A Special Christmas

It was generally a typical Christmas at our home with the usual fun, presents, food, spirit of thanksgiving and sharing, amongst family members and others. The difference during this year’s Christmas however was in missing our two babies (the youngest ones) who are serving missions. But that difference, in turn, created a much bigger difference that made it special for this year’s Christmas for our family because we "saw" them for the first time in months - one of them in a year. Thanks to modern technology (Skype) that we were able to "see", talk and chat with them in a three-way (group) setup. All parties were excited to hold the visual real time conversation. The Elder, at the close of the "call", invited everyone to join him as he - through prayer - invoked the blessings and benevolence of Heavenly Father and expressed thanksgiving on our family’s behalf. They were precious moments to be cherished and remembered always. 

The Hype ...

... and The Skype

some exciting moments ...

future missionaries - and lots of them - excited to see their forerunners

...and some teary moments


Heaven's Gates? ...naaahhh

...how about "windows of heaven"? ...naaahh again. Anyway, enjoy some heavenly humor.
Merry Christmas to you and yours!


A Special Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is always a wonderful and special time of the year. It’s one of my favorite holidays because it brings families together. Like Christmas, Thanksgiving is a time to feel grateful for many things. Families especially, but also to consider and to serve others.

This past Thanksgiving (last week) was the first one without our two youngest children who are currently serving missions. And though we miss them, we are indeed more grateful for what they’re doing - serving others through sharing the gospel. So our family decided to do something special this year, and that was inviting other missionaries to our home to spend Thanksgiving with us. In that way, while our missionaries are spending Thanksgiving with other families, we will have others to fill their places.  Actually, we ended up with twice as many. Five altogether - three palagis (Caucasians) and two Tongans, one of whom was from the islands and the other one from Texas. For the palagis two were from California and one from Missouri. Our family prepared a semi-formal dinner setup, with a typical Thanksgiving buffet of turkey, ham, meatballs, katsu chicken, pork roast, salad, taros, yams, chop suey, etc., and dessert. In addition to dinner, the missionaries made themselves at home playing games with our family. They certainly added and promoted the Thanksgiving spirit in our home. It was one of the best Thanksgivings our family has had.    

Some pictures ...

All that for these wonderful young men.  We LOVE them ... and ALL the missionaries!


Treading Trend and Thanksgiving

Once upon a time, something that was good - or deemed good - remained ...hmmm.... good! Likewise, bad was bad. There was no two ways about it. Then things changed. What may be good today, may not be as good tomorrow. For example, I remember when eggs and milk were lauded as some of the most healthful foods on the pyramid (food, not Egyptian). (And by the way, to this day, I still remember looking for taro and palusami or cocoa rice ( “koko nice” according to granddaughter Eden) on that food pyramid during my Health classes in school in Samoa.)  But in the recent past, eggs and milk have been classified as also “bad” because they elevate one’s cholesterol - the bad cholesterol. Yes, there’s good and bad cholesterol too. (Like people. There’s some really good ones, and the reaaaaally not so good ones. Hahahaa!)

Which brings me to chairs and sitting. They’re good, and bad; they kill (re: past post). But wait, chairs are made to feel good and comfortable since comfort is a good thing, or is it? You see, for a long time people had been sitting for extended periods of time. Neanderthals sat on rocks and on trees waiting for the mammoth or the tiger; natives sat on mats playing games and chatting for hours and CEOs sit on chairs “nine to five”. The chair became so omnipresent that there were people actually called and titled “chairman” (or “chairperson”) because of where they sit - on a chair, while the rest sit on rocks and on mats. I would imagine that the “chairman” during the Neolithic age was called a “stoneman” or “rockman” and in Samoa that would be a “matman” - who would later become a “mad man” because he didn’t have a chair.

Ok, so who is advocating this sedentary pandemic, or "chairicide"? And why?  I have never heard of the “chair people” dying en masse on their chairs, or a cause of death listed on a report as “sitting on chair”. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, people! The rooster does not cause the sun to rise.  (Though as a little kid I thought it did.)

Anyhow, I was not aware of the identities of the anti-chair culprits until a friend sent me this picture (below). They are the manufacturers of the treadstation. The whole mission and campaign for these chair haters is to get rid of chairs in the workplace and replace them with Treadmills!  See for yourself.  There’s a treadstation coming to a workplace near you - if not to yours.

But do you see the irony in this picture - and trend?  If not, then lemme tell ya! It has to do with women (sorry ladies). Those in the picture are all women, yet they are the ones - not men - disadvantaged most by this trend. Why?  How? Well, take a look at the closest one in the picture - nice office outfit, aye?  Now look at her shoooeees! A ha! Yes that’s the disadvantage.  There will be no more boots, heels, stilettos, etc. at work.  Advantage, therefore, goes to the men. Why?  How?  Men don't have to change shoes. Huh? Well, here:

LOL!  Well if you think the chair issue is dead, think again. Don’t be surprised if lawsuits - albeit mostly frivolous - are already in the pipeline, or on the belt (haha). On what basis? Injuries - physical and emotional. Twisted ankles, falls, buckled knees, pulled muscles, etc. And emotional? Well, it has to do with shoes. The fact that women will not be able to wear their preferred heels, boots and all, the office is considered a hostile work environment. Can you say discrimination and/or harassment?  So tread lightly!

And here’s a word to the CEOs of the treadstation: "Bring back the chairs!" The treadmill belongs in the gym and at home.  At least with a chair people can stand up and tread around, but with the treadstation, there's no option of sitting - where's the chair?  I think I will start campaigning to change your CEO title to mean Chair Elimination Officer and you would not want to live with such a title.

Woman/Wife:  Oh STOP IT!!! ... at least you have shoes!  LOL!   Man/Husband:  Oh yeah? ...  Really?

Woman/Wife:  Ok then,  you can wear mine!  .... Man/Husband:  LMSO! (Laughing My Shoes Off!)

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving! ... Y'all!
And remember, once upon a time the turkey was good - and still good - but it’s the muri (si’usi’u - tail) that is bad, at least according to the Samoan government.   LOL!

This post does not in any way, stated or implied, discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, shoes, marital status, food choices, BMI, political affiliation, corporate position or chair preference for that matter. It was written for the sole purpose of entertainment and reading pleasure of the blog audience. No treadmill or treadstation was damaged or destroyed in the writing of this post, or its immediate aftermath. However, a turkey - minus the tail - will be cooked and consumed some time during the aftermath of the post, and will be done in strict compliance to the laws and dietary regulations of the state and country of Turkey.



I watched Silamanino, another Samoan-made movie, a few weeks ago. It certainly is on a par with Tautoga and Tulafale on the innovative and pioneering level of Samoa’s fledgling moviemaking venture. However, Silamanino is a standout and the best of the three, at least in the overall realism and authenticity of Samoan particularity.

Realism is Silamanino’s strength - in storyline, plot, theme, settings and especially the characters. And though it lacks serious conflict and dramatic tension, Silamanino’s simplicity - a reflection of Samoan life - easily makes it a favorite of most Samoans. Behind the movie’s simplicity, however, we find intricate and profound social relationships, heritage and heartfelt values such as love and respect for parents and family. Silamanino is not "hollywoody", but it excels in its own right and on its own merits as a true and exclusively Samoan film. It appeals and strikes harmoniously - more than Tulafale and Tautoga - the empirical and nostalgic chords in those Samoans outside Samoa, and with the daily experiences of natives at home.

The script is effective for the movie’s goals, although there is a slight overreach in its attempts to connect the past with the present.  For example, the aumoega (suitors) and other cultural flashback scenes (old and faded) serve the purpose of clarifying and enhancing their present day significance. But they also draw undue attention to themselves because of their length and monotony. The noisy and lofty talk among the suitors gets more-than-needed screen time, hence becomes a little disturbing and off-putting.

Notwithstanding, the script succeeds in many aspects. One of these is in the effective depiction of modern Samoa without the unnecessary intrusion of some contemporary modernities, especially cell phones. Such items will have undermined and distorted the more bucolic Samoa that the movie tries to portray and one which many of its target viewers remember fondly.

On the genre level, Silamanino is a cross between a morality play of the 15th/16th century England and a modern day documentary.
The character names which represent and personify particular virtues and values loosely follow the morality play conventions. For example, Silamanino (literally "clear view") personifies discernment, integrity and love of family. She has a clear perspective and thus views things properly within her role as a woman of honor and a leader in her village. Ti’alagimua ("straight arrow"), her father, is the ideal family patriarch who treasures his legacy and family heritage and, in turn, imparts his wisdom and knowledge to his posterity and descendants.  The influence of the morality play is also found in those plays performed on White Sundays (in Samoa) and their feel and flavor can be found in the film. 
On the documentary level, the film does a good job in its instructive approach on Samoan culture and social norms in general.  Though Silamanino has some entertaining merits, its overall focus is both educational and normative.

One of the things that sets Silamanino apart from most other Samoan films is the naturalness of the native dialogue. Silamanino (Verona Parker) demonstrates it best, especially without the annoying and robotic scripted intonations. Naturalness is also the main reason for certain memorable scenes of the movie. My favorite ones are the scenes with the “malas”("third gender" - pardon the euphemism). The conversation between Sammy in “her” office with Enoka, as well as the tausuaga (humorous chitchat) during the village access road project. Both are superbly acted and the dialogues are natural, typical and genuine.  For someone who was raised in the village, and participated in such galuega (projects), I can relate with fondness to the tausuaga by the aumaga (untitled men).

All in all, I really like this movie. Silamanino appeals to my generation and to others - like my children - whose idea and impression of Samoa is that of the idyllic place in their parents’ stories of their past and simple lives in the middle of the ocean. This is a movie I would not mind watching the second or third time. If anything, it fills the void of a certain time in my life growing up in Samoa - including the daily chores, food preparation, picking breadfruits, high school days, collecting/harvesting coconuts, my grandfather's matofi (coconut fibers for the sennit), etc.  Kudos to the Silamanino crew!!

PS: There’s the problem of inconclusive and incomplete reviews because of the serial and sequential method and approach used in making the movie. Therefore comprehensive analyses are often suspended, delayed and postponed. The best example is the conflict between the protagonist (Silamanino) and a potentially typical antagonist (Moana). It is only hinted at in Part I and so hopefully it will be developed and enhanced in Part II, which is released this week, I heard.


Intimations of The Season

In my neck of the woods there’s a saying that if you do/don’t like the weather, wait fifteen minutes. Based on my Saturday experiences this past weekend, distance also makes a difference. If you don’t like the weather, drive for fifteen minutes. I left home in clear but cold chilly weather to go to a grandson’s football game. The championship game. End of the season.

pic 1
About three miles from home, I was in this (pic 1), another quarter of a mile and I was in this (pic 2). And finally at my destination, where the game was at, this! (pic 3). It’s that season again.

The kids played in almost two feet of snow. Do you still call that football, or snowball? I think the latter with a twist. It’s crazy to play football in so much snow that I quietly mused and hoped the kids’ competitive spirits would be dampened and downgraded to just a friendly game and fun in the snow like all kids do. 
In other words, let kids be kids! I’m sure they could, and would have, but I doubt the parents and coaches would have allowed it.  Sad?

pic 2

Anyway, driving in the snow is not anyone’s idea of enjoyment or fun, unless of course you happen to be a snowmobiler. Occasionally, however, I do take some pleasure in driving in the snow. And that’s normally around this time of the year (instead of the beginning months) which largely has to do with the distinct mood, feel, sights, sounds and even the smell of the season.

On my way to the game, corked up in the car’s confines, I listened to my timid and fretful thoughts interrupted by the pure white ominous flakes that struck the windshield like innocuous bugs.

pic 3
 The radio was on but had been turned real low by Dearie the night before when she took the car to her church meeting. I wanted to listen to a weather report, so I turned the radio up. And voila! Sweet, non stop, mood changing, sentimental, seasonal, beautiful Christmas music. Already? It seems that every year they start playing Christmas songs weeks sooner than the previous year. Soon, we will be listening to Christmas songs year round, which will be too extreme I think, and even despite the wish of  "the king himself" that “if every day was just like Christmas, what a wonderful world this would be.” (That wish, I think, would not be too extreme.)

At one intersection, as I waited for the green light, more validating lyrics including “it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas,” came on.  I also had time to snap this picture (pic 4) of some trees on the opposite side of the road and whose branches puffed, drooped and arched by the weight of the white powder. It looked as if the trees were prostrating in front of Nature's king.  By this time, the sights outside and the sounds inside had already soothed my nostalgia and lifted my spirits. The same distinctive feelings, mood and memories of this wonderful time of the year had repeated their annual pilgrimage to my meditative soul. It was like taking a potent antidote for a chronic ailment and the healing had already started.

pic 4
 But just before the light turned green, two snow plows roared by, infringing on my stream of recollections, and dumping a huge blanket of wet snow on the hood and windshield. My angelic Christmas mood almost melted with the wet snow. Yet I smiled and let the wipers do their job on the darkly glass. I continued to drive to the game.

We lost. Some of the boys were teary-eyed and a couple of them sobbed. Frustration and disappointment were evident on the parents’ chilled faces made worse by the near taunting, loud cheers, screams, and celebration at the opposite side of the field.  That was cold, in more ways than one.

Again it was hard because it was the championship game and we lost.  But the parents and players agreed that it had been a great season.  At the same time, and at least for me, a greater season has started with the snow, the mood and the music all heralding the beginning of The Season.


Ooh Bummer ...

Well, first of all congratulations to Obama for his re-election!  He’s got only four more years. Thank goodness and thank heavens for term limits! I should not however attempt to elevate my hopes because Obama’s party, hence his socialist policies and programs, seem to be slowly but surely inching their way into the American psyche, becoming the pattern and standard for America.  Ooooooh gloomy!

... anyway, to be true to my logline, I have something to say. I am disappointed, disheartened and disgruntled.  Therefore, I am tempted to diss someone!   But I refrain.  I’ll try (yes, try) to stay within the fringes of moral indignation as I vent some take-aways (pun intended) from the Election.

First of all, Obama is one angry man!  It’s visceral. He’s angry at many things and many people (like Donald Trump). He is spiteful and vengeful. Obama is on a mission and he seems to be having success, and/or will eventually succeed. His mission is described in one word, a word that he finally uttered in his closing arguments of the election this past week, and the word is REVENGE!  He urged his supporters to vote for Revenge!  I’ll let you the reader interpret and expound on that, but I can write a whole dissertation on it.

Socialist Ideas
Obama likes to redistribute wealth. And as dirt-poor as I am, I would make an ideal supporter and protege of his, as many would surmise. I agree with him to a point on some issues, but in principle only. I detest his despise and dislike for the rich (like Donald Trump - and Romney).  But the irony in all of this, is that without the rich, he will not have any wealth to redistribute. Obama is like a Robin Hood, but his motives are not charitable, but vengeful. And so he wants to champion the poor which is his way of exacting not charity, but REVENGE based on his deep resentment for things, for certain people and kinds of people, social conditions, political and economic elements and philosophical tendencies, etc.

With Obama’s socialist policies, and the government as the sole dole distributor, there is no incentive for anyone to aspire to be better and to be successful - only incentives to be idle, consume and squander. Aiafu in other words.

The dire drawback, consequence and eventuality of such a mentality is that the rich will eventually be poor, and the poor will be poorer ...as well as poorest - if not rest in peace hastily.

Opportunity NOT  Importunity
When we talk with other immigrant families, we express gratitude for the so-called American values of hard work, innovation, benevolence, opportunities, freedom, etc. We tell our children that people come to America for OPPORTUNITY, not IMPORTUNITY. No one when contemplating coming to America will say, let’s go to America because they have a great welfare program that we can importune. Instead they tell their children to go to America because there are opportunities to make something of themselves.  We see that very objective changing because of the ideology of some parties and politicians (like Obama).  The government is making it more attractive for people to come for importunity. And, in turn, these people will continue to vote for that party, president and government that will give them the American Cream - instead of the American Dream.  What does one lose and/or compromise in becoming dependent on something?  FREEDOM!  And the government is supposed to protect and grant freedom - not abrogate it through promoting a life of dependency.  Worse still is that this abrogation of freedom is done by the country that touts herself as freedom's main protector and guardian.

Fair Share
The two words that have been pervasive in the president’s campaign. Obama wants fairness and equality as far as means and property.  At the same time, success is decried and attacked. Well, here’s my plan to quickly achieve fairness for everybody. Let’s all quit our jobs, become unemployed and apply for welfare and foodstamps. In twenty to thirty years, we will have milked the RICH dry, and we will all be equal and poor, equally poor with the rich. And when everybody is poor, then everything is finally fair. Everybody has nothing, stripped of property, of pride and integrity. Then what follows?   Then we all go to ..uh.... Hellooooooo??  Fair enough? Hahaha!

Well that’s my rant and beef.  Now I feel relieved and cleansed of post-election blues!

And so now, as my Church leaders admonished - and I concur - we need to pray for the President.  So here’s praying and wishing President Obama the best!  Good luck and God bless!


Romney for President

New York Observer Editorial
November 2012

The crisis of leadership in American government is easily explained: thanks to a flawed presidential primary system that rewards strident rhetoric and hyper-partisanship, candidates tailor their messages to fringe elements in small, unrepresentative states. The result? A nasty, shallow and expensive process that rewards sound bites rather than solutions and gamesmanship instead of ideas. This year, however, we have witnessed a rare phenomenon in American politics. A candidate has emerged from the rough and tumble of the primaries with his dignity intact. The system has produced not a demagogue but a manager, a candidate whose experience is rooted in the pragmatism of the business world rather than the ideology of partisan politics.

That candidate is Mitt Romney.

Gov. Romney won the Republican Party’s nomination precisely because he is not an ideologue—and that is no small achievement. He persuaded enough Republican primary voters that the time has come to put aside dogma and inflexibility in favor of real-world solutions to the array of problems America faces at home and abroad.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Romney has shown that he is a moderate to his core—he is a manager, and a listener, who believes he can restore the balance between the private and public sectors that has been a hallmark of the American economy.

The Observer endorses Mr. Romney’s candidacy and urges readers to support him.

Four years ago, Barack Obama captured the imagination of many Americans with his thrilling message of change. Given the challenges confronting the president—two raging wars and an unprecedented global economic collapse—the desire for a quick fix was unrealistic.

America supported that candidate (as did this newspaper), but his presidency, so filled with promise and potential, has failed to deliver the change America needs.

True, Mr. Obama deserves credit for strong, decisive action that helped prevent a catastrophic economic meltdown on Wall Street. The financial services sector, the city’s most important industry, came very close to the unthinkable as once-unshakable entities—Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch—simply vanished. Mr. Obama’s policies helped to shore up the industry and, thus, the city.

At the same time, however, the president has evinced a distaste for that very same industry, and his rhetoric has begun to erode its foundation. Class warfare might be a successful strategy for cobbling together 270 electoral votes. But it’s not the way to unite a divided nation.

The president comes to town on a Monday, takes our money, shakes our hands and tells us how much he values the CEOs and innovators of New York. And then on Tuesday, he turns around and refers to business leaders as fat cat bankers whose success was created by the sweat of others. That’s not a friend. That’s not a leader. That’s a politician.

Mitt Romney stands out because—unlike so many candidates in the past—he understands how to build businesses, create efficiencies, make tough deals and carefully consider divergent viewpoints. America needs a strong leader, a practical leader. Mr. Romney knows full well that it would be a tragic mistake to simply assume that the United States will continue to be the world’s economic powerhouse simply because that’s what we’ve been for decades. America earned its global prominence because of the nation’s culture of work and individual freedom. That’s why immigrants came here and continue to come here—not because they seek a handout, but because they want a chance to work and to create and to innovate. In today’s competitive economy, the country needs competitors, not class-war crybabies.

Barack Obama, the candidate of change in 2008, was and will remain a significant figure in American history. His election four years ago truly was a milestone and, rightly, a cause for celebration.

While we admire Mr. Obama, we believe he squandered an opportunity to bring positive change to Washington—and what change he did bring will burden future generations. We continue to rack up debt, buy services we cannot afford and allow unfunded liabilities to continue to grow. This has to end.

Rather than reimagining government’s role in society and the economy by embracing the courageous alternatives proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission two years ago, Mr. Obama turned to neo-New Deal policies. Rather than building creative partnerships with the private sector, the president chose to demonize the successful. Rather than strengthen the nation’s relationship with Israel as the Arab world imploded, Mr. Obama treated Jerusalem as less a friend than a burden.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, promises to bring a new and refreshing attitude to Washington, one that speaks to his experience as both a successful business leader and the governor of a state not known for its affection for Republicans.

As he surveys the nation’s stubbornly sluggish economy, Mr. Romney isn’t looking to point fingers, and he certainly isn’t looking to single out chief executives, entrepreneurs and high earners for demagogic attacks and punitive tax proposals. Critics have lampooned him as out of touch; in fact, it is Mr. Obama who has lost sight of the fact that American capitalism is the greatest anti-poverty program in human history.

For that reason, New Yorkers have a special reason to embrace Mr. Romney. He has made it clear that he sees successful, high-achieving and, yes, high-earning Americans as his partners, not his enemies. New Yorkers may still have a special place in their hearts for Mr. Obama’s undeniable place in American history. But it’s important to remember that the president’s anti-Wall Street rhetoric and his soak-the-rich tax proposals are aimed at many of us.

What’s more, the city actually has fared even worse than the rest of the country over the last four years. The city’s stubbornly high jobless rate of over 9.9 percent is higher than the national rate of 7.8 percent. The loss of Wall Street jobs and reigning in of pay has had a negative trickle-down effect on New York’s service industry businesses as well.

Romney’s Plan for Growth
Mr. Romney understands that Washington must work with corporate America, small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to recapture their trust and to ignite their imaginations. To that end, he proposed cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent, the world’s highest, to a more reasonable 25 percent. He also has proposed a permanent 20 percent reduction in marginal tax rates for individuals. Mr. Romney’s critics charge that this formula has been tried before to no avail. They have forgotten their history—tax cuts by Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Ronald Reagan helped fuel job creation, investment and prosperity.

At the macro level, Mr. Romney could not be more clear: Job creation—not what he memorably called “trickle-down government”—must be Washington’s priority. That position stands in remarkable contrast to Mr. Obama’s priorities when he took office, as he used his mandate to ram through Obamacare, the largest expansion of government since the Great Society.

But Mr. Romney knows that the key to job creation lies not in Washington, but on both Wall Street and Main Street, where the creativity of capitalism and the vision of risk-takers can chart a new course for millions who have seen their prospects dim over the last four years. Bill Clinton said that those who work hard and play by the rules should be assured of a bright future. But the last four years have seen millions of hard workers consigned to the unemployment line and some 46 million become dependent on food stamps—up from 31 million in 2008. Mr. Romney is caricatured as an unfeeling child of privilege, but it is hard to miss his outrage when he talks of the unemployed and underemployed people he has met during his campaign.

Mr. Romney also understands that government can no longer afford to spend trillions that it simply doesn’t have. Entitlement programs, including Medicare and Social Security, need to be reformed. Cultures of dependency—both at the individual and the corporate level—must be transformed. We saw that here in New York City in extreme form. The city of the late 1980s, where one in seven New Yorkers was on welfare, had essentially ceased to function. Both Rudy Giuliani and Bill Clinton applied common-sense solutions to get the city and the country off the mat, and the results are inarguable. The difference between the New York of the late 1980s and today is astonishing, although there still is work to be done.

America and the World
Credit where it is due: under President Obama, the world’s master terrorist met his demise at the business end of American weaponry.

Other than that undeniable achievement, Mr. Obama’s conduct of foreign policy and national security has been incoherent and ineffective, as the continuing and ever-changing saga of the terrorist murder of U.S. diplomats in Libya demonstrates.

But for so many New Yorkers, the most disconcerting failure of the Obama years has been the nation’s deteriorating relationship with Israel. He foolishly sought to create strategic separation between Washington and Jerusalem, believing that this would somehow impress the Arab world’s dictators and demagogues. Precisely why this would be in the national interest remains a mystery—in any case, the shift was a strategic disaster.

Israel rightly believes that Mr. Obama simply doesn’t comprehend the threats to its very existence. There is no reason to believe that the Obama administration will have Israel’s back if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities—a move that may be required to prevent the haters in Tehran from possessing and using weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Obama appears to believe that peace will come to the Middle East simply by forcing Israel, the only true democracy in the region, to return to its pre-1967 borders without even the most basic concession from the Arabs. What kind of a friend would make such a demand?

Mr. Romney will not stand by idly while vicious anti-Semites in Egypt’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood threaten Israeli civilians. He will not bow to wishful thinking when terrorists hijack protest movements in the Arab world. And he will call out Israel’s critics in the West for their hypocrisy and utter disregard for the Jewish state’s security concerns.

Change to Move Forward
The United States simply cannot afford another four years of weak leadership. The genius of American capitalism and the moral authority of American foreign policy must be restored.

Mitt Romney has a plan to do both. He has the credentials to restore the economy and to defend American values in a hostile world. He has the skills to help create jobs and a brighter future for our country.

This election is a true turning point for the next generation. Mitt Romney is the change the nation needs. And he is the change New York needs.



Moonlit night in Samoa

... here's a feel good post to mellow down the politically animated ones of late ....LOL!

A rising full moon is an image that is etched in every Samoan’s thoughts and memories of island life. More importantly is the moon’s association with love and romance, as in many stories and tales of the South Seas.

A po masina (moonlit night) is a night of fun and games in the village malae (square/courtyard). Children play igave’a (hide and seek), togiga nonu (tossing and finding the nonu/noni fruit, the main ingredient of a now popular medicinal drink) or gaga ‘ie (hiding and finding the lavalava wrap around). The young adult boys and girls would sit, chat and often romancing each other. The older ‘aumaga (untitled men) would huddle in a designated spot playing their guitars and ukuleles and singing their favorite and popular love songs.

This musical gathering can also be part of a common ritual among the men called the fa'asausauga. The practice involves the men sitting or walking about with their upper bodies bare and exposed to the sau (cool, soothing nightly breeze) mainly for relief and therapy. The word fa'asausau has therefore come to mean “without a shirt/top” for the men. During the day these men spend most of the time working in their plantations in the mountains or out fishing at sea. At night the fa'asauauga is the process by which their bodies are soothed, healed and rehabilitated by the sau. It’s a natural remedy.  Shirts, t-shirts or singlets are either absent or draped around their backs or shoulders. Most men prefer to observe the fa'asausauga ritual while playing guitars and singing at the malae.

The unamplified yet melodious strains of island harmonies are wafted through the village by the same panacean breeze and in turn become sweet lullabies to the village elders and invalids. The men sing of village life but they mostly sing of love and romance. They sing of the moon (while under the moon) and of how its slow rise over the swaying palm trees and silver lagoon is peak time for romance; time when thoughts and memories of a lover are conjured, felt and overwhelm. For these noble savages a full moon rising is time for rendezvous and trysts - or nostalgia as sentimentalized in this favorite/popular stanza and verse:

Le masina e, ua vaaia i luga o mauga  (As the moon rises over the mountains)
Le tumutumu oe o nai o’u mafaufauga  (That’s when my thoughts turn only to you)
Ua e malaga i nu’u ese  (Though you have traveled to far away lands)
Ae le galo oe la’u pele  (I will always remember you my dear)
Le alofa sa i o ta luga ua ou teuina  (And the love we shared, is one that I now treasure)

When the night's fun is all finished, then everyone leaves spontaneously, just as they came together. This habit is the origin of the popular expression  "O le a le tu'ua faa-evaga a tamaiti i le po masina/ O le a le tu'ua faapo evaga [le tatou mafutaga ae e tatau ona avatu sa matou faafetai]." (We will not depart from this gathering as children do after their moonlit night revelry [so we need to formally express our gratitude ....] ) The expression is often used as an introduction to a more formal speech thanking the hosts for the food, hospitality, kindness, etc., at a wedding, funeral or other social functions.

Faafetai lava mo le fa'asausauga!


Obama uses profanity on Romney

Obama stoops low to influence children
Yes, you read that right! Obama, in his interview with Rolling Stone calls Romney a "bullshitter". Perhaps even worse is the fact that he said it in the context of how children could easily tell that Romney was just that.

It’s certain that Obama is getting desperate, though I must say that name calling has been the aim and focus of his campaign from the beginning. He has been attacking Romney with vitriol, ad hominem, diatribe and now profanity. Early on while the GOP was still in the primaries picking their nominee, there was a leak from Obama’s people that the main focus of the president’s campaign if Romney were to win the GOP nomination was to "kill Romney". Obama’s campaign tried to double down and deny it but now we know that the leopard just cannot change its spots. Obama and his campaign have been calling Romney names such as traitor, murderer, liar, etc. in the last several months.

And now the President of the United States has called his Republican opponent a "bullshitter". Now it may be fine if that's Obama’s own vernacular and may/can be used privately, but to use it publicly, while speaking officially as the President of the United States, let alone in the Oval Office, to describe and malign someone who is a candidate for the same office, only shows how low, deplorable, disrespectful and rude Obama is. I must say that such language, resentment and venom are below the integrity of the office of the President of the United States, and I’m sure the good people of America - and others as well - agree, despite their political leanings. It's just sad. Very, very sad.

If Obama ends up losing, it’s because of the fact that he has been launching personal attacks on Romney instead of lauding and advancing his own accomplishments and record of the last four years. Oooops, wait a minute, he does not have a record to laud and advance - he failed as a president. Ok, now we know why he’s playing the man and not the polo! (ball).


The Third Debate

My take...late, but not never!

Well, it was the final debate of the 2012 presidential race. And of course the sequitur is, who won? Pundits and debate watchers, again, favored Obama. Once more, I agree, but for me the “win” was only based on the general tone, feel and intensity of the debate during which the president sounded even more aggressive and pertinacious. Unfortunately, he also demonstrated moments of weakness, petulance, sarcasm, arrogance and condescension. And in that regard, Obama got the short end of the stick. Romney was more presidential and in a more composed, in control, albeit in passive and subdued demeanor compared to the first debate. I also believe Romney’s approach last night was a strategy. Voters know that Romney already has the knowledge, experience and skills to be president (compared to Obama, then and ....now!) but they want to know if he has the disposition to be the commander-in-chief. Romney passed that test in last night’s debate, though it already started burgeoning in the first two.

Obama may have snatched himself an important win (or wins including the second debate) but I doubt the current trajectory of the race - in which the momentum is with Romney based on most polls - will change.
Another area in which Romney came out on top was in the fact checking phase of the debate. The two main ones where the most tension was felt were, first, the postwar forces in Iraq which Obama said he was against keeping any, and Romney claiming that both he and the president supported; and second, was the auto bailout in which Obama accused Romney of wanting to allow the industry to go bankrupt. Well, Romney was right in both claims and Obama was wrong according to the fact checkers. This is an example of an indifferent and ill-informed president, which also reflect on his weak and failed leadership.

Moreover, Obama’s rhetoric earned him points but he was still weak in the overall substance of the debate. Ironically, the foreign policy focus of the debate, should have been in his favor - well theoretically. But this is a president who has bragged and dwelled solely on the killing of Osama as his initiation, medal and core qualification for being president. Americans generally agree that anyone (actually, even I, or Josh, my neighbor’s twelve year old son), given the same authority, would have made the call, yet Obama still touts and flaunts it as if he deserves all the credit. In fact, he, in jest, mentioned it in his Al Smith dinner speech recently in which he said, directed at Romney who also attended, that killing Osama was a “debate alert”.

Perhaps one of the bigger ironies in this race, understood only by the more keen observers of Obama’s policies, is that Obama "borrowed" his ideas from Romney’s - at least for his (Obama’s) touted achievements as president.

First, Obama’s approach and solution in the auto bailout was exactly what Romney recommended in his 2008 op-ed in the NY Times where Romney said to let the auto companies go through managed bankruptcy then assisted by Federal guarantees. It's essentially what Obama did.  Second, Obamacare is fundamentally based on “Romneycare” - a similar health care program (state level) Romney implemented in Massachusetts when he was governor. In fact, some of the same people who drew up Romney’s health care plan were hired by Obama to help with Obamacare (aka Affordable Care Act).

What does that say about the President? Well, the same thing he confessed about, that as president he was still "in training" - still learning. That’s not surprising with someone who became president without any executive experience and, as GOP supporters have said, who never ran anything, not even a country store. And so Obama’s inexperience has clearly been demonstrated in his first term becoming an ineffective leader presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression, accumulating more debt in four years than all other previous presidents combined!!

Lastly, Obama does not even have a plan for the next four years - actually, until several hours ago!!   His campaign has just released a 20-page plan (versus Romney’s 120-page plan that has been out for months).  It's a brochure, a pamphlet!  There are two more weeks left before the election and Obama has just released a 20-page brochure outlining his plan for the next four years? Come On!  That’s like handing in a term paper written two days before the due date - rough, rambling, unproofed and plagiarized (re: copying Romney's ideas above). And we all know what the grade is for such work - an F which coincidently is the letter for Failure and Forward both associated with Obama and his campaign.

Therefore, Romney may have "lost" the third battle (debate) but is still winning the war. And as Mrs. Romney said, if Romney wins, America wins; if he loses, America loses.

And that’s the truth!


What's the Deal?

Decision 2012

 In the news today:
MANCHESTER, N.H. – President Obama, returning to New Hampshire for the first time in well over a month, Thursday mocked Mitt Romney’s tax and spending proposals as a bogus plan with numbers that don’t add up.

“Listen, New Hampshire, you’ve heard of the New Deal, you’ve heard of the Square Deal, the Fair Deal – Mitt Romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal,” Obama said.
One supporter in a crowd of a few thousand, perhaps thinking he had a better phrase, yelled out: “It’s a raw deal!” ~ Politico
To which I say:
President, I have also heard of the Bad Deal and the Failed Deal;  lemme tell ya, a sketchy deal would be much better than the BAD and FAILED DEAL of the past four years! ...or worse, the NO DEAL of the next four years (if you win) ... So, Deal?... Mr. President?

(Dang it, I need to be Romney’s speech writer ... LOL! ... C’mon GOP put this in one of your ads! :) ... or let Romney say it on the campaign trail......)

Speaking of deals, it's all going to come down to TWO DEALS (below) and Americans are going to make the choice between The American Dream vs. The American Cream (self explanatory, aye?) Oh, by the way only one of the two is the Real American Deal and Ideal - the other one is NOT!

                                     DEAL?                       OR                    NO DEAL?


The Second Debate

...and yes I just finished  watching - as some or many of you - the second debate between Obama and Romney. The two post-debate polls (CNN and CBS) gave it to the president. And I would agree. But wait. Obama won in style, as far as his oratory rhetoric and debate mannerisms - albeit feisty and aggressive at times. Substantively, Romney won. For you Obama-ites, go back and read the above polls especially CNN's on questions like who they (respondents) believe would handle the economy better - Romney wins by almost 20 points. Who would better handle the deficit - Romney wins. Who would better handle health care - Romney wins, and who would better handle jobs - Romney wins. So you ask, why did Obama come out on top in the polls - AGAIN, it's his traditional debate-like style, being more aggressive (which was expected due to his lackluster performance in the first debate) and sometimes seemed feisty which to most people, unfortunately, was un-presidential.

Obama was obviously angry on the Libya question. And although Romney did not capitalize on the exchange, and seemed to have been weaker - with the help of the moderator (thanks Crowley), - the truth is that Obama was cunning and conniving (and I'm sure this will be clarified in the next debate which will be on foreign policy exclusively). The Libya attack is going to get worse in the next few days and weeks, and will likely be Obama's Achilles' heel.

So here's the scenario. From the beginning, the Obama administration has consistently and blatantly claimed that the attack (which killed the Ambassador and other Americans) was a direct result of the now well known Youtube video, which also triggered the protests in Egypt.

The day after the attack, Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden at the White House and mentioned "acts of terror" - not as the cause of the Libya attack, but in a general context of terrorist attacks on America, especially abroad. (That's what Romney failed to address effectively.) Why is that THE TRUTH? Well, a few days and even a week after the Libya attack, Susan Rice the US ambassador to the UN, said the attack was a result of the video. Even Obama when he addressed the UN days after the attack mentioned the Youtube video several times. And if that's not enough evidence of blatant lies, Obama appeared on "The View" and was specifically asked if it was a terror attack, and he said, they're not sure, it's still under investigation (the video of this exchange is available on Youtube). WOW! WOW! ...is all I can say.

And worse, even before the Obama administration FINALLY admitted that it was a terrorist attack, weeks after the attack, they had also concocted that it was a protest outside the embassy that attacked the embassy and was therefore SPONTANEOUS. The truth? There was NO PROTEST.

And so Obama and his pundits will stick to the words "act of terror", verbatim, in the Rose Garden as defense to Romney's charge.  The problem is the words were used in a different context, NOT as the chief cause of the attack.  Fact checkers are on Romney's side on this one.
Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just a few days ago, in order to protect Obama OBVIOUSLY, stepped in and said she is solely responsible, not the president. Ironically, Obama said in the debate tonight that he is responsible. There's a lot more on this cover up by Obama and his administration, and will be revealed in the next few days and weeks leading up to the election. Stay tuned.

Obama therefore told Romney tonight with an angry and feisty direct glare, that he and his administration are offended by his (Romney's) claims of the inconsistencies in the Libya embassy attack. Romney decided not to respond. But if I were Romney, here's my suggested response to that "offensive" statement by Obama:
"Mr. President, if you are offended, I'd like to inform you that the people of America, the ones who put you in the White House, are MORE OFFENDED at the deception and fabrication that have characterized your administration's version of events before, during and after the attack on THEIR EMBASSY in Benghazi."
If you watched the debate closely, Obama had NO answers for his failed promises, pathetic and poor record as pointed out by Romney
  • more people (in the tens of millions) on foodstamps than when he took office
  • has incurred more debt ($5 trillion) in four years than Bush's eight years - in fact, and all other presidents combined
  • twenty three million people out of work
  • gas prices have gone up above 100% since he took office
  • the average income per family has dropped by about $4000
  • the economy growth was less this year than last year, and was less last year than the year before, etc., etc.,
  • prices on everything have gone up higher than any time before
  • health care costs are already rising and will be even higher when Obamacare is fully implemented
 Finally, I would say that Obama is big on oratory rhetoric, platitudes and words, and as cliched as this sounds, it is still true, effective and applicable in Obama's first term: "Actions SPEAK LOUDER than words."

Better still, this statement by Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana) after the debate sums up the debate eloquently and effectively, "You can combine the speaking skills of Presidents Reagan, Lincoln and Winston Churchill…and you still couldn't defend his record."

...good night!

Did Laura Ingraham read my blog? LOL!  Tonight (Oct 17th, and some 20 hours later) she was on O'Reilly and she was interviewed by Bill.  On the Benghazi issue during the debate, Laura said that Romney should have responded to Obama's "offensive" comment and should have told him that "the American people are offended." (I'll post a reference or video when I find it.)  Ok, click  here
And Candy Crowley, the CNN moderator, has now admitted that she was wroooong on Libya and Romney was right!  ...Duuuhh!


Some weekend pics

Football football and more football, but a few of the younger ones (Eden and the boys) drove themselves around the field and had fun doing it. ...

Game Night - several couples from our church/ward came over to play games at our place. Lots of food taro, oka (Hawaiian poke), alaisa faapopo (the nite’s special), koko samoa, curry, pies, cakes, etc. ... here, pics of the game room the morning after - calm after the storm    



My son

My Son
My only son,
my friend and typical teenager.
he loves video games,
consoles controllers and conventions.
he loves to sketch and draw
even on the walls of his room where
superheroes and movie characters live.
he loves to play basketball
so he has many pairs of shoes.
he loves to sing
so he sings in his room and when
he walks around the house.
best of all,
he loves to film and loves
to capture images.

briefly, he went prodigal
trying to find himself
but returned home
where he found it.

now he’s left home again
with only two pairs of shoes
this time losing himself
in finding others so they can live forever.
he sings the Lord’s praises and
tries to capture His image
in his countenance
because he loves his friend.
he loves Heavenly Father more
than anything and loves
most of all,
His only Begotten Son



Ia se’i vavae fo’i foe ...

... basically means “let’s change things up a bit; let’s add some variety to the mix.”

I know that this should be posted in the Motuga’afa page - and it will be later on - but for now, it’s posted here to su’ifefiloi-ing the posts. :)  E le matagofie se siva ae taga tasi. (A dance is neither exciting nor graceful if it lacks a variety of movements/actions.)

So here’s a couple of Samoan alagaupu (proverbial expressions) with derivations, meanings and usage.   E masani ona faaaogaina pe afai o loo e tautala i le gagana maotua, e ese mai i le gagana o aso uma (Often used in polite or oratical speeches as opposed to the vernacular.)

1. Ma’ona/ ma’oona a umu fu’e
(Getting full/satiated eating in the cooking hut.)

Faaaogaina i se faafetai, ae maise se faatasiga o fai ai ni taumafa/mea’ai.

I Samoa, e masani ona ui ane se tagata o fu’e se umu a se aiga, ona afe lea e fesoasoani i le fu’eina o le umu. A uma ona fu’e e masani ona ave i le tagata lea se talo ma se lu’au, poo se ‘ulu ma se taoipu poo a lava ni mea’ai sa tao i le umu e taui ai lana fesoasoani (ia poo le fia’ai faa’ata’ata fo’i). Ona ‘ai loa lea o le tagata lea i totonu o le tunoa (umu/umukuka) a uma, ua ma’ona, ona faaauau lea e aga’i i le mea na faamoemoe e alu iai. O lona uiga ua ma’ona i le umu lea faato’a uma ona fu’e, ia “sola” ai a lea iina. O le tulaga aloa’ia ma le faaaloalo, e alu i le fale se’i uma ona laulau le mea ‘ai a le aiga ona a’ai faatasi lea, fai ai ma sana faafetai, ae le o le ‘ai muamua ma ma’ona i le umu ona mou atu ai a lea.

O le faaaogaina la o le upu lea, e tusa o lea ua e fai i le aiga e leai matou te le amio e pei o le amio a le tagata e ‘ai i le umu lea faato’a fu’e, ua ma’ona loa ona sola lea, ae le faia se faafetai.

 "O le a le tu'ua faa evaga i le po masina le tatou afiafi, matou te le ma’ona/ma’oona fo’i a umu fu’e, leaga e faigata la outou faaaloalo, le ma’au ma lo tou masui..."  Ia ga.

2. Momoli fa’a i’a o tai o’oo’o
(as a fish washed on dry ground by high tide)

O le tai o’oo’o, po’o le tai sua tutu’i, o le tai lea ua sosopo ma o’o ona i’u galu ma ona tafega i le fuefue ia poo le auala tele fo’i. O le masani la i tai sua ma le o’oo’o ona tafefea ai i’a ma momoli i le pa’umatu ma pa’ulia ai ma i’u ina mamate pe afai e le vave ona lavea’iina.

E faaaogaina o se upu faalalolalo, ma se upu e tapui ai se va, e ‘alofia ai mai i le maasiasi poo le maoaluma

1. "O pa’ia i aiga (poo pa’ia o Samoa) o le a le o’o iai sa matou faamatalaga ne’i te’i ua iai se sasi ona avea lea o si nei toea’ina faa-i’a e momoli e tai o’oo’o; ia pe toe pa’ia fo’i lota mata i si ota lava lima."

2. "Ina ne’i avea ita pei o se i’a ua momoli e tai o’oo’o, o lea e mua’i ona faamalie atu pe afai fo’i e faa-manu oso vale i le fogatia se leo o le toea’ina."
(Gagana faigofie: Ina ne’i te’i ua ta maoaluma, o lea faamalie pe afai e tuvale se manatu poo se leo o lenei tagata.)
A le o lena fo'i pe o se taupulega to'atele ma se tonu o se mea e fai, ae i'u i se faaletonu, ae uma ifo ua amo uma pe tu'ua'iina uma i se tagata e to'atasi le faaletonu. Ona faapea loa lea o se tala a le tagata lea, "Se paga, ua pei ita o se i'a ua momoli e tai o'oo'o." "Ua momoli fo'i ita fa'a i'a o tai o'oo'o ... lea ua tu i le faaletonu." Ioe ua makua oki a le mea a kakou....LOL!

Ia o loa e fu'e le umu lale ua afulu ....Hahaa!


Media Comments on the Debate

...  a sample

Romney Kills It! ~ Politico
Oct 3, 2012 11:21 AM EDT
'The challenger turned in a strong performance, while the president disappointed.'

Obama’s Big Whimper
by Michael Medved
"The 51-year-old hope-and-change wonder boy looked worn out, uncomfortable, and embarrassed to be there, at times wrinkling his face as if suffering severe gastric distress."

‘He May Have Lost the Election’
by Andrew Sullivan
"This was supposed to be a debate, not a wonkish lecture. And Romney’s well-crafted punches are going to sting Obama for a while."

Why Obama Lost
by David Frum - CNN Analyst
"Mitt Romney dominated and Barack Obama stumbled in Denver Wednesday night."

The Rockefeller Republican Wins Big
by Michael Tomasky - Newsweek
"There is no question that Mitt Romney won this debate, and won it big. He was crisp, and he struck a good balance of being on the offensive without being offensive. Obama was hardly even there half the time. He seemed as if he just wandered in off the street."

Why Obama Fell Flat
by Howard Kurtz
"The president made some good arguments but was undermined by his lack of passion. Howard Kurtz on how he let Romney win the night."

Polls: Romney Wins
by Matthew DeLuca
"Pundits trashed President Obama’s performance in last night’s debate—and instant polls show that voters agree."

Was That Obama’s Dud Double?
by Tunku Varadarajan
"He wasn’t exactly sweaty-Nixonesque, but the Obama on display in Denver was more flaccid, dull-brained, and shifty than we’ve ever seen him in the White House. One thing is clear: Romney’s a debater—and he’s likable,... "

"Where was Obama tonight?!
Chris Matthews - MSNBC
He should watch, well not just Hardball, Rachel [Maddow], he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence [O'Donnell]. He would learn something about this debate,"

Obama did poorly in the debate
Ed Schultz - MSNBC
"I don't think he explained himself very well. I thought he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight,"

NOTE: When Michael Tomasky, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, etc. do not say anything positive about Obama in the debate with Romney, then you know that Obama's performance was beyond spinning and beyond sugarcoating.  In other words, it was bad, as in bad - not baaad!  LOL!


Debate or "De Bait"?

... maybe not for long
 I should really look forward to this debate tonight between Obama and Romney, but for some reason I am not. Why? Because I know Obama will win, no matter how well Romney does. How do I know that? Because the MSM (Mainstream Media) - or what I call the MaliciouS Media - will spin the debate in Obama’s favor. So "de bait" is already dangled before Romney by the MaliciouSMedia. And if Romney messes up or sounds/looks weak, then you will read the morning headlines - by the likes of Huffington Post, MSNBC, Politico, Daily Beast, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, etc.- that the election is over. These MSM outlets will hire you on the spot if you answer "Yes!" to their only question of their interviews "Do you hate Romney?" And then you will join the ranks of  Martin Bashir, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Michael Tomasky, Paul Begala, Hillary Rosen and all the Romney haters.

Meanwhile I’ll just watch and wait to write my own post debate analysis, if not live updates ...

Well, quite the contrary it now seems and I am starting to feel sorry for the President. The big difference in knowledge between him and Romney is startling. Rightfully! Romney has MBA and Law degrees - plus extensive executive experience. Obama has only a Law degree and a total lack of executive experience - only as a community organizer and first term senator - that's it! Compare that to Romney being a former Governor, CEO (Bain Corporation) and President/CEO (Olympics), Church leader, etc.

Romney was right a couple of weeks ago that Obama is going to lie during the debates - and he (Obama) has lied flagrantly so far - e.g. Tax deduction for a company moving overseas.  Romney told him there's no such thing.

VERDICT IS IN: Romney IS clearly THE WINNER. So far that's my take and CNN's as well - a more neutral news channel. Obama seemed flustered, listless and lost!  He actually was groping for answers.

Surprisingly MSNBC seems to hands the win to Romney too! (Hence I stand corrected!..LOL! )
"Mitt Romney [as the winner] was the general consensus of the media, including the usually pro-Obama MSNBC. (MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz slammed Obama's performance.)" ~ Politico
Some final thoughts:
Well I guess when you’re hot you’re hot - Romney
And when you’re not you’re not - Obama

And Obama must have really sucked because even his own MSM gang agrees! I have watched Obama in some of his campaign speeches, especially when he’s rebutting a claim by Romney. He responds like a member of a college freshman debate team - he’s sarcastic, facetious and elementary in his logic. And he’s the President? C’mon.   Romney was definitely more confident, composed and smarter; Obama was livid and lethargic.

Watch Obama come back more aggressive and fiercer in the next debate but he has to be careful not to appear feisty and arrogant. And don’t forget that Romney has seen all that during the primaries.

Finally, Romney should insert the following somewhere in the remaining debates: "Look, I understand that the President is a good man, and a very popular and likeable person, but popularity and likeability do not create jobs and do not improve the economy; experience and leadersip do, and I have both - and more!"

UPDATE (10/15/2012) - day before the second debate:
A news headline reads:  "Obama camp predicts feistier showing in debate No. 2."