Pity the Poor

Things can be tough some times.  The economy is in shambles.  Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth – or does so, by proxy, through his talking heads – The Dow drops a little more.  With it, the retirement funds of Americans of all levels of wealth also drops.

But, what to do about the nation’s poor?  They are already downtrodden, and Obama is not doing much to help them.  They are having a hard time putting food on the table, let alone paying for medicines and doctor visits.  What is a struggling American to do?  Especially when they are about to learn that their wages are going to be cut significantly.  How do they maintain their meager lifestyle?

To help you understand the mess the Obama Administration is making of these people’s lives, we should identify a poster child.  Someone who exemplifies the issue in a way we can all understand.  Someone who has to struggle for all that they have, and puts a face on the plight of the so-called “little people”.

Here is our poster child:

Poor Katie, representing the “little people” every night on the evening news, is having it really tough.  She found out that her measly salary will likely be cut.  If this blow to her career and lifestyle don’t say “repression by ‘The Man’”, then nothing does.

She is so much like her viewers:  poor, downtrodden, lucky to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, and happy just to have a boob tube to watch at the end of the day.  Pity the poor.  Katie represents them so well.

‘Tis a pity, alright.  Not that her salary will be cut, but that she acts as though she represents the poor.  If she was really for the poor, she’d point out everything that is wrong with the Obama administration instead of living whole hog off the “I hate Republicans” teat.

Katie – you fail!  Idiot.

Enough About the Little Christian Boy

Everyone in the media is making much ado about nothing. Some athlete is rebelling against everything that the modern “superstar” is supposed to embody. And people are upset about it. He drinks. He uses drugs. He parties all the time with his “homies” and takes the Hos back to his crib. He stays out all hours of the night, and the internet is full of pictures of him flaunting his manliness.

And if that’s not bad enough, he takes it one step further…he agrees to promote this lifestyle on a commercial to be debuted during the Super Bowl. Talk about the audacity of this guy. And you say he’s only a kid? He’s not even a pro yet? That takes chutzpaph! I don’t blame the media and women’s groups for going off on him. The people ought to know about this, so they do their best not to cross his path. Talk about someone from the dregs of socie…

…I’m sorry…what are you saying?

You’re saying that I got it all backwards? Really?

So this guy is not an idiot? He stands up for his beliefs? He is conservative, life respecting, God fearing, and people loving? He doesn’t disrespect those around him, even when they believe differently than he does? He doesn’t try to make every last dollar that he can? He’s not looking for the next big party?

I guess he is a rebel after all. Guess it can’t be long before the Obama administration tries to ban him from the NFL.

Is The Fox Watching the Henhouse?

Who are we electing to represent us? Not just at the federal level, but at the state and local levels as well. Wouldn’t it make sense for us to take those things that we want changed in our homes, our community and our nation, and look for those candidates that can resolve matters yet still retain or improve the freedoms we have today? One would think so.

Look at who we elect, though. I used to think the cream rose to the top in terms of our elected officials. Then I hoped that the elected officials would merely be adequate. Now, I’ve come to realize through life experience, that the people we elect are just like us. Well, except for the fact that they are primarily narcissistic control freaks. Primarily.

But, wouldn’t you think that we would do a better job of vetting our candidates? You know, find people that manage their personal finances well. Or manage a business successfully – in business terms, not in lovey-dovey, touchy-feely terms. Those are the people I want in politics. And I don’t want them there forever; I want folks who are willing to do the job for a handful of years, then return to a real life with their families and friends.

But we seem to find those narcissistic candidates that make all the same mistakes we do. They cannot manage their own finances, let alone those of their state or country. They can’t keep their hands to themselves. They cannot remain loyal to their spouse. They don’t practice their “official” religion. They don’t live by the golden rule.

So we want people to fix our problems – but that’s another topic for another day. So who do we elect? People who can fix those problems? Nope. We elect people just like us. Financially incapable, morally wishy-washy, self-absorbed people who like to think they talk a good game. And talk they do.

Let’s hope the country has awoken from it’s Obama slumber, and that the recent NY congressional election and Tuesday’s MA senatorial election are just the beginning of real, productive change, and not the end.

Playground Ball

I root for the Cleveland Browns. Why? Some times, over the last decade, I could not answer that question for you. The team stunk, looked rudderless, and had no heart. There wee many reasons for a lot of that. Yet, I remained a fan. I watched the games, got my two kids interested in rooting for the home team and against the Steelers – how much better does it get than that? – and stayed loyal.

There have been a few legitimate all-stars on the team in the past year. Joe Thomas for one. Joshua Cribbs for another. And then there’s…um…er…drat! Foiled again! (Yes, other team members made the Pro Bowl, but it was a rarity.) The point wes, talent-wise, the Browns have stunk up the joint.

Is Derek Anderson the right quarterback? Probably not. Is Brady Quinn? I don’t think so. But the Browns leadership hailed each and every quarterback along the way as the savior of the franchise. Put their name in lights. Told us to root for them. Made us make them feel special. But rarely did they step up.

Two years ago, I watched the Browns almost beat the Pittsburgh Steelers. Some undrafted, free-agent dude named Joshua Cribbs lit up the Steelers with two great kick returns. After the game, I told my wife that Cribbs is the guy the Browns should show as the face of the team. He is durable, fearless and relentless. He works at his craft. He always does his best. And for all we know, he doesn’t get in trouble off the field. He’s the anti-prima donna.

Last season (2008), more folks came to appreciate Cribbs’ special talents. While Anderson and Quinn were the horses in the which-QB-can-give-us-less derby, Cribbs stole the fans’ hearts. Who, at the beginning of this season (2009), wouldn’t want to wear, or have their kids wear, a #16 Cleveland Browns jersey?

I still think Cribbs is special. He hates the Steelers. He has the will to win. He energizes his teammates and the fans. He is Cleveland Browns football.

However, this playground game that he and his agent are playing got old quickly. He wants to re-negotiate his contract. Two GM’s have promised to do so. The latest bid is a lowball bid, and I’d be upset if I were him, too. But, to pick up your ball and go home is a terrible mis-step. This is a town that survived Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, and Jim Thome. Fans tolerated Kellen Winslow, Jr. and Braylon Edwards about as long as they could. And they dealt with bad play on the field.

Joshua, you deserve more. But, don’t act like a crybaby. Act like the leader you have been since you were signed as a free-agent rookie to join the Browns. Be the better man. We’ll respect you for it. Really, we will.

Groupthink? No!

As we approach Silly Season, otherwise known as the 2010 Congressional Campaign, I can hear my conservative Republican friends saying what they said to me two years ago:

If you don’t vote Republican, you are destroying the country!

The statements had no effect on me then, and will have no effect on me now. Why? Because it was the Republicans who caused this mess. When Republicans controlled the Executive and Legislative branches, they could have taken the country in a more conservative direction. They did not; they merely tried not to look like the bad guys. Which, in the modern age, with communication being instantaneous, is like trying to walk up the “down” escalator”; if you stay put, you go backwards.

How well did that work for you, Republicans?

Then, the Tea Party movement started. Truly conservative Republican politicians got on the bandwagon; not because there were votes to be had, but because the pioneers agreed with the cause. Others, however, confirmed their elitist, RINO status by fighting the cause. “Party over country,” they said, metaphorically. They said Tea Party folks were an intrusion, a disruption to the party. They got that part right, if only by accident. When something stops working, you break it up and start over again. Just ask the Cleveland Browns. They know.

Regarding your diss of the Tea Party movement…how well did that work for you, Republicans?

Now Michael Steele publishes a book: his twelve-step plan to beat Obama. Funny, isn’t a twelve-step program right out of AA and the other “anonymous” programs. Sounds like Steele is writing about how to stop an addiction. Which Republican Party addiction is it: mediocrity, weakness, enabling, disingenuousness? (I could go on.)

The point here is this: Republicans had a chance to prove they were conservative back in 2006. They didn’t. They started losing funds and supporters. Had they actually stuck to their guns between 2006-2008, it might have made a difference to their base. They didn’t, yet they want to blame those who looked for conservative candidates outside the Republican Party for their 2008 losses. Funny, had they merely fielded capable, truly conservative candidates, they’d have a filibuster on the health care reform bill right now, and would likely be in a position to do the same to cap-and-trade.

Would I vote for a Republican in the future? Maybe, if there were no other qualified candidates and I could hold my nose for that long. But it will be a stretch. I don’t vote for the party; I vote for the person allegedly representing the values that are important to me. By continually voting Republican for almost twenty years, I helped cause the Republican Party’s demise; I enabled their losing. Never again. I will not go with the flow.

Better Off

Growing up, I remember my parents telling me that they wanted to help make life easier for me than it was for them. As a child – actually, as a pre-teen – this sounded cool. They would try to make life so I wouldn’t have to work as hard as they did. My father was a laborer and worked two jobs. My mom worked until getting married, then worked again once my younger brother was school-aged.

I’ll never forget those words: “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” I would have life on easy street, inherit my parents’ money, and not have to worry about working all my life.

Something happened along the way. What was it? It was life. I learned that things aren’t always easy. That some people are very good at taking advantage of others. And that some folks are downright evil.

I also learned that money does not grow on trees. And that government likes getting their hands into my pockets. Oh, they make everything sound really peachy and beneficial. However they are not really in my corner financially. They need more of my money to do what they want. They don’t care if what I make is enough to cover basic expenses for my family or not. They only know my salary, and what percentage of my salary they want for themselves.

Now, I have two children. One is a pre-teen, the same age group I was in when I remember hearing those hopeful words: “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” There is only one difference between then and now. I will not say those words. Hopefully, never, not even accidentally.

Why, you ask? Am I an evil parent? Do I not love my children? Do I not care about them? Do I want them to have the better things in life?

Of course I love them and care about them. I am not an evil parent. And I don’t really care if they have the better things in life or not. Those “better things in life” are pushed by television, radio, movie and rock stars, and anyone else who can get their mug (ugly or not) published. In the grand scheme of things, they are highly irrelevant. If the bomb were to drop 250 miles outside of my house, and my family were in a position to survive, those “better things in life” would likely be left behind. Those unglamorous things, like foodstuffs, guns and ammo, would go with us. Because, at that time, it would have nothing to do with how politically savvy we were, or who we knew, or if we drove a Bentley. It would only matter that we could survive.

It also wouldn’t matter whether we “gave back to the community”. All the community would be in the same boat – fighting for survival.

Sorry, I got a little off base. Let me get back to the topic at hand. The topic was: “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.”

I don’t want that. If anything, I hope that I can raise my children to be independent, thoughtful, resourceful, problem solving human beings. If I can do that, then it won’t matter whether they have more material things than I have or not. They will be in a position to survive and thrive. Compare that to the other folks in their generation, who are now the third generation of children to hear, “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” Look around, and see what a majority of those kids act like. They have high self-esteem, but no sense of accomplishment. They play the victim and the hero. They are boisterous, but say nothing. They act smart, but do nothing unique. They want a new high, but don’t realize they can get that feeling without using drugs – it’s called “accomplishment”.

For at least two generations, we’ve heard parents tell their kids, “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” Maybe we should work to stop the bleeding with our own children, before it gets worse. Maybe we should tell them that they need to grow up, because the “kids” that are their parents never learned the lesson, and look where it got us.

So This Is How It All Begins

What does it take for a local, community-oriented individual to become the condescending, I-know-better-than-you state-level or national-level politician?  I think I learned a bit about that over the last week.

A Facebook associate – no, I don’t call everyone on FB my “friend”, because they are not – has pretty strong ties to the local political party affiliates.  I won’t say which party, because it is not relevant to the story.  In one FB update, he commented how he liked candidate A more than candidate B for the upcoming Senatorial primary.

I did not know candidate A was in the running.  Maybe I had heard his name once or twice, but that’s it.  I have no surface level knowledge about him, let alone in depth knowledge.  So, I asked my associate why he preferred candidate A.  The response was, essentially, “because I met him, and I don’t automatically vote for the anti-establishment guy.”

Hmm…I didn’t ask the guy why he wasn’t supporting candidate B, or wasn’t calling him out for his support of candidate A.  As a voter, I wanted to know what he knew about each.  Since I am a voter who is not inside the political loop at the local, state or national levels, I figured he could impart some knowledge that I could then use to help me further independently assess both candidates.

I responded saying (paraphrased), “can you expound?   I would like to know more of a basis on your opinion.”   That approach worked, right?

Nope.  Not completely.

He gave his reasons for supporting candidate A, but he had no info on candidate B whatsoever, outside of heresay, or “this is what might be”.  Then he snarked on me for not investigating the candidates on my own.

Hmm.  I was looking for prelim info on both candidates so I could have a foundation on which to conduct my own research.  Yet he could not tell me anything about candidate B, although my associate is a local insider, candidate B is from the area, and candidate A is from the opposite end of the state.  Turns out I know more about candidate B than my associate does, which isn’t saying much.

My conclusion, based on other posts from my associate, is this:  candidate A represents the party well, and his beliefs happen to coincide with several of my associate’s core beliefs.  But most important, candidate A has worked his way through the ranks of the party, just like my associate wants to.  Hence party loyalty is more important than the will of the people, mostly because of my associate’s own investment in the process.  That I would even consider asking him about a candidate that was an outsider to the process put him on the defensive.

To my FB associate:  I am doing my homework, sir.  I voted absentee in each of the last two major election cycles, so that I could investigate every candidate and issue on the ballot without needing to make a hasty decision.  I pay attention to every potential office candidate once I hear they are in the running.  I do my own investigation, talk things over with my wife, and ask others what they know about the candidates beyond the sound bites.  Your response to me was to be one piece of my research.  So much for that.

I appreciate the snark…not.  Had you really cared about your party – and more so, the country – you would have had reasoned responses regarding both candidates.  Instead, you couldn’t handle a basic question.

Good thing this guy is on my side, and not on the enemy’s side.  Maybe.

Regardless, after the healthcare cloture vote, I think the following still applies more than anything:

Take It Out and Shoot It

• Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”
• Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”

After trying to keep tabs on the ultimate three ring circus currently taking place in Copenhagen, I cannot think of anything that is a bigger waste of time, money, and idiots than the Global Warming scummit. Ponzi schemers everywhere are livid that they weren’t as thoughtful as Al Gore and his band of brothers at the IPCC and UN.

These guys can’t keep their own stuff straight, let alone try to reason with the honest skeptics. It’s kind of like talking to Reverend Jim.

Is there some honesty in the AGW argument? There might be. Can they express it while logically (not emotionally) refuting the skeptics? Obviously not. It’s like watching your children try to cover for a lie, realize they are caught, then build another lie on top of it.

The whole bunch of them should be taken out and shot. If not for lies, extortion, and slander, then for flat-out incompetence.

FWIW, this post is being categorized under “Religion” – because AGW is – and under “Science” – even though it’s not.

I’m Back!

There have been so many – soooooo many – political idiots littering the landscape over the last, oh, eleven months, that blogs like this really cannot keep up with all the insanity that our politicians cause.  So, if I can’t beat them, I’ll join them.  I do not know whether I will pick idiots of the week any more, but I will definitely provide drive-by commentary on whatever strikes my fancy.  And, yes, it will be on a regular basis.

Buckle up, and come along for the ride!  Idiots abound…how many points are they worth?

Fantasy Leagues

It’s amazing how we Americans can take something very simple, contort it ten different ways, and make it new and fascinating.  Take football, for example.  You had the forward pass, followed by the spread, then the West Coast offense.  On defense, you went from the 4-3, to the 3-4 to the Cover 2, to whatever Bill Belichik could dream up next.

Not only did play improve, but safety did, too.  Cloth helmets gave way to real helmets with face guards.  Pads were introduced.  Then we added penalities to regulate the game and protect the players.

Not only are things more interesting for the athletes, but fans have devised new and more exciting ways to watch the game as well.  If we go to the game, we tailgate, and maybe end up at the bar afterwards.   At home, we have the huge plasma screen, and entertain our friends for twenty-something consecutive Sundays as though we could afford to party all the time.

Even the geeks have found ways to improve their participation and enjoyment in the game.  First, it was Strat-o-Matic, then fantasy leagues.  We not only followed our favorite team, but found reasons to follow the other thirty-one teams regardless of how good or bad they were.  We hold mock drafts.  We trade up and down in the draft.  We even join a second or third fantasy league if we can’t get enough.

Thanks to Roger Goodell and Jim Irsay, however, we’ve come to realize that one more component needs to be added to this fantasy league bonanza.  We missed it all this time.  Why?  Because we were selfish.  We wanted OUR team to win.  We wanted OUR players to do well.  We wanted to win our fantasy league championship.

How self-centered of us?  We were missing out on the most important part of professional football.

What is that, you say?

Political affiliation.

Yep, that’s right.  Starting next year, YoHoo Sports is upgrading its fantasy football leagues to include a “political beliefs” factor for each player.  Within each fantasy league, this “political beliefs” factor will be multiplied to a player’s (individual stats) or team’s (defense) fantasy stats to determine the true points earned by each fantasy team.  Say you have Big Ben on your team, and say he is conservative.  His political beliefs factor may read .2, meaning each point he earns during the game is only worth .2 the total points.  On the other hand, Chad Ochocinco’s 1.8 rating (highly liberal) would earn him more game points.

It’s a risk some fantasy team owners may be willing to take.  Sure, it makes it difficult for owners to select conservative players, but that’s not a problem.  As the fantasy league market starts to make an impact on the pro football level, owners and GM’s will quickly learn that it is wise for them not to select conservative athletes for their teams at all.  Everybody wins – the fans, the league, and the owners.  Everybody, of course, except for the exceptional conservative athletes.