Thursday, October 18, 2012

Crooked Dealer Fixing game with marked cards

During the  1940's, Olympic track star turned Navy bombardier Louis Zamperini was recognized for his remarkable bravery.


He faced unspeakable torture at the hands of his Japanese captors.


This inspiring hero experienced  starvation, medical experimentation, and bludgeoning with clubs.


After two years, the commandant of the internment camp  discovered that Zamperini had  world running records to his credit.


The prison director seized  upon this  for a little propaganda. 


Various runners from the land of the setting sun were brought in to compete against POW Zamperini.


The Emperor wanted to show   Japanese superiority.


These Japanese wannabe's defeated the Olympian on a regular basis.


Here's why.  


Zamperini had been the target of such unbelievable atrocities that his body was decimated.


Zamperini was  ravaged by corporal cruelties.


Barely  able to walk.


In other words, these races weren't set up to be  fair.


Which brings us to the Commission on Presidential Debates' adoption of strict rules to make things fair.


The complicated rulebook has 3 main elements.


One. Equal time.


Two. Equal treatment by moderator.


Three.  Zero audience participation.


One and two are obvious:   unequal time would be like giving one team an extra out per inning.


Equal treatment by the moderator avoids bias.


The last rule requiring audience non-participation is a written condition of admission to the auditorium.


No applauding, no cheering, no booing.


Have these recent debates been conducted fairly?


Let's review our three rules.


Equal time:  The  VP and two presidential debates gave more time to the democrat in each of the 3 debates.


All three forums together total almost 9 minutes more for  the democrat than the republican.


Let's talk about Moderator neutrality:  did you see the Hofstra University debacle?


The Moderator, Candy Crowley, of CNN fame, injected her own fact-checking into the broadcast spontaneously.



Crowley told Romney he was wrong about Obama's September 12 statement on Benghazi.



Transcripts of the President's Benghazi remarks show Romney had a point.


However, even if you buy Crowley's  interpretation, the moderator is not allowed to take sides.


But CNN'S Crowley wasn't done yet.


She interrupted Romney 28 times last Tuesday.


Obama interruptions? Nine.


Rule Three:  The live audience must be a non-factor, maintaining silence.


Except last Tuesday.


A patch of audience erupted into applause when Crowley corrected Romney.


Romney was checkmated.


Not by the President.


By the moderator and audience: They couldn't keep their promise to abide by the rules.


By the way, that patch of audience applauding was led by an over exuberant young lady who practically clapped her hands off  for Obama.


Rules are for losers anyway, aren't they?


That excited clapper was Michelle Obama, Row S, Seat 6.


If you doubt me, watch a video of the debate on the internet.


There she is, pretty in pink.


Love that smile.


Like I said, rules are for losers.


Louis Zamperini  knew this: in a fair game, he beats anybody.


Maybe that's also true for Obama.


We'll never know.


We can't get a fair game



  1. Romney's not use to Subordinates and the "Help" talking back to him. I personally think Obama would have kicked the clowns ass! The same disrespect here was shown to Obama on both Debates. It is bad enough to not like Black people, but at least respect the office.

    I thought Obama looked as if he was going to punch out Romney when Romney was sleazily using the 4 deaths in Libya for Political Points. Just as he's used the Seal's death and etc....... Only Scum does that:(

    Last but not least, Obama tried to be Statesmen Like and respectable during the first debate. He underestimated how dumb or easily fooled many folks are. The best Obama lines were the off the script comments. I just hope it is not too little too late.

    BTW, Romney isn't and will never be a Louis Zamperini!

  2. Dear Anonymous:
    Thank you again for following my column. I note that you don't actually respond to the point of the column which is the unfairness of the setup. The last four sentences also show that the comparison is between Zamperini and Obama, not Romney. Zampy beats anyone in a fair race and so does Obama, so lets make the debates fair. I would be delighted to share lunch together, Anonymous. If you leave a phone message for me at 440-278-4246, I will get it and we can continue the dialogue. Regards, Dave Lynch

  3. If Obama is Zamperini, then whatever 'torture' that he has endured, to date, that may have put him at a disadvantage, were self-inflicted...or done to him by his running mate, Biden, or other 'losers' in his administration. Other than that, the statistics were helpful, and very interesting!

  4. Romney had to be interupted because he did not understand the time limitations. The moderator was injecting what she believed to be facts. It's that simple. It's always "not a level playing field" in the eyes of the loser.

  5. Obama did a superb job in pointing out some of Romney's lies - even though there has been such a big collection of them by now that it would take hours or more to list them - and it rattled the rude and arrogant chameleon at his core.

    I think his binders filled with women will not so easily be forgotten either - had he been honest and forthcoming about the question posed to him he would never have gotten tangled up in this foolish response.

    He's a bully and self-important egomaniac who hasn't got a clue as to what honesty in a person really means. His only goal is the power he envisions in being president.

  6. Dear Anonymous:

    Lunch invite out there still. Readers are watching.