A Simple Thought

If you’ve watched any of the weekend or night time sporting events that have been on TV lately, you have no doubt seen the smoking inhibitor commercial.  You know the one.  They say, “Giving up smoking sucks; but we make it suck less”.  I think the commercial is crass, and I go back and forth trying to decide if it is within the bounds of good taste or not.

The businessman in me, however, says it’s a great commercial. I have never picked up a cigarette or cigar in my life.  I’ve frequented smokey bars and restaurants, and have dealt with the smell of smoke on busses and in the work place.  (Yes, you Gen-Y-ers, it was once acceptable to smoke at your desk at the office.)   I remember the commercial, very clearly.  It works.  Simplicity wins.  Even us non-smokers recall the commercial and the brand.

If simplicity works, and the “smoking sucks” mantra has caught on, why hasn’t anyone applied it to politics yet?  Probably because all the pols are looking for just the right message for just the right demographic.  Hence, their nuanced approach to creating mob mentality is falling short.  (See, that’s the problem with political pundits proclaiming to understand business…they don’t!)

I have a better way:

Hope Springs Eternal

Here we are again, it’s time for the annual rite of spring.  Am I talking about the changing of the season from winter to spring?  No, not really.  Something more exciting, and at times, more anticipated.

I’m talking about Opening Day!

What’s that?  You don’t know what “Opening Day” is?

No problem.  Let me explain.

There is a certain sport played primarily in the Americas and on the Pacific rim that kicks off at this time of year.  That sport is baseball.  If you play in the United States or Canada, and play in the premier north american league – the Major Leagues – your season is about to start or did start.   The day your team starts its baseball season is affectionately called “Opening Day”.  It is the only day that all baseball teams are equal.

Over a 162 game season, the winners will rise to the top, the losers will fall to the bottom, and a few teams may surprise.  However, Opening Day is the day that hope springs eternal for the fans of thirty different baseball teams.  Every fan is excited because, well, over a 162 game season, you hope even your bottom-of-the-barrel, always-finish-last home team can scrape together enough magic to go all the way.  Or, at least, to finish with more wins than losses.

Yes, hope springs eternal.

For my home team, the Cleveland Indians, I have hope for a “500″ season, which essentially means they win half their games.  I am a homer, and always root for the home team, no matter how good or bad they are.  You’ll never see me root for the Tigers, Yankees or Red Sox.  It just ain’t gonna happen.  So, even though my team lost today, I still have hope for an exciting, promising season…

…even if it kills me.

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:

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.

Congress, Blessed Congress

We’re not all dummies.  Really, we’re not.  Congress, on the other hand, could learn a few things from the folk that elect them.  Really, they could.

But they are not.

Obviously, this isn’t news.  But what I find interesting is that more folks are recognizing and citing the differences between Republicans and conservatives (see the comment section of the link).  Questioning the weak-kneed Republicans.  Questioning the intent of Congress in general.  It’s good, but to which I say, “It’s about time!”

I’ve only been saying it in my shop since November:  FIRE THEM ALL!

Click on the pic to see all Blurt Shirts Revolution 2010 designs.  All other Blurt Shirts designs can be found here.  From there you can access the Obama and Politics and Government sections.