very halls of the church that Barack Obama has sat.

And that's not even getting into Obama using Saul Alinksy's theories from Rules for Radicals into his every day use, his marxist and socialist overtones, his ties to Tony Rezko, and his relationships with Fannie and Freddie constituents.

So my advice to my buddy is this: question John McCain. Question him to your heart's content. He is a man, and moreover he is a politician. Chances are, there are things you can pin on him that you will not agree with. But, if you are going to do that, you had better question Barack Obama and his associations. Because I promise you in the end, you will find them far more demeaning than anything you have found on John McCain. If you are going to make such a link to McCain but then dismiss any of Barck Obama's questionable associations, you are in the wrong.

-The Rocker-

An interesting conversation at the merch table.

Last night we played a show, and I was hanging out at the merch table after our set. A guy came up to me and was really enthusiastic about the set, which always means the most to me. Anyway, we got to talking and he mentioned how he has served time in Iraq and that he wants to bring some of his Army buddies to a show because he thought they would totally dig the music.

Whenever someone tells me that they have served for this country, especially having the bravery to go overseas, I make it a point to thank them for their service, and to let them know that we appreciate everything our troops in the armed forces do for us.

I did that, and he looked me in the eye and said "it's perfectly okay. You're welcome, and we do it for you."

That absolutely made my night. That man is a patriot, and that is a clear cut example of the American spirit. It means a lot to hear things like that, and to think of the wonderful sacrifices the men and women of the armed forces make for our country every day - and then when I thank them to take such a selfless stance is just amazing. He may of thanked me for the show, but my show is not possible without he and others like him serving this country - so thank you, soldier. Thank you indeed.

-The Rocker-

Respect in politics, and the lack thereof

The following is a message sent from one friend to another. Because it is so destructive in nature and is an example of the problem with this election, I will spend some time looking at it.

"Lol, Chris I admire your will but I pity your motive and lack of unity. I didn't say anything about vote for Obama, I just had a link. I rather have someone having the ability to vote rather then regretting it later. I don't care who you vote for as long as you are an educated voter. But hey, I guess when you have a sorry party, a sorry candidate, and VP pick, all you can do is get mad and try to make this about personal issues. Like I said, I pity this and all I can do is laugh, say good luck, stay above, and look forward."

To clarify, the link being discussed is a site promoting voter registration that is paid for by Obama for America and is obviously a pro-Obama site. The name and setup of the site are undeniably intertwined with the Obama campaign. Chris was making the point that it is not right to promote someone to vote in a non-partisan manner and then direct them to a site run by the Obama campaign.

This kind of response eerily reminds me of indignant remarks like "what's wrong with Kansas?" (for voting Republican) and "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." It is damning to disagree with someone and then belittling their way of thinking because you don't understand it.

There is nothing to pity about ones motives. The motives of Chris were nothing more than his political beliefs and his respect for democracy. The author of the above response uses the word pity twice to demean the opinions of Chris. It is the use of that kind of language that illustrates the contempt and disrespect that stains what is a great freedom that we have in this nation. To pity someones opinions is a terrible thing the think and an even worse thing to express.

The fact that the author condemns Chris for his "lack of unity" and then goes one to say he pities his beliefs, that the party and candidates Chris supports are "sorry", and then finishes it up by saying all he can do is "laugh" and "stay above" Chris' beliefs, is a phenomenal example of what hypocrisy is all about. Condemning someone for lacking unity because they disagree with you and then talking down to them like an insolent child is amazingly hypocritical and wrong. It is this sort of disrespect that actually makes unity between people of differing opinions so difficult.

I think political debate is great. I think that it is awesome that we live in a country where two friends can disagree about politics but still remain friends. This is possible only because we are supposed to differ in opinion but still remain civil. Having respect for your opponent is honorable and leads to more productive dialogue. Demeaning those with differing opinions is exactly why other countries can not have the open political dialogue we enjoy as Americans. The above response illustrates the disrespectful and demeaning nature in which some would like to take the political debate. Staying above is not about looking down on someone else's opinion, it is about respectfully disagreeing.

As a side note on one comment made, a person's associations are definitely indicators of a person's character. Obama's connection and support of William Ayers is an indicator of his judgement and character. Obama's support and the work he has done for ACORN is an indicator of his judgement and character. The fact that Obama declared Rev. Wright to be is spiritual mentor and close friend is a self assessed condemnation of his judgement or character. Obama had a close relationship, as described by Obama, with Wright for more than twenty years. Either he did not know after all that time what Wright's beliefs were, which is a condemnation of his judgement (and considering that he will be selecting Supreme Court judges, it is a huge deal if he can personally know someone for that long and not know what that person believes), or he knew Wright's beliefs, accepted them, and decided to choose someone of those beliefs as his mentor, which condemns his character. Judgement and character are extremely important issues when choosing a president, especially when a candidate lacks experience. An example of a personal attack is something like attacking someone for having a pregnant 17-year old daughter or saying someone is too old and out of touch because he is not proficient in using a computer. (Even though injuries suffered while a POW are the reason for that lack of proficiency)

-The Banker

The Apparent Double Standard in Telling People to Go Vote.

So I have noticed this sort of mentality lately:

Go Vote! It's your duty! You have to go vote!

We see this sort of thing every four years. Hollywood stars, for example, all come out of the woodwork and read from a script and act like they give a rat's ass. Matt Damon tells you to vote. Jessica Alba tells you to vote. Leonardo DiCaprio tells you that if you don't vote, he no longer knows you.

Sure thing, Leo. I forgot we were such pals.

Anyway, besides the apparent idiot nature of Hollywood pretending to care, normal Americans do this sort of thing as well. That's fine - I have no problem with either of them telling me to be involved. There is this apparent double standard happening though - you are told by many to go vote and to do your duty - only if you vote for the candidate they want you to vote for. I have buddies go on and on about how I should make sure I am voting, and then when they find out I am not voting for the candidate they desire, they throw a hissy fit.

In a matter of seconds, I go (in their eyes) from being a patriot to being a scumbag.

That, my friends, is a double standard.

If you want people to vote, fine. But you then have to understand that they may have different ideals than you, different goals, different aspirations. To some extent, you may have different ideas of what you percieve America to be. Now, don't get me wrong or twist my words, I think that this is one of the many great things about America - that we can have these distinctions. But don't get mad at me just because I don't feel the same way as you. You can't see me as a patriot one moment and praise the civic duty of voting only to call me a bastard because I am not voting for who you wish. Maybe I think your candidate sucks and I wish you weren't voting for him, but I will not knock you for at least taking an active part in voting.

Unless of course, you are voting because Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher told you to. Then you should just do all of America a favor and show up to the polls a day late, because let's be honest, voting "because GI Jane and her buddy, the guy from Punk'd told me so" means you probably aren't paying attention to world issues in the first place.

-The Rocker-

Barry Obama

This guy is running for President of the United States. And winning.

I felt that this was worth noting.

-The Banker

A very telling video for Obama - Imagine Hope or Imaginary Hope - The Banker Chimes in

Since the Rocker, in a strange twist of irony, has already addressed the poor parenting skills of the idiots that put their kids up to that video, I get to look at the video from. different angles.

First of all, look up the Hitler Youth, watch a video on YOUTUBE of a youth rally, and try not to make comparisons to the Obama Youth in this video.

Second, I hope that everyone in the Midwest gets a chance to see this video. I hope CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News broadcast it across the country. Hell, the McCain campaign could run this as an ad with great success by just playing the unedited video. The people that made this video are the kind of far left liberals that disgust average Americans and portray the warped view of reality that far left liberals hold dear. These people illustrate the mentality that leads people to becoming democrats, all idealism, no balance of reality. They offer a great Straw Man of a democrat. I mean this is just too good. The video was even shot in Venice, CA. The parents in the background were the whole spectrum of the stereotypical democrat. Just when the temptation of being a democrat becomes appealing, the undecided voter sees these people, realizes they are crazy, and remembers that not all republicans are war-mongers like the mainstream media says.

Finally, the kids in this video are perfect Obama voters. They will believe whatever they are told. They repeat whatever they hear without concern for truth or the credibility of the source. They don't know or care how the world works. They don't know anything about history. They don't ask questions like: what are you going to change? how are you going to accomplish this change? how will you pay for your change? what experience do you have to help you know what change is needed? why do you attack that lady just because she is a mommy? Crazy questions like that. Look, all these kids know is that the nice man on all the TV channels says he is going to change things and make everyone happy! JUST LIKE BARNEY! (Side note, Barney....Barry?) We won't have to fight in nasty wars because he will just talk to the bad guys and make everyone happy. He is going to take from the rich and give to the poor, JUST LIKE ROBIN HOOD! And Robin Hood was a hero for doing that. He is going to make sure that people don't lose their jobs. He is going to make sure that everyone gets to go to the doctor. These all sound like awfully good things. How can that mean old man not want everyone to be happy like Mr. Obama does? Why hasn't Mr. Bush made everything as good as Mr. Obama says he will make it? Mr. Bush must not want people to be happy. He must be bad and mean. These kids are perfect Obama voters because they say and do things that make them happy right now, without concern for the long term effects of their actions. Singing for Mr. Obama is fun! Lets keep doing it because it is so fun! Lets not worry about what we are saying or if its right, because singing is so fun!

"Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope." - Aristotle

As the kids' shirts in the video said, "Imagine Hope!"

The Exploitation of Children for Politcal Purposes is Totally Unacceptable. The Rocker has Decreed it.

So today I came across a video on you tube that is really unacceptable, by all instances. The video shows a bunch of children gleefully singing along to a song about how Obama is going to change the world. An excerpt from this song for example is the following: "Obama's gonna change it. Obama's gonna lead 'em."

Maybe after all of this "change" and when he's done parting the seas, he can buy me a turkey sandwich. Of course, under his socialist ideas, everyone gets a sandwich.

However, that's a whole other topic alltogether. My point is simple: these people are nuts. It is completely unacceptable to exploit your children to help further your political agenda. I think the North Koreans did this sort of brainwashing to their children as well.

Look at the girl singing from the open of the video. Do you think she is aware of an increase in capital gains tax? Do you think she understands how this election puts the private sector directly at risk? No, she has no clue - nor should she. She is a child. The problem arises from the other people who don't have a clue: her parents. This child and every other child in the video should be concerned with normal kid things - when you are a child, the only thing that should matter is being a child. Go outside and ride a bike. Color. Do anything. Mom and Dad should not be enforcing their liberal agenda upon you.

This sort of brainwashing is what gets us into problems in the first place. I mean, talk about drinking the kool-aid. These kids are not old enough to think for themselves in regards to world political issues. The parents are shaping them to be a certain way, to act a certain way, to not think for themselves. It's disgusting. That is the only word I can use for it: disgusting.

I am serious about the North Koreans. Kim Jong-Il has also used propaganda tapes as such for young people to breed them into thinking a certain way. It was disgusting and unacceptable for the North Koreans, and it is sure as hell unacceptable for these idiot parents. Only in California does this sort of lunacy exist. Don't get me wrong, I love the state of California - but it is the only state to elect that nutjob Nancy Pelosi.

If these silly ass hippies want to talk about corrupting the minds of the youth, they should look within as they spread their agenda on people who are 8-10 years away from being able to vote.

Here's the video, in all of its gut-wrenching glory:

Olympics from a Rocker's Perspective...

There's a lot to be said for the Olympics. Every couple of years, I watch as Americans gather to watch sports that we would never watch any other time, and to root for their country. Banker Chris is right, it's a time where everyone gets together and competes for their country. It's a time where countries of the world come together and hang out, essentially - and let's be honest - at the end of the day, who doesn't really just want to kick back, hang out, and maybe slam a few brews with some people? If that's going on, count me in.

I like that about the Olympics. It's true as well - you really do get caught up in some of these sports. I was on the edge of my seat watching the Women's badminton finals. Yes, you read that right - women's badminton. However, it wasn't until later on in the day that I realized that I was so captivated by badminton. I can't even tell you the last time I played badminton, but it looked fun as hell watching it on TV. They don't even use a ball, they use a "shuttlecock." I was glued to the television set, watching a sport where people whack a shuttlecock back and forth.

Really a far ways away from my usual months of watching hockey any time it's on the TV.

Before I delve more into some of the sport aspect, I think there is something I should agree with: Patriotism in the Olympics. I want to find Kobe Bryant and high five him for his response to Cris Collinsworth. Way to go and say you are proud of your country. I'm glad someone finally said it, without having to preface it with some BS like "...for the first time in my adult life." Why would it not be cool to be proud of your country? You are competing for it, which to me, would be one of the single biggest honors ever as a professional athlete.

It's a whole other blog topic, so I won't delve into it, but let's just say that I am really sick of people walking around acting like it's not okay to be proud of your country. Yes, I sling a guitar around and no...I've never been in the military. However, you had better believe I am proud of all that they do for the country, and I am more than glad to live in the greatest nation in the world.

So that being said, Kobe Bryant, you are a good man. I'm going to go buy a jersey. As far as Cris Collinsworth, maybe you should learn how to come up with some more compelling questions to ask people instead of that crap, you puke.

Yeah, you heard me right.

Side note - I love the act of calling people "pukes." It is consistently amusing to me.

Back to the issue at hand. Then there's Michael Phelps. Destroys the Spitz record, and will compete in 4 years. The guy is intense, and he has the most insane eating schedule I've ever read about in my entire life. What a badass.

I personally don't mind if atheletes wear their team's colors at the olympics, because I think it's important to be proud of where you came from. However, I do agree that some mad props should be given to the US of A for all of the training and effort we put in. On the other side of the playing card, if you are going to be a US citizen, then at least think of playing for this country.

Like I said, it's perfectly fine to be proud of where you're from. Well, I guess that applies to everywhere but New Jersey. Have you ever actually been to New Jersey?

Gymnastics. I agree with the banker, put an age limit on it. I also agree, it sucks to train your whole life to be a gymnast. Of course, all I did as a kid is spend hours upon end playing guitar until I got good enough to do what I do, so maybe it balances out.

The other two notes of interest: the guy who rolled his arm out of socket in weightlifting was disgusting. I bet that hurt like hell. And then there's Sweedish Wrestler Ara Abrahamian throwing his medal on the ground in a hissy-fit. Really? Your country is neutral. Shouldn't that keep you from acting like a jerk? Grow up, you puke (there's that word again).

That's my two cents on it. I'm out for now.

-The Rocker-

Olympic Thoughts of the Banker

• I love the Olympics. Not only do I like to root for my home nation, but I legitimately enjoy watching all of the different sports that I rarely get a chance to see.

• The Olympics always remind me that the average person in any nation around the world is pretty similar at their core. Athletes from Russia, Iran, China, and a score of other countries have no problem hanging out with our American athletes. It reminds me that Americans don't have problems with Iranians, we have problems with the leaders and extremists of Iran. I assume that Iranians feel the same way.

• I love the sense of patriotism that the Olympics bring out. It is a good sense of nationalism because it is devoid of the typical negativity that accompanies nationalism. Everyone is proud of their country, their home, without disliking someone else's home. It is also great because the Olympics gives us a good reason to rally around the flag. People, I believe, are always proud of their country (unless they're Michelle Obama) but are not always outwardly expressing that pride. Normally we are only motivated to outwardly express our patriotism after a tragedy or during a war. The Olympics give us a positive reason to be loud and proud flag waivers.

• I wish they would institute an age limit for girls gymnastics. I have a problem watching 16 year old girls put on a stage like that. I watch them do these amazing things, and think they are amazing athletes, but I get the feeling that they missed out on being kids. I don't like hearing Natasha Liukin's dad say her whole life has been in preparation for Olympic gold. Her whole life should have been in preparation for the rest of her life. Supporting your kid's interests is great and I'm definitely going to have my kids in sports because it does teach you life skills, but pushing your kid, or letting your kid, into revolving their lives around a sport is wrong. I want to see those girls compete when they are in their 20s so they have had to make the personal choice to continue to chase their dream as adults. Not kids having mom and dad shuttle them to the gym every morning at the age of 5. And those are just the American parents. I don't want to imagine what it is like to be "chosen" as an Olympic gymnast in China or the old eastern bloc.

• I'm glad Kobe Bryant put Cris Collinsworth in his place for questioning whether or not it is "cool" to be proud of America. I liked Cris Collinsworth as an analyst before that question. Now, I am glad that we spell our first names differently.

• It is amazing how amazing you can make the Olympics when you don't have worker's rights and labor is cheaper than clean air. It will be interesting to see the differences between this Olympics and London's.

• Michael Phelps is amazing and the fact that he plans on swimming in the next games makes me respect him even more.

• The Redeem Team did more to boost the image of the NBA than anything David Stern can sell. I actually like Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, and Carmelo Anthony a little more now. Watching those guys play like they did for nothing more than pride really humanizes them. The NBA turns these guys into a one man business, the Olympics make them American men.

• I have a problem with athletes living and training in America and then playing for other nations in the Olympics. They come here and use our freedoms and resources, then decide to compete for their nation of birth. I feel they need to show respect to the country that enables them to be the world class athletes they are by wearing our colors when they compete.

• Watching the opening ceremonies highlighted why America is such a successful and wonderful place. Diversity. The athletes from China all looked similar, the athletes from Russia all looked similar, etc. But our athletes are diverse. We are diverse and it makes us great.

An introduction, just a typical weekend (Banker Edition)

I don't know why rocker Chris and I are friends. I have no clue how we can hold a conversation most of the time. All I know is that I argue with his other friends (except about hockey) and will forever try to talk him into cutting his hair (something I am convinced can be done after a night of heavy drinking on his part). But I like hanging out with him. I'm sure there is a wild side of me that likes having him around and I know there is a grown up waiting to happen in him that likes having me around.

But he is exactly right when he says that the opinions and the attitudes fly fast and furious. Sometimes we agree, other times we don't. The scary thing is that sometimes we agree.

So he probably will never shoot even par and have no idea how to play Stairway to Heaven, but at the very least we don't sweat the differences. So read on, chime in when you think we are brilliant or idiots, and keep an open mind when you meet someone.

An introduction, just a typical weekend (Rocker Edition)

There's no certain guarantee in life on what causes people to be friends. That's just a no-brainer. You can't ever figure everything out man, I'm sure of that. And with that statement...welcome to this blog.

Let's start with introductions, shall we? We are two dudes, both named Chris. Yes, that's right...not in the "my name is Daryl, this is my other brother Daryl" sort of way, just in the sense that we both have the most radical name in the world (yes, I said "radical" pal, you read it right). Our professions take us to two different worlds, hence the name - the rocker and the banker. I (Chris the rocker), am exactly what you would expect. Long hair, play in a band, and am out there playing shows and partying weekly. It's what I do, and I plan on making the most out of it. There's nothing quite like the art of expression through music. It's what keeps everything in this world turning for me.

This weekend in particular was great. Played a show...HUGE crowd. I was out there, rocking out, hair flying, signing autographs, shots afterward (Patron, whiskey, patron, can i get a beer? Where's my beer?) - you know the drill. Now, banker Chris was cool enough to come out, knock back a brew with me and check out the show. Later on in the evening, he peaced out, I kept partying. That's just the way we roll. Went to bed at 6 am, spoke to him the next day - while I was going to bed, he was getting up already. Even better, just to put it in perspective - while I was finally up getting some pizza in my system, he was already out on the golf course.

Like I said - that's just how we roll. Yes, maybe the most unlikely of friends. But, there's a lot of opinion and attitudes going on between us that really make us get along. So, in this cyber-savvy day and age, what's cooler than blogging about it?

Read up and enjoy, guys and gals.

-The Rocker