President Obama had the misfortune of the entire nation seeing his face become more and more pinched and constipated-looking during Dr. Benjamin Carson’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast this past week.

Carson, a neurosurgeon at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, took the stage Thursday morning with a speech that critiqued the tax system, Obamacare and political correctness — all while referencing Jesus. It was beautiful and it made me wish C-SPAN was a more watched channel.

While Carson’s speech began innocent enough, quoting verses from the Bible such as “‘With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escapes,’” the rest of the speech drifted far from anything Obama expected.

Carson first ripped apart the entire idea of political correctness (thank the Lord — wait am I allowed to say that, or will too many people be offended?). He condemned it as something that “muffles” American citizens. Needless to say, his speech certainly was not deterred by any such muzzle — though I’m sure Obama would have appreciated that.

On the subject of taxes, Carson made not only his case plain and simple but also plan plain and simple.

“When I pick up my Bible” he said, “I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and He’s given us a system. It’s called tithe.”

For non-religious folk out there, tithing is the act of giving God 10 percent of your income through the means of the church. Wealthy Christians don’t give more than poor Christians. It’s always 10 percent.

Basically what Carson suggests is all Americans, no matter their income, give the same percentage of their income in taxes, just as all Christians give 10 percent to the church. Honestly, if it’s good enough for God, surely it should be good enough for the government.

Now I — nor Carson I’m sure — am not implying that everyone’s Christian or everyone in the government should do it this way because the Bible says so. That would be silly and infringe upon separation of church and state. The government should do it the way Carson describes because it just bloody makes more sense for all Americans to have to give the same percentage.

Carson then went on to mention Obamacare, despite being two seats away from Obama himself. I don’t pretend to understand all the mechanics of the healthcare policy he suggested, but the word “efficient” was used: a word that is disturbingly lacking from the vocabulary of our policymakers.

Carson suggested that a citizen should have a “health savings account to which money can be attributed pre-tax from the time you’re born until the time you die. When you die you can pass it on to your family members so that when you’re 85 years old and you’ve got six diseases, you’re not trying to spend up everything, you’re happy to pass it on and there’s nobody talking about death panels.”

After that statement, Obama switched his attention to the ground.

The idea of being able to pass on your healthcare to loved ones especially makes Carson’s plan stand out. Especially in a world in which little is legally allowed to pass on from parent to child — our own iTunes libraries don’t even actually belong to us (sorry future daughter, I guess my hardy collecting of Taylor Swift songs has been in vain). If I can give whatever amount of healthcare money I failed to use to my children, that will almost make up for them missing out on hours upon hours of Taylor Swift enjoyment.

Although it was obvious how uncomfortable Obama was throughout the speech, Carson still managed to be one of the few to stand up and speak out about the government’s inefficiency — an action other citizens would do well to follow.

Carson embodies everything that’s needed in a leader. Not only did he point out problems with the government, but he also offered common sense solutions, the latter of which many politicians seem to be lacking lately. Maybe we need a change from politicians in the White House. Maybe it’s time for just an average Joe, or even a neurosurgeon to lead our country in the right direction (no pun intended).

I’d like to hope that before the country’s next presidential election, our current president would learn from Carson. I’d like to hope Obama will take all the wonderful points from Carson’s speech and try to incorporate a few into his own plans, or even for Vice President Joe Biden to have taken something to heart.

Then again, I’m also hopeful that reporters will start being fair and balanced — so I shouldn’t hold my breath.

How do we work together? That seems to me to be the question for this new year. We’ve certainly spent more than enough time learning how to disagree.

Just ask the United States Congress how much they know about that. I’ve learned a lot from them about disagreement and not working with others. U.S. history teaches us this country was built on compromise, a system of give-and-take and, above all, an underlying mutual respect for the person sitting next to you. The idea was that if our representatives worked together, the country would work better.

But you know what’s a great example of our country’s compromising values? The $1.3 billion that lawmakers cost the U.S. government while they were holding the debt ceiling hostage in 2011. The threat of a potential debt downgrade nearly blasted another hole in our already-precarious economic system. The $1.3 billion was the minimum loss estimate. But what’s ironic is they did it all over again on the fiscal cliff.

A message to Congress: The next time there’s another chance to have an incredibly vacuous argument about whether or not to move the country forward, please remember how much money it costs to bicker.

But Congress certainly wasn’t the only one teaching class in recent years. My man Mitt Romney sure gave his fair share of classroom lectures. I learned from Romney that changing your opinions to please people is a good way to try to get ahead in the world. I learned that if you work towards avoiding peoples’ concerns, rich folks will give you lots of money to keep doing it. But most importantly, I learned that caring 47 percent about anything gets you nowhere — sorry Mitt.

I mock what I watched this November, but it’s not with pleasure that I do so. I love this country and I find it disheartening that the 2012 presidential election reminded me more of a censored Jerry Springer episode than a contest between great men of great intent and aspiration. President Obama lost the first debate not because Romney had any content to his argument, but because Obama underestimated Romney’s capacity for obfuscation and his determination to reposition himself — yet again — to suit the mood of the general electorate.

It’s sad that we live in a time in which people are so uninformed and uninterested in working towards a common good and that politics is now a form of entertainment — or blood sport — instead of the respected form of civil service that produced great men and women in our history. How can it be that we claim to be the descendants of the “Greatest Generation,” a group of people whose great strength lay in their understanding that, at times, individual sacrifice and compromise are necessary in order for everyone to be better off?

Two months ago, a gunman in Connecticut mowed down 27 people: 20 small children, six teachers and his mother. This happened three days after a gunman shot up a mall in Oregon and in the same year as fatal mass shootings in Minneapolis, Tulsa, a Sikh temple, the midnight showing of a movie, a coffee bar in Seattle and a Halloween party on a college campus. Twenty-seven, two, six, three, six, 12, six, two. That’s a body count of 64. It’s time to ask again: How do we work together?

It’s time that our political system answer that question and learn to live within the times — not expect the times to live with them.

Our age is being reshaped by mass communication and mass communication is where change will begin. I loved that after every presidential debate, Facebook turned into a political forum for ideas and opinions on the candidates’ performances. That shows me there is hope, that people are interested. All of you who put up statuses that told me to keep my politics to myself can get lost. We need discussion.

That’s how we will begin to make a difference.

Next time you read about something you think ought to be recognized and changed, I want to hear about it. My friend at Northwestern University wants to hear about it. The Herald wants to hear about it. Chances are, people you never would expect to care want to hear about it.

In the end, it’s simple. Whether or not we solve the issues of our time will be the ultimate reflection of whether or not we can learn to work together — you, me, our congressmen, our professors, the deans, our new president — we is all of us.

After one of the worst blizzards in Boston’s history, the city continues to recover in the aftermath of Winter Storm Nemo, which hit the Northeast Friday afternoon.

“Our number one priority is getting to the side streets,” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said in a press release Sunday. “Residents have been very patient as we work to recover from the fifth largest snow storm to ever hit the City of Boston.”

Winter Storm Nemo hit the Northeast Friday and continued until Saturday, bringing about 24.9 inches of snow to the Boston area.

Boston schools are closed Monday and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority will resume normal services Monday.

“We are focused on getting service back to our customers as quickly as is safely possible,” said Kelly Smith, deputy press secretary for the MBTA, in an email.

“We have crews working around the clock to make necessary repairs and tend to clearing, but we’ll only reopen service when it is absolutely safe to do so. Our main goal is restoring service for Monday morning’s commute.”

MBTA services closed Friday at about 3:30 p.m. and remained closed until the MBTA announced Sunday there would be limited subway and key bus routes around 2:00 p.m. Sunday, according to the MBTA website.

The City of Boston had no power outages, according to the National Grid outage map Sunday. Still, on Sunday, more than 300,000 homes and businesses reported having no power.

Michael Verseckes, a Massachusetts Department of Transportation spokesman, said everyone was in full force trying to clear the roads.

“We are still clearing out some of the major roadways,” he said. “The post-storm shoveling is still ongoing and it will take a little time. We still have crews out there.”

Verseckes said in Massachusetts, they called in 3,500 plows and trucks to clear the snow off roadways and 378 of them were in Boston.

Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick issued a road ban Friday asking that all vehicles be off the roads by 4:00 p.m. The ban was lifted Sunday at about 4:00 p.m.

Steve MacDonald, Boston Fire Department spokesman, said there were two fires and one death caused by the storm.

An electrical fire broke out in West End Friday night, leaving more than 460 condominiums without power and heat during the height of the storm. Saturday morning in Roxbury, an unattended candle caused $200,000 in damage to a home, MacDonald said.

A 12 year-old boy died Saturday due to carbon monoxide poisoning in a vehicle when the exhaust system failed to vent out of a car. The child went into cardiac arrest and neighbors revived him with CPR before Boston Emergency Medical Services took him. He was later pronounced dead at the hospital, MacDonald said.

Menino, in a press release Saturday, said public safety is the city’s first priority and people should use caution when cleaning up after the storm.

“The news of this tragic accident is a sad reminder that the danger of this storm is not over,” Menino said in the release. “Please take care and use caution when cleaning up and getting back out on the streets. Our hearts go out to that family and their friends who are learning of this tremendously sad accident.”

MacDonald said there is still a lot of work to be done before Boston is back in full working order.

“There are still a lot of calls we receive for wires down or tree limbs down,” he said. “We are keeping 80 or so firefighters on to deal with the aftermath. We are doing what we can to keep people safe.”

The 55th annual Grammy Awards spectacle went on without a hitch. Sadly, perfectly-executed live award shows never make for the most entertaining TV. Last night’s three-and-a-half hour broadcast was no exception.

The star-studded evening relied heavily on random appearances of celebrities who have nothing to do with the music industry. TV personalities such as Neil Patrick Harris, Jonny Depp and Ellen Degeneres were peppered in-between the long list of performances that jammed the broadcast so full that the musical guests in the early evening could easily be forgotten by the end of the night. Does anyone remember that Alicia Keys performed? Nope.

This show reeked of obligatory, forced tributes, undoubtedly to form an emotional connection to otherwise unmoved home viewers. Dick Clark, Bob Marley and even the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy all got shout-outs in either the form of musical performances or speeches. Still, nothing could have compared to the sudden shock of Whitney Houston’s death on the night before last year’s Grammys.

Mumford and sons and Black Keys were among the more exciting performances . Their songs gave the Energetic and upbeat break that was needed among the majority of the evening’s performances, which were somber and almost depressing.

Of course, none of the evening’s musical performances could compete with the Bob Marley tribute performance that included Bruno Mars, Sting, Rihanna and Ziggy/Damien Marley. During the medley, on-looking stars in the crowd, such as Wiz Khalifa, Taylor Swift, Jay Z and Adele watched in amazement, appearing as if it were the coolest thing they’d ever witnessed.

Country music and folk jam bands owned the evening, excluding music lovers who don’t follow the genre.

The rest of the show was composed of irksome moments, such as Justin Timberlake’s performance of his new song that no one likes, LL Cool J’s attempts to turn the night into an emotional retrospective of his life and “accomplishments,” and the totally predictable list of winners. No surprise victories here.

Unquestionably, the greatest shame of Grammys 2013 was the tragic fact that Carly Rae Jepsen failed to snag any wins, which would have been triumphant, gratifying and absolutely hilarious. Next year, maybe?

The family of the late coach Joe Paterno released reports Sunday morning in response to Louis Freeh’s findings on the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case in July, calling the Freeh Report “factually wrong, speculative and ‘fundamentally flawed.’ ”

In July, Freeh’s findings claimed Joe Paterno was one of four top officials at Penn State who didn’t do enough to stop Sandusky, who was found guilty on 45 counts of child sex abuse and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison. The reports from the Paterno family were released at 9 a.m. Sunday, and the three investigators involved in them — former United States Attorney General and Pennsylvania governor Dick Thornburgh, retired FBI agent Jim Clemente and Paterno family lawyer Wick Sollers — spoke with ESPN’s Bob Ley on Outside the Lines.

On the air, Thornburgh said he was surprised there were so many shortcomings in Freeh’s report.

“There are three basic defects in the report as I see it,” Thornburgh said. “First of all, it’s incomplete, second of all it is full of inaccuracies, and thirdly it fails to reach the kind of conclusions that he or I insisted on in our investigation from our investigators. So I found much was overlooked, much was misrepresented in the report and the fact is it really isn’t deserving of being the kind of basis for action that’s insinuated here.”

Dr. Fred Berlin, the founder of Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic also released a report on the family’s website, but did not appear on “Outside the Lines.”

On the website, the family presented an overview of the reports, which featured key points of the investigator’s critique of Freeh’s findings. One of the points reads “each one of the Freeh report’s main observations about Joe Paterno is wrong: each is either contradicted or unsubstantiated by the evidence. The authors of the Freeh report chose not to present alternative, more plausible, conclusions regarding Joe Paterno’s role in the events involving Jerry Sandusky.”

It’s stated in the Paterno’s reports that the family of the late coach did not influence the scope of the Freeh report critique. And in the overview, it’s noted Freeh’s report was “uniformly biased” against Joe Paterno.

The overview also stated Sandusky was a “skillful manipulator,” which is something Clemente, a sex crime investigation expert, reiterated on Outside the Lines.

“[Sandusky] is hiding his behavior behind this outward persona of being a nice guy and an altruistic person,” Clemente said. “ Everybody believed he actually cared about children.”

Freeh responded Sunday morning in the form of a statement, and called the Paterno family’s reports “self-serving.”

Nine days after the release of the Freeh report, the NCAA hit Penn State with harsh sanctions including a $60 million fine and a four-year postseason ban for the school’s football team, based on what was found by Freeh.

The family’s reports can all be found at Paterno.com. An exclusive interview with Sue Paterno by Katie Couric will air on the “Katie” program Monday.

Saturdays may have become a whole lot grimmer with the U.S. Postal Service’s calling an end to its Saturday deliveries.

The U.S. Postal Service wishes to move to a five-day-mail-delivery schedule to cut nearly $2 billion in losses. The end to the Saturday service is proposed for August.

Packages would still be delivered six days a week, but letters, bills and junk mail that we receive on the weekend will be pushed back to the following week.

The slimming down of the U.S. Postal Service has been inevitable for quite sometime. With the rise of the Internet, email and smartphones, sending messages through the mail has become the slowest form of communication and the most expensive. That is even with stamps costing 46 cents each.

The U.S. Postal Service is funded by the government. The government, with trillions of dollars of debt, needs to make cuts somewhere. The Saturday U.S. Postal Service could be one of those cuts.

The editorial board for the Daily 49er agrees that it is a necessary evil to cut Saturday delivery.

We all occasionally use the U.S. Postal Service to mail letters to family or friends, receive the arts and crafts we buy on Etsy or pay our bills. However, eliminating Saturday service will not have a great effect on our lives. We will just have to plan accordingly so we can make sure our mail arrives on time.

The fact of the matter is that by closing the Saturday mail delivery, the U.S. Postal Service saves a lot of money. By cutting Saturday service, this hopefully means the U.S. Postal Service will not have to cut as many jobs. Yes, there will be one less day available for mailmen and mailwomen to work, but at least more will be able to keep their routes during the week.

As for the rest of us, we will have to resort to emailing each other on Saturdays — but that’s not too much of a stretch. We email each other on a daily basis as it is.

It is interesting, though, to wonder if canceling the Saturday service could start a trend.

Technology is gradually changing the way we live our lives.

There could be a time when the U.S. Postal Service delivery is entirely canceled. As the mail system becomes more and more irrelevant, this is not a far-off possibility. This could become a reality as we find better and more efficient means of communicating with each other.

Netflix has done it again. First, it contributed to Blockbuster’s bankruptcy with on-demand DVDs and online streaming. Now, Netflix is gunning for network and cable television with its first original series, “House of Cards.” The online structure frees Netflix from the formatting and content constraints of regular television. This should worry channels like NBC and HBO, whose DVD sales are already abysmal thanks to streaming sites like Netflix.

This freedom has allowed Netflix to create a rich, addictive show with an A-list cast. Kevin Spacey stars as Frank Underwood, a member of the House of Representatives out for revenge after he gets passed over for secretary of state. Robin Wright is consummate politician’s wife Claire Underwood: a cold, calculating Lady Macbeth. She is the perfect complement to Frank’s cunning, chess-like strategy to get back on his lack of promotion. Kate Mara is Zoe Barnes, a typical overeager (and somewhat annoying) rookie reporter.

Critically acclaimed director David Fincher helms the first two episodes, and his stark cinematography adds quiet gravity to every shady deal and glamorous gala.

Frank’s startling asides are equally compelling. The series premiere opens with Underwood directly addressing the audience as he twists the neck of a canine hit-and-run victim. He continues to do so throughout the show, usually with an eye roll and a snide comment about the person he’s trying to schmooze. The most powerful of these moments comes when Underwood delivers a eulogy at the funeral of a teenager from his South Carolina district. He recounts the profound experience of his father’s death, turns to the camera and, in the same breath, remarks that his father did nothing but take up space.

Instances like these are the genius of “House of Cards.” Viewers become complicit in Underwood’s underhanded dealings and invested in his plans as we gain further access to his thoughts. This tactic is borrowed from the identically titled BBC miniseries that aired in the nineties, which was adapted from a novel by Michael Dobbs, who is currently an executive producer.

Writer Beau Willimon, who gained prior experience writing the political thriller The Ides of March, updates the show to reflect the current political climate. Claire Underwood runs the Clean Water Initiative, a charity that she wants to expand on an international scale. As ruthless as her husband, Claire fires half of her staff in order to hire one person with access to resources she desperately wants.

“House of Cards” certainly has credentials, but it remains to be seen whether audiences will actually buy into this new television format. Viewers may not be willing to purchase Netflix subscriptions simply for its own original series, but this show is definitely worth watching for current subscribers. Netflix caters to fans of binge watching by placing all thirteen season one episodes online at the same time. This could be the beginning of a new era of television, and “House of Cards” is an ambitious start (Hulu’s original series don’t count. Let’s be real. No one watches those.)

Say this for “Identity Thief”: it meets expectations. In other words, it’s as bad as its trailers and February release date would suggest.

Written by Craig Mazin (“The Hangover Part II”) and directed by Seth Gordon (“Horrible Bosses”), “Identity Thief” boasts several talented performers. Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”) and Melissa McCarthy (“This is 40”) have extraordinary comedic gifts, and the supporting cast is populated with excellent actors like Jonathan Banks (“Breaking Bad”), Amanda Peet (“Bent”), Robert Patrick (“Gangster Squad”) and Eric Stonestreet (“Modern Family”).

Unfortunately, none of this talent elevates the shoddy material.

The movie’s first scene climaxes with a vomit scene more gross than amusing, a harbinger of things to come. Shortly thereafter, Bateman arrives on screen as a businessman named Sandy Patterson. Hilarious, right? Well, no, but seemingly every new character gets in an unimaginative jab about the endless comedic potential of a traditionally female name transposed on a male body. The script lacks the good sense to recognize that the word “Sandy” is not inherently funny.

Melissa McCarthy’s eponymous character takes advantage of Patterson’s allegedly hysterical gender-neutral moniker and, as the title indicates, steals his identity. For the rest of the movie, Bateman’s Sandy convinces McCarthy’s Sandy to travel from Florida to his home in Colorado so that the identity thief can admit her crimes to the victim’s boss (John Cho, “Star Trek”) and the police. Complications include a drug boss (Banks) and his cronies (Genesis Rodriguez, “Man on a Ledge,” and rapper T.I., “Takers”), an unhinged lunatic (Patrick), a promiscuous cowboy (Stonestreet) and all manner of transportation-related issues.

“Identity Thief” fails the first test of movie comedy — it doesn’t inspire laughter. McCarthy is making every effort, running and singing and pratfalling, but her character is excessively unlikable and cartoonish rather than endearingly outrageous. Bateman serves as the straight man to McCarthy’s antics, but even he seems irritated by the tired dialogue.

The problem is not simply that the movie is too ridiculous or that the premise is too absurd. In fact, in some instances, the opposite is true. The first act treats this identity crisis almost as if it were reality. The writers have misjudged the absurdity of this premise. Why not exaggerate those elements instead of making us pretend to care about the ramifications of a police investigation?

Even more problematically, the script seems to frequently call attention to McCarthy’s weight. McCarthy is a beautiful woman who happens not to fit the stereotypical weight of a Hollywood actress. So what? How about a movie in which the character’s weight is simply a fact and not a talking point? Such progressivism would be refreshing. Instead, this movie makes cheap jokes at her expense.

After more than an hour of tiresome antics, the script takes an unwelcome turn into entirely unearned sentimentality. Suddenly, the writers require that the audience invest in the emotional lives of formerly loathsome characters. Yes, she’s a con artist, but she has a sob story! Yes, he’s an impressionable doofus, but he has been pushed around all his life! To McCarthy’s credit, she nearly pulls off this abrupt transition by virtue of her charm. Bateman is not so lucky.

Some of these problems might have been alleviated if the comedic set pieces were fresh or amusing in any way. Sadly, they’re not.

At one point, the conversation between the two Sandys takes an inexplicable turn. “I visually enjoy you,” McCarthy tells Bateman lustily.

Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to visually enjoy this lazy, sloppy, inane movie.

Three homicides and two wounded police officers later, a million-dollar bounty has been placed on Christopher Dorner’s head, the ex-Los Angeles Police Department officer and Navy veteran who is supposedly targeting his former colleagues.

Officers have been searching for Dorner for more than a week. Their search has led them across states, from his Las Vegas home to Big Bear Lake, where he allegedly disposed of his truck. In the truck, authorities said they recovered guns and ammunition, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said at a Sunday press conference that the LAPD posted the $1 million offer on Saturday.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said the sum of money is the largest local reward ever offered to the department’s knowledge. Private donors and citizens contributed to the reward.

“The reward is for the capture and conviction of Dorner,” Beck said. “It was amazingly easy to put the money together.”

A statewide manhunt was issued Thursday for Dorner, who police suspect of allegedly shooting and killing former Long Beach State basketball player Monica Quan.

Quan and her fiancé, Keith Lawrence, were found dead in an Irvine parking structure on Feb. 3. Police suspect Dorner is connected to both deaths.

“It is important to know that they [Quan and Lawrence] had dreams and aspirations,” Irvine City Mayor Steven Choi said at the Sunday press conference. “Our Irvine Police Department is committed to helping find this suspect every day and every night.”

Dorner is suspected to be connected to three other shootings that took place Thursday, according to Irvine City Police Department Lt. Julia Engen. Two Riverside police officers, one dead and the other wounded, were shot, as well as an LAPD officer who received a graze wound to the head in San Bernardino County, Engen said.

Dorner posted a lengthy manifesto to his Facebook page, detailing his complaints against the LAPD, naming officers he will be targeting and promising “unconventional and asymmetric warfare” against on and off-duty police officers, according to the LA Times.

“Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name,” Dorner said in the manifesto.

Dorner was dismissed from the LAPD in 2009 for supposedly “making false statements about his training officer,” according to the LA Times. Quan’s father, retired LAPD Captain Randy Quan, played a role in the review process that resulted in Dorner’s dismissal.

Dorner’s dismissal is believed to be the motive for his actions against the LAPD.

His manifesto lists threats for more than two dozen people, according to the LA Times.

Multiple forces, including the LAPD and the FBI, are in still pursuit of Dorner as his whereabouts remain unknown.

“This search is not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when, and I want Chris Dorner to know that,” Villaraigosa said.

Dorner is said to be armed and extremely dangerous. He is described as 6 feet tall and 270 pounds with black hair and brown eyes.

Anyone with information regarding Dorner can call the tip line at (213) 486-5230.