Not-so-splended Isolationism

Reclusive parents.  Are they an issue?  Well, that depends on what they model for their children.  If they allow their children to develop their own personalities and enable them to develop social skills, then a parent’s reclusive behavior isn’t an issue.  But what happens when the parents project their antisocial tendencies in their pre-teen children?

How about when children of these parents are allowed to join social groups and start to make friends?  What happens then, when the kids are pulled from the group?  When they are not allowed to have contact with the friends they were making?  It’s not only tough on the children of the recluse, but leaves the parents of their friends lacking for answers to the question of, “why won’t they return my call?”

These parents may have good intentions, but they end up shielding their children from many things.  The cocooning is not good.  The children do not learn how to face problems, to deal with others, or to persevere under adversity.  They learn to close up, to run away.  And the friends they made end up confuse.  All because some parents refuse to face reality or accept the fact that their children aren’t reclusive like they are.  It is selfish.

Cry Me A River

All must be good in the sports mecca of New York, right?  After all, ESPN and Fox Sports pimp NYC like there’s no tomorrow, and pundits are still holding out hope that LeBron James will become a Knick.  Even when LeBron proclaims a moratorium on free agency questions, NYC papers, radio stations, and TV networks keep him front and center.  After all, he is the soon-to-be savior of the Knicks franchise.  They’ll love seeing him in a Knicks uniform, leading off every Sports Center segment and every NBC playoff promotion.

What they can’t stand is this.  Pity the fools.  What’s good for me is not good for thee.  The focus isn’t on New York, so this sports journalist is going to cry in his Manhattan Iced Tea.  Dude, besides CA and NY, there are forty-eight other states in the union.  Come September, the Yankees and Red Sox will dominate again, and come September through January, it’ll be the Jets, Giants and Patriots.  Okay, maybe not…it’ll probably be Favre again.

Regardless, the sports media focuses on you too much already.  And, by the way, your teams suck.  Welcome to reality.  Idiots.

Quick, Alert the Media!

It’s a good thing the mainstream media and the federal government are all over the Toyota recall efforts.  Yes, I said “efforts”, in plural.  We all know that Toyota stunk up the joint with their recent issues.  Their President publicly took the blame for the problem.  The company has halted production to fix the slew of problems.  And they are having to give account of themselves to Congress.  Anything to keep the company honest, right?  After all, they assemble cars and trucks, right here in America.  They need to do things the right way, and the MSM is making sure the story gets out.

In showing a shockingly high level of consistency, the MSM, the Obama administration, and Congress are also showing disdain for another auto company who has just quietly recalled a number of their models.  Consumer complaints deal with power steering lock-ups.  If the driver cannot control their car, the problem is significant.  Harry Reid is all over this story, as are David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, and the union leadership country-wide.

Oh, I’m sorry.  That last paragraph is just not true.  Not when Government Motors is the company issuing the recall.  We wouldn’t want the truth to be known, would we?

Oh, I need to do an about face on the MSM involvement.  Depending on the search terms used, MSM coverage of this event does not occur until the second or third page of search results.  Everything else is either related to auto industry publications or blogs.  HuffPo ranked higher than other MSM outlets in covering this story.

Who says we don’t have a government, controlled media?  Idiots!

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.

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.

This Ain’t No Disco

This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco
- Life During Wartime, Talking Heads

In my ongoing attempts to locate and call out idiots of all races, creeds, colors and political persuasions, I strive to avoid the super-obvious candidates for Idiot of the Week.  Some times, though, like this week, the super-obvious was too significant to avoid.

Thank you to everyone who has been a first-time visitor over the last couple weeks.   If you haven’t seen the “About” page, we present the Idiot of the Week award (mostly) once per week, some time over the weekend or Monday night.  We take nominations from all walks of life.

Feel free to nominate your candidates for Idiot of the Week.  Your candidates can come from anywhere: politics, sports, religion, media, business, and even some local doofus who should have his fifteen minutes of fame.  Like this guy that cut down trees on Earth Day.

This is not a political site, although political rants may rear their ugly head when appropriate.  However, folks like A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Sean Penn, Madonna and lesser-known equivalents deserve their day in the sun, too.  After all, politicians aren’t the only idiots.

Help us root them out.

Thanks.