As I am out until next week, I thought I might scribe one more "editorial" before I go in the hope I might interject some last bit of amusement for the next few days.
In the bar (after my hockey game, and thus not in a saloon for no better reason than the gratuitous consumption of alcohol for alcohol's sake), my teammates and I were discussing the ridiculousness of the current "bowl" schedule. At the crux of the issue being discussed was the fact that the BCS and recent and current college AD's have completely dismantled what was a great set up of New Year's Eve and New Year's Day bowl games, dispersing them, for television and advertising revenue purposes, over what seems like an eternity through December and into January. Additionally, like the Bad News Bears of the "Chico's Bail Bonds" sponsorship, college football and the NCAA have embraced any and all comers willing to kick a few bucks into the coffers to get their names on "any old" bowl game.
Check out this list of some classic "bowls". There is the "Beef O'Brady Bowl" between Rutgers and UCF (not the side dish of Undercooked CauliFlower but University of Central Florida who's mascot maybe a raw vegetable, for all I know). Clearly one of the odds on favorites for best/worst bowl name and sponsor, this match up in St. Petersburg must find its stands filled with geriatric snowbirds who think it is actually a buffet give away as opposed to a football game. Imagine all the white caddy's in the parking lot and the confused looks of the somewhat senile local septuagenarians as they seek out their bowl of stew.
In other "classic" bowls let us not pass over the "Sheraton Hawaii Bowl". The destination makes this bowl a worthwhile enterprise for winter vacationing but I cannot fathom how they will play a full football game in the parking lot out back of the Honolulu hotel. "Little Caesar's" gets billing for its sponsored game. Rumour is they are also running a "buy a ticket, get a foreclosed Detroit house for free deal" in hopes of moving a few of the foreclosed and rundown houses that blight that city. There is the "Meineke Car Care Bowl" from which each team gets a free muffler for its team bus. There is the "Emerald Bowl" which may be worth going if they hand out free jewels, or you really like the colour green. There is the "Brut Sun Bowl" [this one leaves too many jokes to even begin to address it]. There is the "Texas Bowl", which someone very subtly named and is played in - wait for it - Texas. There is the "International Bowl" which was played last year and not renewed because it was no longer safe to play football in Kandahar or Canada. I cannot remember which. There is the "Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl" being played by Nevada and Boston College [the question here is whether the Jesuits can convert those crazy folks from the Sin State on the field]. Kraft is, in the holiday spirit, going to offer free tickets and mac-n-cheese to fill the stands. And please do not forget last year's two notable bowl games sponsored by GMAC and Citi. The BCS chose to rotate out both of these as sponsors after the Administration demanded the games be renamed the "US Government Bailout Bowls".
After examining these sponsors and more (Valero Alamo, New Era Pinstripe, AutoZone, AT&T, Papajohn's, Allstate, GoDaddy.com, Military, Capital One, Outback, Chick-fil-A, Insight, Bell Helicopter Armed Forces, Hyundai Sun, TicketCity, Vizio Rose Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta, Discover Orange, BBVA Compass, Kraft Fight Hunger, Champs Sports, Franklin American Mortgage Music City, S.D. County Credit Union Poinsettia, Bridgepoint Education Holiday, New Mexico and R+L Carriers Bowls…phew), I wondered what other bowls we should be considering. First in mind of course is the "Kohler Toilet Bowl" which could be played in Newark. How about the "Chipolte Burrito Bowl" played somewhere in a strip mall near you (not to be confused with the "Taco Bell Playing for the Whole Enchilada Bowl"). There could be a "Cialis Bowl" which would be played in Toronto at the Skydome to take advantage of the hotel overlooking the field (do the curtains still open facing the field?). Viagra might agree to sponsor a game, as a competitor to Cialis, going with the "Bath Tub Bowl" (because we have all seen those adds of the couple sitting in bathtubs in the middle of a field). The game would not be scheduled but could pop up at any moment. There might be a "Cotex Bowl" which would be played in a stadium with no seating so that you would have to watch it at home while being nagged. And maybe there could be a "Xanax Bowl" where no one cares who wins but everyone is super happy to be there.
With all this food for thought, one wonders why the BCS cannot figure out a playoff system and a real national championship. Then again maybe they should consider talking with CBS, as I think I have the perfect National Championship Playoff system sponsor. How about "The Price is Right Bowl and Championship"?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
WikiStink
Who is this clown Julian Assange. Terrorist? Criminal? Scum? Maybe I should not antagonize him, God forbid he reads my blog (as if more than 2 people do and only if they are really, really bored), in fear that he will release some buried details related to my character flaws. I guess I should consider heading him off at the pass. I have many (character flaws). Just ask my wife (she who should be sainted), friends (note: they are still my friends, or at least they claim to be), college roommates (they have probably the most lethal information from my days of delinquency on campus in North Carolina) and parents (if only they knew half of what I did).
So back to the question: "just who is this guy"? He is no crusader. He is no journalist of the ilk involved in the New York Times 1971 expose on Vietnam (using Dept of Defense releases) nor is he either Woodward or Bernstein breaking "deep throat" and Watergate. He is a bad guy who is potentially putting many at risk by compromising the value of the "diplomatic pouch". He has circumnavigated age old courtesy and privilege which enables nations to direct discussions that often avert calamity and misunderstanding. [Let us be clear, not everyone needs to know everything, and not everyone should know everything (in many cases they cannot begin to understand the basics, let alone the subtleties involved). Wikileaks, on the face of it, thinks everyone deserves access to all (but that is not the real purpose, unless you are naïve)].
Wikileaks claims to be a non-profit media organization which is "dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public". Horse puckey. Wikileaks is really just an 7 year old girl on the playground, whispering and gossiping unpleasantries in an attempt to achieve personal gain. "So and so said this or that". "So and so is ugly". "So and so likes so and so", and so on. Wikileaks and Assange appear to be more playground bullies threatening, first nations, now banks and others with the release of information, then true beacon of light and hope.
Look at who has issued supporting credential for Wikileaks. It has received accolades from the likes of Amnesty International and Time Magazine. Consider the sources here. While Amnesty has done some very good work and is very relevant in the field of human rights abuses, it does from time to time throw out a curveball of global proportions driven by a wonderful naïveté we would all like to espouse and yet, in the disappointment of real life, understand is not reality. "Time" is a rag I don't even read in the toilet.
If you take the time to read Assange's manifesto, you will come to realize the true lunatic he is. Aside from any lack of discretion in what he releases or says, this is a guy who clearly fashions himself a Blofeld of Bond proportions. He even has his own underground, now not so secret, lair from which he plots to destroy the world (or at least continue to be a nuisance). Assange believes that by making public secret documents, he will force governments to become even more secretive and thus make them less effective and ultimately, in reducing their effectiveness, create "more open and more morally superior alternatives". He is recluse (a nice way of putting it). A coward, as are most bullies hiding from public eye, by in large, instead of standing up to be seen in all his mud slinging (somewhat like a terrorist in a balaclava who is so devout to his cause yet wants no one to know who he is).
Wikileaks "philosophy. Really? Back to naïve. Does anyone believe this "mission statement"? While I have boiled down and simplified his philosophy here, his clear objective is chaos. Notably, Wikileaks wants to upend a sometime flawed but, in general, system of global cooperation and stability. In its "righteousness" and openness, Wikileaks no longer accepts comments from outside critics. It gets its documents from its bullpen of criminals, which has by its own admission has included Chinese "hackers". How open can an organization be that allows no comments about its behavior? Hypocritical much?
For the nail in the coffin on this clown, Assange himself , arrested in London on the basis of a Swedish warrant (he was released and was pledged bail money by the likes of another blowhard lunatic, US filmmaker Michael "I made one decent movie and now live on my laurels" Moore) related to sex-crime allegations, objected to the disclosure of the details related to his case. Good for the goose, good for the gander?
At the end of the day, Assange is a petulant child. What his motivation really is, other than to create chaos and focus attention on himself is anyone's guess. Maybe it is about his relationship with his mother. Maybe he was picked on in school. Maybe he was left at the alter. Maybe he is just a first rate, morally abject jerk. Whatever the case, he should crawl back into his underground bunker, seal it shut and live his life out like the worthless cave dweller he is, leaving all of us in peace.
Funny, I know another guy, of similar ilk, living in a cave. Some guy Obama something? Somewhere in Afghanistan? Does he need a roommate?
So back to the question: "just who is this guy"? He is no crusader. He is no journalist of the ilk involved in the New York Times 1971 expose on Vietnam (using Dept of Defense releases) nor is he either Woodward or Bernstein breaking "deep throat" and Watergate. He is a bad guy who is potentially putting many at risk by compromising the value of the "diplomatic pouch". He has circumnavigated age old courtesy and privilege which enables nations to direct discussions that often avert calamity and misunderstanding. [Let us be clear, not everyone needs to know everything, and not everyone should know everything (in many cases they cannot begin to understand the basics, let alone the subtleties involved). Wikileaks, on the face of it, thinks everyone deserves access to all (but that is not the real purpose, unless you are naïve)].
Wikileaks claims to be a non-profit media organization which is "dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public". Horse puckey. Wikileaks is really just an 7 year old girl on the playground, whispering and gossiping unpleasantries in an attempt to achieve personal gain. "So and so said this or that". "So and so is ugly". "So and so likes so and so", and so on. Wikileaks and Assange appear to be more playground bullies threatening, first nations, now banks and others with the release of information, then true beacon of light and hope.
Look at who has issued supporting credential for Wikileaks. It has received accolades from the likes of Amnesty International and Time Magazine. Consider the sources here. While Amnesty has done some very good work and is very relevant in the field of human rights abuses, it does from time to time throw out a curveball of global proportions driven by a wonderful naïveté we would all like to espouse and yet, in the disappointment of real life, understand is not reality. "Time" is a rag I don't even read in the toilet.
If you take the time to read Assange's manifesto, you will come to realize the true lunatic he is. Aside from any lack of discretion in what he releases or says, this is a guy who clearly fashions himself a Blofeld of Bond proportions. He even has his own underground, now not so secret, lair from which he plots to destroy the world (or at least continue to be a nuisance). Assange believes that by making public secret documents, he will force governments to become even more secretive and thus make them less effective and ultimately, in reducing their effectiveness, create "more open and more morally superior alternatives". He is recluse (a nice way of putting it). A coward, as are most bullies hiding from public eye, by in large, instead of standing up to be seen in all his mud slinging (somewhat like a terrorist in a balaclava who is so devout to his cause yet wants no one to know who he is).
Wikileaks "philosophy. Really? Back to naïve. Does anyone believe this "mission statement"? While I have boiled down and simplified his philosophy here, his clear objective is chaos. Notably, Wikileaks wants to upend a sometime flawed but, in general, system of global cooperation and stability. In its "righteousness" and openness, Wikileaks no longer accepts comments from outside critics. It gets its documents from its bullpen of criminals, which has by its own admission has included Chinese "hackers". How open can an organization be that allows no comments about its behavior? Hypocritical much?
For the nail in the coffin on this clown, Assange himself , arrested in London on the basis of a Swedish warrant (he was released and was pledged bail money by the likes of another blowhard lunatic, US filmmaker Michael "I made one decent movie and now live on my laurels" Moore) related to sex-crime allegations, objected to the disclosure of the details related to his case. Good for the goose, good for the gander?
At the end of the day, Assange is a petulant child. What his motivation really is, other than to create chaos and focus attention on himself is anyone's guess. Maybe it is about his relationship with his mother. Maybe he was picked on in school. Maybe he was left at the alter. Maybe he is just a first rate, morally abject jerk. Whatever the case, he should crawl back into his underground bunker, seal it shut and live his life out like the worthless cave dweller he is, leaving all of us in peace.
Funny, I know another guy, of similar ilk, living in a cave. Some guy Obama something? Somewhere in Afghanistan? Does he need a roommate?
Monday, December 20, 2010
Flag Football
When did football become a "touch sport". There has been a lot of publicity, seemingly more so this year, involving contact in football. Some of it has been related to egregiously violent hits but some of it has been ticky-tacky stuff that makes me embarrassed as a former football player to explain the NFL's policies.
Football is a "contact sport". It has lived through a history of some tragedies, as a result of its violence. We all know the story of Nick Buoniconti's son or Darryl Stingley and countless others who have been paralyzed in violently, if not dirty hits. That said, these tragedies are a small minority in a game which involves violent collisions and impacts as part of the fun and skill of playing.
Hitting is something young boys learn. We play "kill the carrier" on school; fields. Tackle football games often start in backyards with no pads and many cuts and bruises explained to mothers when answering the dinner bell. What boy has not taken some delight in making that tackle or delivering that blow, in organized sport or pick up games, which saved a game or jarred a ball loose. It is a right of passage, not for all young boys, but for many. Defensive layers are tough and gritty. They have that viciousness that they are not allowed to show in any other aspect of their lives. It is viciousness, but measured aggression. There are limits.
In the NFL Quarterbacks, as an example, now seemingly have a bubble around them, not unlike that around (the head's of girls) in high school lacrosse (and interesting comparison for argument and debate). While QB's are the marquee for the sport (just ask Ben, I've been a naughty boy, Roethlisberger or his friend Michael "I've never met a dog I did not like" Vick), their seeming "untouchability" is a farce. Sliding, now a mainstay in the sport for protecting scrambling quarterbacks does not do justice to the great Scramblers from the past like Fran Tarkenton or Kenny Stabler. Ironmen quarterbacks like Joe Namath and Joe Montana must wince at what pampered prima donnas who prance around behind their behemoth lineman. Even wide receivers and running backs now opt to dance out of bounds rather than turning up the field, taking the hit to gain the extra yard or two.
Last night I watched the Steelers/Jets game and the referees helped to turn the tide of the game with one such pampered. "protective" call. Maybe "turned the tide is an exaggeration, but there was certainly impact in the call [Note: I am an equal opportunity disliker of both the Jets and Steelers, so no bias exists here]. The Steelers defensive back put a lick on the Jets wide receiver that brought me to my feet. It was an all-world shellacking. Unfortunately for him, he was called for leading with his head and was flagged for a personal foul and a 15 yard penalty. He actually made contact, as was very apparent in the replay with his hand and forearms. Maybe he was flagged because he is one of the more vocal opponents of the "wussification" of football. Maybe he was flagged because the speed and impact of the hit was such that the referee, with no access to a replay, felt the contact was helmet-led.
Whatever the case, football needs to reexamine its priorities in the context of its legacy. If it continues on its current course, it will not be long before the NFL will be calling Vince McMahon and the WWE for help in scripting its games.
Football is a "contact sport". It has lived through a history of some tragedies, as a result of its violence. We all know the story of Nick Buoniconti's son or Darryl Stingley and countless others who have been paralyzed in violently, if not dirty hits. That said, these tragedies are a small minority in a game which involves violent collisions and impacts as part of the fun and skill of playing.
Hitting is something young boys learn. We play "kill the carrier" on school; fields. Tackle football games often start in backyards with no pads and many cuts and bruises explained to mothers when answering the dinner bell. What boy has not taken some delight in making that tackle or delivering that blow, in organized sport or pick up games, which saved a game or jarred a ball loose. It is a right of passage, not for all young boys, but for many. Defensive layers are tough and gritty. They have that viciousness that they are not allowed to show in any other aspect of their lives. It is viciousness, but measured aggression. There are limits.
In the NFL Quarterbacks, as an example, now seemingly have a bubble around them, not unlike that around (the head's of girls) in high school lacrosse (and interesting comparison for argument and debate). While QB's are the marquee for the sport (just ask Ben, I've been a naughty boy, Roethlisberger or his friend Michael "I've never met a dog I did not like" Vick), their seeming "untouchability" is a farce. Sliding, now a mainstay in the sport for protecting scrambling quarterbacks does not do justice to the great Scramblers from the past like Fran Tarkenton or Kenny Stabler. Ironmen quarterbacks like Joe Namath and Joe Montana must wince at what pampered prima donnas who prance around behind their behemoth lineman. Even wide receivers and running backs now opt to dance out of bounds rather than turning up the field, taking the hit to gain the extra yard or two.
Last night I watched the Steelers/Jets game and the referees helped to turn the tide of the game with one such pampered. "protective" call. Maybe "turned the tide is an exaggeration, but there was certainly impact in the call [Note: I am an equal opportunity disliker of both the Jets and Steelers, so no bias exists here]. The Steelers defensive back put a lick on the Jets wide receiver that brought me to my feet. It was an all-world shellacking. Unfortunately for him, he was called for leading with his head and was flagged for a personal foul and a 15 yard penalty. He actually made contact, as was very apparent in the replay with his hand and forearms. Maybe he was flagged because he is one of the more vocal opponents of the "wussification" of football. Maybe he was flagged because the speed and impact of the hit was such that the referee, with no access to a replay, felt the contact was helmet-led.
Whatever the case, football needs to reexamine its priorities in the context of its legacy. If it continues on its current course, it will not be long before the NFL will be calling Vince McMahon and the WWE for help in scripting its games.
Friday, December 17, 2010
McParenting
So, here is a good one. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has filed suit, on behalf of a mother, against McDonald's claiming that Happy Meals and the toys in Happy Meals are unfairly marketed to kids. The suit was filed for Ms. Monet Parnham who was quoted as saying that: "[she] objects to the fact McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without any permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat". The Center claims that McDonald's action is "inherently deceptive and unfair". Fabulous. In the world of superfluous lawsuits, Ms. Parnham and Her "Center for Blah, Blah, Blah" have hit the mother load.
I am guessing I don't need to explain that this is clearly a mother unfit to raise children. I can imagine her sitting at home with foil on her head worried that television is either real or a CIA plot at mind control and , of course, she has to watch it (and probably watched 12 hours a day). To argue that a fast food chain has mind control argues that she is either so dumb or so susceptible that her kids, who may be lovely little waifs, are doomed to a life of bitter expectations molded by a woman who believes that Martians actually control a cabal that rules all the major corporations on the planet, and that toys is food packages beckon like sirens to ancient mariners. McDonald's itself sends out subliminal messages which brainwash children to think Happy Meals bring happiness and the American Dream.
Seriously, did this woman claim that McDonald's and not she have control of raising her children? I don't know about you, but I pass at least two McDonald's on the way to work and multiple ones over the course of the weekend taking my children to and from hockey or dance or other weekend activities. There is no tractor beam that I am aware of dragging me, or my kids, into the Golden Arches against my will. My children do not scream mercilessly as we speed past the drive thru lane and billboard menu. They don't cling to the car windows like prisoners in a maximum security penitentiary. As a matter of fact, my kids know that McDonald's is that odd treat that is the exception, not the rule.
So aside from Ms. Parham's idiocy, there is this "Center". I don't know much about these guys. They could be 2 guys and a laptop. They could be a cult that, in its spare time, sells. roses on the side of the road. They could be an organization truly trying to make a difference [Their website says they have existed since 1971 and claims they have 900,00 newsletter subscribers]. In that case, though, they might want to focus their efforts on causes that makes sense. In their own complaint, they say the are filing suit because: '[of McDonald's] touting Apple Dippers and low fat milk while putting french fries in the majority of Happy Meals". Really? McDonald's just puts the fries in and American parents kowtow to both the restaurant and their children in accepting the potatoes as opposed to something more healthy?
My solution is this. Tell Ms. Parham to go home and instead of watching "Days of Our Lives" or "Jersey Shore", spend an hour of her clearly free time watching the Cooking Channel for some tips. Try eating a meal or two at home. Then, if she can read, try reading a few books on parenting. Learn who has control - the parent or the child - and apply it. As for the "Center" stick to luring former hippies to their retreats for "flower power" and spare us as taxpayers and our legal system the burden of such ridiculous lawsuits.
Hey, why don't they "Just Have a Coke and a Smile".
I am guessing I don't need to explain that this is clearly a mother unfit to raise children. I can imagine her sitting at home with foil on her head worried that television is either real or a CIA plot at mind control and , of course, she has to watch it (and probably watched 12 hours a day). To argue that a fast food chain has mind control argues that she is either so dumb or so susceptible that her kids, who may be lovely little waifs, are doomed to a life of bitter expectations molded by a woman who believes that Martians actually control a cabal that rules all the major corporations on the planet, and that toys is food packages beckon like sirens to ancient mariners. McDonald's itself sends out subliminal messages which brainwash children to think Happy Meals bring happiness and the American Dream.
Seriously, did this woman claim that McDonald's and not she have control of raising her children? I don't know about you, but I pass at least two McDonald's on the way to work and multiple ones over the course of the weekend taking my children to and from hockey or dance or other weekend activities. There is no tractor beam that I am aware of dragging me, or my kids, into the Golden Arches against my will. My children do not scream mercilessly as we speed past the drive thru lane and billboard menu. They don't cling to the car windows like prisoners in a maximum security penitentiary. As a matter of fact, my kids know that McDonald's is that odd treat that is the exception, not the rule.
So aside from Ms. Parham's idiocy, there is this "Center". I don't know much about these guys. They could be 2 guys and a laptop. They could be a cult that, in its spare time, sells. roses on the side of the road. They could be an organization truly trying to make a difference [Their website says they have existed since 1971 and claims they have 900,00 newsletter subscribers]. In that case, though, they might want to focus their efforts on causes that makes sense. In their own complaint, they say the are filing suit because: '[of McDonald's] touting Apple Dippers and low fat milk while putting french fries in the majority of Happy Meals". Really? McDonald's just puts the fries in and American parents kowtow to both the restaurant and their children in accepting the potatoes as opposed to something more healthy?
My solution is this. Tell Ms. Parham to go home and instead of watching "Days of Our Lives" or "Jersey Shore", spend an hour of her clearly free time watching the Cooking Channel for some tips. Try eating a meal or two at home. Then, if she can read, try reading a few books on parenting. Learn who has control - the parent or the child - and apply it. As for the "Center" stick to luring former hippies to their retreats for "flower power" and spare us as taxpayers and our legal system the burden of such ridiculous lawsuits.
Hey, why don't they "Just Have a Coke and a Smile".
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
TRIPPED UP
New York Jets assistant coach Sal Alosi has been suspended without pay for the rest of the season for an incident you have all likely seen either in live motion via ESPN and You Tube or frozen in still frame in any number of tabloids or long sheets. This past Sunday, Alosi clearly stuck his knee out and tripped the Miami Dolphin's defensive and special teams player, Nolan Carroll, as he ran to cover a punt.
Good old Sal's actions bring me back to my youth, as it likely does most of my peers, as I remember one of the greatest college football coaches of his era, Woody Hayes, and the sideline punch that drove him to retirement. Hayes won 3 national championships during his reign at Ohio State (1954, 1957 and 1968). One could argue his coaching tenure ran roughly 10 years too long, but it was the 1978 incident in which Hayes smacked an opposing player in the Gator Bowl that created the necessary crescendo. He was promptly fired.
So, how is it some just unheralded strength and conditioning coach is still employed?
Once again, professional sports manage to set the tone for all that is wrong today, not only in athletics, but in society. A coach, a leader and example to players, let alone the children and fans who watch and play the game, hoping to emulate the passes, catches, runs, tackles and interceptions of their favorite stars, behaves in a manner so devoid of sportsmanship that it leaves one gasping. In this case, Coach Alosi, later claimed in quick response to his diabolical actions that he sought remedy by apologizing to both the wronged player, his coach Rex Ryan and the opposing coach Tony Sporano for "the lapse in judgment". Lapse in judgment? That is the best he could come up with. It was downright dirty. Idiotic. Any number of other adjectives could be applied here. Does an apology cover the act. "Oops, I did something stupid". "Oops I got caught". "Oops I apologized". "All better". Not so fast.
It was also, as I have written before, a sad, sad sign of the times. Where million dollar babies do not have the sense to leave the car at home when drinking (despite their more than enviable salaries and the ability to hire a driver for the evening). Where spoiled stars sit on the bench in petulant displays of dissatisfaction over pay packages that rival the GDP of small countries (and you want to complain about Wall Streeters?). Where gangsters and hoods beat their wives and girlfriends, rack up children out of wedlock like cars in a garage and generally fail to set any sort of example. Then again given millions of dollars and substandard educations, what does one expect.
It was Charles Barkley who said "I am not a role model". Correct. Charles was a heck of a basketball player and a very funny man, at times, but he is anything but a role model. He is at times a lout and a buffoon, and his loutish behavior, and that of many of his fellow athletes, is not just the playground of professionals in sports. They happily share this space with politicians, actors and many in our own communities. This, however widespread, does not make it right.
I coach year round. The guiding principles of my coaching are simple: discipline and respect. As one of the gentleman I coach with (a former Marine and a current teammate and friend of mine) will always bark at the kids to start a practice: "Who do you respect". The answer is always the same: "Yourself, your coaches, your teammates and your opponents". There is no middle ground, no gray, no second chances. The dictum is clear. Conduct yourself as a gentleman always, even in the roughest of sports. If you cannot, then be prepared to reap the consequences.
So, as I look at Sal Alosi, punished by only a suspension until the end of the season, which may be approaching sooner than Jets fans would like given their recent run of play, I have to ask: "Why do we tolerate his behavior". Or anyone else's?
Good old Sal's actions bring me back to my youth, as it likely does most of my peers, as I remember one of the greatest college football coaches of his era, Woody Hayes, and the sideline punch that drove him to retirement. Hayes won 3 national championships during his reign at Ohio State (1954, 1957 and 1968). One could argue his coaching tenure ran roughly 10 years too long, but it was the 1978 incident in which Hayes smacked an opposing player in the Gator Bowl that created the necessary crescendo. He was promptly fired.
So, how is it some just unheralded strength and conditioning coach is still employed?
Once again, professional sports manage to set the tone for all that is wrong today, not only in athletics, but in society. A coach, a leader and example to players, let alone the children and fans who watch and play the game, hoping to emulate the passes, catches, runs, tackles and interceptions of their favorite stars, behaves in a manner so devoid of sportsmanship that it leaves one gasping. In this case, Coach Alosi, later claimed in quick response to his diabolical actions that he sought remedy by apologizing to both the wronged player, his coach Rex Ryan and the opposing coach Tony Sporano for "the lapse in judgment". Lapse in judgment? That is the best he could come up with. It was downright dirty. Idiotic. Any number of other adjectives could be applied here. Does an apology cover the act. "Oops, I did something stupid". "Oops I got caught". "Oops I apologized". "All better". Not so fast.
It was also, as I have written before, a sad, sad sign of the times. Where million dollar babies do not have the sense to leave the car at home when drinking (despite their more than enviable salaries and the ability to hire a driver for the evening). Where spoiled stars sit on the bench in petulant displays of dissatisfaction over pay packages that rival the GDP of small countries (and you want to complain about Wall Streeters?). Where gangsters and hoods beat their wives and girlfriends, rack up children out of wedlock like cars in a garage and generally fail to set any sort of example. Then again given millions of dollars and substandard educations, what does one expect.
It was Charles Barkley who said "I am not a role model". Correct. Charles was a heck of a basketball player and a very funny man, at times, but he is anything but a role model. He is at times a lout and a buffoon, and his loutish behavior, and that of many of his fellow athletes, is not just the playground of professionals in sports. They happily share this space with politicians, actors and many in our own communities. This, however widespread, does not make it right.
I coach year round. The guiding principles of my coaching are simple: discipline and respect. As one of the gentleman I coach with (a former Marine and a current teammate and friend of mine) will always bark at the kids to start a practice: "Who do you respect". The answer is always the same: "Yourself, your coaches, your teammates and your opponents". There is no middle ground, no gray, no second chances. The dictum is clear. Conduct yourself as a gentleman always, even in the roughest of sports. If you cannot, then be prepared to reap the consequences.
So, as I look at Sal Alosi, punished by only a suspension until the end of the season, which may be approaching sooner than Jets fans would like given their recent run of play, I have to ask: "Why do we tolerate his behavior". Or anyone else's?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Banning Irresponsible Journalism
Yesterday morning there was a delightfully irresponsible article on Bloomberg written by one Catherine Dodge (of Bloomberg). The title of her article was: "Banning Big Wall Street Bonuses Favored by 70% of Americans". The article contained no new information in the two year battle between Wall Street, which largely wages a silent war, and politicians, press and activists who wage a very public war for lack of anything else to talk about or as an attempt to divert attention from more pressing matters.
That Ms. Dodge, who writes for Bloomberg would choose, as year end approaches (and the sensitivities to those in the industry around year end exist), to write the article and exacerbate feelings is rather amusing and distressing, as she clearly thinks she is a "political" writer. Her by-line is listed as Washington, as in DC, and she clearly forgets in her writing that she works for a "financial" news and analytics service. Additionally, she seems to have forgotten that she, and many of her colleagues, hang around the "trough of Wall Street" collecting scraps and tidbits that fall from the feed bucket to write their pithy pieces of the excess and greed. She seems to conclude, however clearly myopic, that all who work within proximity of lower Manhattan's most famous street are the likes of Gordon Gekko.
Not only does Ms. Dodge forget who she writes for and about, she has the audacity to cite a poll which gives very little reference to its polling criteria (thus creating the impression of great bias). This poll, conducted reportedly by Bloomberg of 1000 adults nationwide over the age of 18, concluded that 70% of Americans say "big bonuses" should be hit with a 50% tax. Ms. Dodge chose to specifically quote one poll respondent, Michael Robertson of Wayne, Michigan. Who said that "The American people bailed them [Wall Street] out and immediately they paid their employees very large bonuses". He went on to be quoted as saying: "I don't believe they should have a bonus at all for a while". Mr. Robertson unfortunately lost his job as a retail auto parts company. He was also quoted as saying: "Of course I'm bitter about this Wall Street thing". Is he a real source of anything useful here and what is he talking about when he says the Wall Street thing (most of middle America cannot tell you how many continents there are or even what the capital of their very own state is - Lansing, by the way, Mr. Robertson), so what "thing" is he talking about here?
What thing would that be? Would it be the fact that Wall Street, while in a lot of cases not helping its public image, has paid a select few massive, if not ridiculous amounts. If so, score one for Mr. Robertson and middle America (or at least Ms. Dodge's 70% of the 1000 adult Americans she supposedly polled). Would it be the roughly 130,000 financial jobs lost (as cited in an article by the "Financial Times") in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis? A small amount by comparison to overall job losses but no less important to those put out of work. Would it be the fact that most of Wall Street has paid back its tab (associated with the TARP bailout) in full while the feeder business for his auto parts business, OEMs and GM, in particular, still works to pay its tab back? Which of these things was he referencing and was she writing about?
Aside from the fact, as with many "polls", that I have no idea who she polled, her highly factual article forgot to mention such things as the consumer spend and subsequent jobs which the $20.3bn in cash bonuses she cites in her reference to the New York State Controller's office actually provides for. How many downstream retailers and manufacturer, realtors, builders, and other local craftsmen would have little or no work without the monies paid by "evil" Wall Street?
As with much of her article, this was an editorial. An opinion piece with no balance. She danced in seeming delight when talking of Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb's proposed legislation to levy a 50% tax on bonuses of more than $400,000 (which fortunately did not pass as many of his colleagues don't want to focus the light of day on their pork barrel benefit "bonuses"). Congress's role in Wall Street's woes is clear. They supported Clinton's move to roll back regulation which had been put in place to avoid much of the excess and issues which created the 2008 crisis (By the way, good job reading the history books, you sanctimonious lot. Go back to discussing things you can comprehend like steroids in baseball and sleeping on Dominican republic lounge chairs).
Ms. Dodge then wrapped her puff piece by quoting yet another member of the general public who complained that while the wicked Wall Street dodged the bullet and then reaped reward, she and other "equal people" were struggling to pay back loans they were given with no one bailing them out. Of course, these " equal people" (equal in what way? Stupidity? Naïveté?) had no idea that they were stretching beyond their means. They have no measure of "right" or "wrong". They live in this country eternally in the belief of entitlement and reward as opposed to hard work and merit. So when the "finance man" came and offered them something too good to be true, well, they had no accountability in the consequences of the fact that it was [too good to be true].
"Yellow Journalism" was a wonderful turn of the century (1900) scheme to get people to pick up specific newspapers in a war for circulation. The phrase itself refers to a term coined by "The New York Press" in 1897 as it related to a battle between media magnates Pulitzer and Hearst in their war to increase circulation. This was not news, but rather incendiary headlining. Opinion largely devoid of fact, but full of vitriol intended to raise ire and divide people, while selling newspapers. It would appear that in this case, Ms. Dodge has researched one thing well, and that is the role of "Yellow Journalism" as applied to modern society (though I thought that was what CNN and Fox News were for). So thanks to her and many others who will come over the next few weeks for allowing this country to duck real issues by focusing on scapegoats while spreading a false flotilla of polling from people largely unqualified to hold an opinion, let alone a job.
That Ms. Dodge, who writes for Bloomberg would choose, as year end approaches (and the sensitivities to those in the industry around year end exist), to write the article and exacerbate feelings is rather amusing and distressing, as she clearly thinks she is a "political" writer. Her by-line is listed as Washington, as in DC, and she clearly forgets in her writing that she works for a "financial" news and analytics service. Additionally, she seems to have forgotten that she, and many of her colleagues, hang around the "trough of Wall Street" collecting scraps and tidbits that fall from the feed bucket to write their pithy pieces of the excess and greed. She seems to conclude, however clearly myopic, that all who work within proximity of lower Manhattan's most famous street are the likes of Gordon Gekko.
Not only does Ms. Dodge forget who she writes for and about, she has the audacity to cite a poll which gives very little reference to its polling criteria (thus creating the impression of great bias). This poll, conducted reportedly by Bloomberg of 1000 adults nationwide over the age of 18, concluded that 70% of Americans say "big bonuses" should be hit with a 50% tax. Ms. Dodge chose to specifically quote one poll respondent, Michael Robertson of Wayne, Michigan. Who said that "The American people bailed them [Wall Street] out and immediately they paid their employees very large bonuses". He went on to be quoted as saying: "I don't believe they should have a bonus at all for a while". Mr. Robertson unfortunately lost his job as a retail auto parts company. He was also quoted as saying: "Of course I'm bitter about this Wall Street thing". Is he a real source of anything useful here and what is he talking about when he says the Wall Street thing (most of middle America cannot tell you how many continents there are or even what the capital of their very own state is - Lansing, by the way, Mr. Robertson), so what "thing" is he talking about here?
What thing would that be? Would it be the fact that Wall Street, while in a lot of cases not helping its public image, has paid a select few massive, if not ridiculous amounts. If so, score one for Mr. Robertson and middle America (or at least Ms. Dodge's 70% of the 1000 adult Americans she supposedly polled). Would it be the roughly 130,000 financial jobs lost (as cited in an article by the "Financial Times") in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis? A small amount by comparison to overall job losses but no less important to those put out of work. Would it be the fact that most of Wall Street has paid back its tab (associated with the TARP bailout) in full while the feeder business for his auto parts business, OEMs and GM, in particular, still works to pay its tab back? Which of these things was he referencing and was she writing about?
Aside from the fact, as with many "polls", that I have no idea who she polled, her highly factual article forgot to mention such things as the consumer spend and subsequent jobs which the $20.3bn in cash bonuses she cites in her reference to the New York State Controller's office actually provides for. How many downstream retailers and manufacturer, realtors, builders, and other local craftsmen would have little or no work without the monies paid by "evil" Wall Street?
As with much of her article, this was an editorial. An opinion piece with no balance. She danced in seeming delight when talking of Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb's proposed legislation to levy a 50% tax on bonuses of more than $400,000 (which fortunately did not pass as many of his colleagues don't want to focus the light of day on their pork barrel benefit "bonuses"). Congress's role in Wall Street's woes is clear. They supported Clinton's move to roll back regulation which had been put in place to avoid much of the excess and issues which created the 2008 crisis (By the way, good job reading the history books, you sanctimonious lot. Go back to discussing things you can comprehend like steroids in baseball and sleeping on Dominican republic lounge chairs).
Ms. Dodge then wrapped her puff piece by quoting yet another member of the general public who complained that while the wicked Wall Street dodged the bullet and then reaped reward, she and other "equal people" were struggling to pay back loans they were given with no one bailing them out. Of course, these " equal people" (equal in what way? Stupidity? Naïveté?) had no idea that they were stretching beyond their means. They have no measure of "right" or "wrong". They live in this country eternally in the belief of entitlement and reward as opposed to hard work and merit. So when the "finance man" came and offered them something too good to be true, well, they had no accountability in the consequences of the fact that it was [too good to be true].
"Yellow Journalism" was a wonderful turn of the century (1900) scheme to get people to pick up specific newspapers in a war for circulation. The phrase itself refers to a term coined by "The New York Press" in 1897 as it related to a battle between media magnates Pulitzer and Hearst in their war to increase circulation. This was not news, but rather incendiary headlining. Opinion largely devoid of fact, but full of vitriol intended to raise ire and divide people, while selling newspapers. It would appear that in this case, Ms. Dodge has researched one thing well, and that is the role of "Yellow Journalism" as applied to modern society (though I thought that was what CNN and Fox News were for). So thanks to her and many others who will come over the next few weeks for allowing this country to duck real issues by focusing on scapegoats while spreading a false flotilla of polling from people largely unqualified to hold an opinion, let alone a job.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Vikings - Nordic Nancies
I am a lifelong Minnesota Vikings fan. It has been a miserable experience. I grew up watching, and emulating Fran Tarkenton at quarterback, which I played from about age 6 (Ask my dad, he will tell you that my first pop warner football team was undefeated and unscored upon. I will cringe in the background as recounts the glory of my 6 year old gridiron days. I will giggle though as he recounts the reasons for our success. We ran 3 plays in our complicated "East Coast" offense: halfback sweep right, halfback sweep left and quarterback sneak. Other teams tried to incorporate all sorts of ridiculously complicated X and O plans which were no match for our crew of Italian boys who played defense - I played for the "light blue collar" team of the Greenwich pop warner league.).
In my childhood the Vikings were an easy team to love. They played outdoors at Metropolitan Stadium. They had a defensive front four known as the "Purple People Eaters" and had offensive talent that delighted as well: Chuck Forman, Ahmad Rashad, and Sammy White among others. The teams welcomed sunny clime suckers to the snow covered stadium with temperatures that rarely pierced the positive side of zero once December hit. They were on television breathing the fire of warm air and covered with sweat and snot icicles. They ate their young, and were loved for it. I watched as the ran through snow drifts, plunged across goal lines you could only imagine as they remained covered by the white powder. I marveled at their toughness.
Unfortunately, and despite their tremendous talent, they suffered a number of Super Bowl and Championship game losses during their heyday of outdoor warring (the late 60s and 70s). They could not quite get over that hump, at one point running into one of the greatest teams to ever play under the leadership of Terry Bradshaw and one to be coached by Jon Madden (I married a Broncos fan in 1993 figuring I was safe. They would never win a Superbowl either despite their flirtation with championship crowns…And my choices for betrothal were limited as it was not likely I was ever going to be attracted to, nor would I ever consider, marrying anyone from Buffalo, the only other possible choice when considering football's "always a bridesmaid and never a bride" team allegiance).
So this weekend, when the roof at the Metrodome (the Hubert Humphrey Dome, as it was originally known and named for Lyndon Johnson's former Vice President, for those of you who think he was Target's salesman of the year) collapsed, I was not surprised. It is not the first time. In fact, the frequency of its demise is actually rather amusing. What creative genius thought of building a flat roofed building in a city that averages at least 45.3 inches per year. Not only is it a flat roof but it is made of fiberglass and Teflon and weighs over 500,000 lbs. It must be a real treat to sweep the snow off its roof as one stands 16 stories above the ground at its highest point. Excellent thinking.
Inside this dome shelters what used to be a hearty and bawdy crew of fans: wild, horned-helmet clad warriors of Scandinavian birth. Vikings fans used to bring fear and noise in support of the purple and gold clad marauders. Now they sip chardonnay and marvel at how mediocre the team has become. They point to the freezing cold as their excuse to huddle in cashmere and cotton relative warmth of a climate controlled environment as they clap and ooh and ahh, usually at the Viking's recent ineptness. And, when confronted, those same J Crew models, cum fans, point to the fact that even Minnesota's baseball team, a group of spring and summer "sporters", have moved to a stadium which has a retractable roof (but then we all knew baseball players have long since moved from athlete status to tabloid sideshows who sit out injuries that include things like sprained toes and hurt feelings).
If the Chicago Cubs cannot win a World Series until they reverse the curse of Mrs. O'Leary's cow, then the Vikes had better think long and hard about where they play. There can be no Superbowl win until they move back outside. Maybe the smartest thing to do would get their vaunted architects to build a giant can opener, and just take that lid right off.
In my childhood the Vikings were an easy team to love. They played outdoors at Metropolitan Stadium. They had a defensive front four known as the "Purple People Eaters" and had offensive talent that delighted as well: Chuck Forman, Ahmad Rashad, and Sammy White among others. The teams welcomed sunny clime suckers to the snow covered stadium with temperatures that rarely pierced the positive side of zero once December hit. They were on television breathing the fire of warm air and covered with sweat and snot icicles. They ate their young, and were loved for it. I watched as the ran through snow drifts, plunged across goal lines you could only imagine as they remained covered by the white powder. I marveled at their toughness.
Unfortunately, and despite their tremendous talent, they suffered a number of Super Bowl and Championship game losses during their heyday of outdoor warring (the late 60s and 70s). They could not quite get over that hump, at one point running into one of the greatest teams to ever play under the leadership of Terry Bradshaw and one to be coached by Jon Madden (I married a Broncos fan in 1993 figuring I was safe. They would never win a Superbowl either despite their flirtation with championship crowns…And my choices for betrothal were limited as it was not likely I was ever going to be attracted to, nor would I ever consider, marrying anyone from Buffalo, the only other possible choice when considering football's "always a bridesmaid and never a bride" team allegiance).
So this weekend, when the roof at the Metrodome (the Hubert Humphrey Dome, as it was originally known and named for Lyndon Johnson's former Vice President, for those of you who think he was Target's salesman of the year) collapsed, I was not surprised. It is not the first time. In fact, the frequency of its demise is actually rather amusing. What creative genius thought of building a flat roofed building in a city that averages at least 45.3 inches per year. Not only is it a flat roof but it is made of fiberglass and Teflon and weighs over 500,000 lbs. It must be a real treat to sweep the snow off its roof as one stands 16 stories above the ground at its highest point. Excellent thinking.
Inside this dome shelters what used to be a hearty and bawdy crew of fans: wild, horned-helmet clad warriors of Scandinavian birth. Vikings fans used to bring fear and noise in support of the purple and gold clad marauders. Now they sip chardonnay and marvel at how mediocre the team has become. They point to the freezing cold as their excuse to huddle in cashmere and cotton relative warmth of a climate controlled environment as they clap and ooh and ahh, usually at the Viking's recent ineptness. And, when confronted, those same J Crew models, cum fans, point to the fact that even Minnesota's baseball team, a group of spring and summer "sporters", have moved to a stadium which has a retractable roof (but then we all knew baseball players have long since moved from athlete status to tabloid sideshows who sit out injuries that include things like sprained toes and hurt feelings).
If the Chicago Cubs cannot win a World Series until they reverse the curse of Mrs. O'Leary's cow, then the Vikes had better think long and hard about where they play. There can be no Superbowl win until they move back outside. Maybe the smartest thing to do would get their vaunted architects to build a giant can opener, and just take that lid right off.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Take the Train
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said that $1.2bn in high speed rail funds originally designated for Wisconsin and Ohio will be redirected to states "eager" to develop faster-rail corridors.
Great job, Ray.
Let's start by asking this question: why do we need high speed rail in either Ohio or Wisconsin? If for no other reason to leave those states as quickly as possible? Was LeBron looking for a fast getaway last summer? Is there really a large contingent of Wisconsin cows, who, having seen the "Happy Cows (of California)" add campaign which are looking to make a break for the better clime and lifestyle? Did we just need another "Black Hole of Calcutta" to flush money down in order to satisfy the union vote in those two left-leaning states? Did the Army run out of $100 hammers that they needed to buy? Did Harry Reid have no other pork barrel legislation he needed to attach? I mean, really.
On the back of what massive commutation needs would it make sense to filter $1.2bn in high speed rail funds to those two states?
Columbus, OH does post as the 16th largest city in The United States and Milwaukee comes in at number 26, but then you have to hold your breath (both literally and figuratively) to number 43 where Cleveland posts, as the next largest city in the two states. Even combining these 3 great metropolises, one only gets a rough population of 1.8mm people (unless you include the metro areas, in which case you get a lot more boarded up and foreclosed properties than you do people). According to the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service there are 1.2mm cows in Wisconsin, giving people a real run for the money. Maybe the money would be better spent on a range of activities for the misguided cheese head youths to ensure the "tipping" phenomenon does not create some sort of bovine backlash (the horror of a milky "Planet of the Apes" being my great concern).
As a native New Englander, who has worked in New York and London and who spends a significant amount of time navigating the areas around Los Angeles and San Francisco (a traffic nightmare for those from such sleepy paces as Racine and Toledo); I truly cannot fathom (well, that's not entirely true given my heartfelt love of our current government) why anyone would consider pouring money into a superfast rail alternative through such desolate states? The Pretenders always sing about "getting back to Ohio" and all I can ever hope is they get there and stop singing about it. An overweight comedian (Drew Carey) made a career out of poking fun at his home city of Cleveland by painting it in such an appallingly bad light that it actually was funny. Anyone who has ever spent the night there knows, having seen the show, the meaning of irony. Cincinnati is just as bad - Kentucky without the bourbon (and the intimate family relations). And, do not forget Ohio's biggest city, Columbus. It ties us right to Wisconsin as its nickname is "Cow town" (I always thought that "Cow town" was Ft Worth, TX, but evidently Columbus claimed it first. Needless to say I'd rather be in Texas). Wisconsin gives us Milwaukee which gets a pass for all the beer; and, in theory, a useful application of rail, keeping us from driving, but probably better applied at normal speed (the cleaning bill for all the drunks on high speed being an issue). Behind Milwaukee, though we drop to Madison, Green Bay and then…Wait for it, Kenosha. Not a lot to work with here.
So, as the learned gentleman from Peoria, Il (Mr. LaHood) now makes his decision, I am forced to ask what is next? A couple billion for a ferry in Nebraska?
Great job, Ray.
Let's start by asking this question: why do we need high speed rail in either Ohio or Wisconsin? If for no other reason to leave those states as quickly as possible? Was LeBron looking for a fast getaway last summer? Is there really a large contingent of Wisconsin cows, who, having seen the "Happy Cows (of California)" add campaign which are looking to make a break for the better clime and lifestyle? Did we just need another "Black Hole of Calcutta" to flush money down in order to satisfy the union vote in those two left-leaning states? Did the Army run out of $100 hammers that they needed to buy? Did Harry Reid have no other pork barrel legislation he needed to attach? I mean, really.
On the back of what massive commutation needs would it make sense to filter $1.2bn in high speed rail funds to those two states?
Columbus, OH does post as the 16th largest city in The United States and Milwaukee comes in at number 26, but then you have to hold your breath (both literally and figuratively) to number 43 where Cleveland posts, as the next largest city in the two states. Even combining these 3 great metropolises, one only gets a rough population of 1.8mm people (unless you include the metro areas, in which case you get a lot more boarded up and foreclosed properties than you do people). According to the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service there are 1.2mm cows in Wisconsin, giving people a real run for the money. Maybe the money would be better spent on a range of activities for the misguided cheese head youths to ensure the "tipping" phenomenon does not create some sort of bovine backlash (the horror of a milky "Planet of the Apes" being my great concern).
As a native New Englander, who has worked in New York and London and who spends a significant amount of time navigating the areas around Los Angeles and San Francisco (a traffic nightmare for those from such sleepy paces as Racine and Toledo); I truly cannot fathom (well, that's not entirely true given my heartfelt love of our current government) why anyone would consider pouring money into a superfast rail alternative through such desolate states? The Pretenders always sing about "getting back to Ohio" and all I can ever hope is they get there and stop singing about it. An overweight comedian (Drew Carey) made a career out of poking fun at his home city of Cleveland by painting it in such an appallingly bad light that it actually was funny. Anyone who has ever spent the night there knows, having seen the show, the meaning of irony. Cincinnati is just as bad - Kentucky without the bourbon (and the intimate family relations). And, do not forget Ohio's biggest city, Columbus. It ties us right to Wisconsin as its nickname is "Cow town" (I always thought that "Cow town" was Ft Worth, TX, but evidently Columbus claimed it first. Needless to say I'd rather be in Texas). Wisconsin gives us Milwaukee which gets a pass for all the beer; and, in theory, a useful application of rail, keeping us from driving, but probably better applied at normal speed (the cleaning bill for all the drunks on high speed being an issue). Behind Milwaukee, though we drop to Madison, Green Bay and then…Wait for it, Kenosha. Not a lot to work with here.
So, as the learned gentleman from Peoria, Il (Mr. LaHood) now makes his decision, I am forced to ask what is next? A couple billion for a ferry in Nebraska?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Charlie Rangel - Isaac Hayes
Charlie Frigging Rangel. Congressman, New York's 15th District.
New York's 15th District (Upper Manhattan from East 96th Street and West 91st right on up, including a small area of the Bronx and Rikers Island - isn't that some delicious irony). The 15th District is the smallest in geographic size in the USA. The 15th elected Adam Clayton Powell Jr in 1944 and he sat as the district's Rep until unseated by Rangel in 1970. Rangel has served ever since (40 years for anyone who needs help with the math).
Rangel's antics are the stuff of legends. Whether passed out in a chaisse lounge in the Dominican Republic, where he has property which was certainly purchased from funds earned by his stellar representation of his district and hard work; or using a rent-controlled apartment as a campaign office, Charlie has been a stand up guy for the 15th. Just ask them. They just re-elected him with a plurality that most other candidates would be envious of (with a 70% winning margin). He has presided over a modern revival through some well crafted legislation that pushed funds into redeveloping a rotting neighborhood. Benefiting from public funds and the glamore of new residents like the Clinton's (or at least Bill in his choice of office space) and one of the greatest real estate market booms which pushed Gothamites to reach for property in every corner of Manhattan; Rangel has continued to insulate his incumbency while others tripped.
Now he finds himself once again, post election, facing the charges that have dogged him over the years including 11 violations of House rules (using congressional stationery and staff to seek donations for an "academic center" in his name at City College (of NY). He also used a rent-controlled apartment (as mentioned above) as a campaign office and has been accused of failing to report income from his Dominican property for taxation. Ah, yes, and Rangel was the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (for those of you who do not know this committee's purpose: it is the oldest committee of the United States Congress and is charged with being the chief tax-writing committee for the US of A). So, of course, good old Charlie had no idea of his omissions, mis-steps and generally inexplicable failures to meet the letter of the law in his activities. He actually sought to use his four decades of service (and pocket lining) to "merit a sanction that is in keeping with and no greater than House precedents and also contains a drop of fairness and mercy".
Can you see the smile on my face? Fairness and mercy? How about a day on the floor of the Coliseum with lions and Charlie as chief bait. Charlie says he failed to carry out his responsibilities and made numerous mistakes but he should not be accused of corruption or personal enrichment. Does this ring hollow to anyone else, or care you unable to hear me as you sit in your holiday villas somewhere in the Caribbean?
If this is the guy that the 15th wants to elect, then let them have him. His own party leaders distanced themselves in this last election realizing he was a cancer, and that is doing a disservice to cancer patients. If the 15th is so enamoured of Charlie, they get what they deserve. But I guess I would ask when do we get what deserve? I was thinking of a means to wall off the district - think Snake Pliskin and "Escape from New York". Charlie Rangel as Isaac Hayes (aka "The Duke"). Hmmmm.
New York's 15th District (Upper Manhattan from East 96th Street and West 91st right on up, including a small area of the Bronx and Rikers Island - isn't that some delicious irony). The 15th District is the smallest in geographic size in the USA. The 15th elected Adam Clayton Powell Jr in 1944 and he sat as the district's Rep until unseated by Rangel in 1970. Rangel has served ever since (40 years for anyone who needs help with the math).
Rangel's antics are the stuff of legends. Whether passed out in a chaisse lounge in the Dominican Republic, where he has property which was certainly purchased from funds earned by his stellar representation of his district and hard work; or using a rent-controlled apartment as a campaign office, Charlie has been a stand up guy for the 15th. Just ask them. They just re-elected him with a plurality that most other candidates would be envious of (with a 70% winning margin). He has presided over a modern revival through some well crafted legislation that pushed funds into redeveloping a rotting neighborhood. Benefiting from public funds and the glamore of new residents like the Clinton's (or at least Bill in his choice of office space) and one of the greatest real estate market booms which pushed Gothamites to reach for property in every corner of Manhattan; Rangel has continued to insulate his incumbency while others tripped.
Now he finds himself once again, post election, facing the charges that have dogged him over the years including 11 violations of House rules (using congressional stationery and staff to seek donations for an "academic center" in his name at City College (of NY). He also used a rent-controlled apartment (as mentioned above) as a campaign office and has been accused of failing to report income from his Dominican property for taxation. Ah, yes, and Rangel was the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (for those of you who do not know this committee's purpose: it is the oldest committee of the United States Congress and is charged with being the chief tax-writing committee for the US of A). So, of course, good old Charlie had no idea of his omissions, mis-steps and generally inexplicable failures to meet the letter of the law in his activities. He actually sought to use his four decades of service (and pocket lining) to "merit a sanction that is in keeping with and no greater than House precedents and also contains a drop of fairness and mercy".
Can you see the smile on my face? Fairness and mercy? How about a day on the floor of the Coliseum with lions and Charlie as chief bait. Charlie says he failed to carry out his responsibilities and made numerous mistakes but he should not be accused of corruption or personal enrichment. Does this ring hollow to anyone else, or care you unable to hear me as you sit in your holiday villas somewhere in the Caribbean?
If this is the guy that the 15th wants to elect, then let them have him. His own party leaders distanced themselves in this last election realizing he was a cancer, and that is doing a disservice to cancer patients. If the 15th is so enamoured of Charlie, they get what they deserve. But I guess I would ask when do we get what deserve? I was thinking of a means to wall off the district - think Snake Pliskin and "Escape from New York". Charlie Rangel as Isaac Hayes (aka "The Duke"). Hmmmm.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Rules of Ettiquette
1) When driving, please just drive. No cellphones, no makeup brushes, no electric shavers. Nothing of any distraction. Most of you cannot drive, to begin with, so no need to add extra things to tax your tiny brains.
2) When approaching a crosswalk in Connecticut, prepare to stop for pedestrians. If you do not know this is the state law, then learn it or stay in your own state. I am sure we can do without you.
3) A horn is something to warn of imminent danger. It is not an extension of your incredibly limited vocabulary and intellect.
4) While we are at it, there is no need to roll down your window to share the full extent of your i.q. with a hand gesture. We know that even a "1" is a strain of your full capacities. No need to ensure we all know it.
5) For that matter, if you feel unable to maneuver a vehicle with some semblance of courtesy, feel free to stay at home, or in your state, or just the hell away from me.
2) When approaching a crosswalk in Connecticut, prepare to stop for pedestrians. If you do not know this is the state law, then learn it or stay in your own state. I am sure we can do without you.
3) A horn is something to warn of imminent danger. It is not an extension of your incredibly limited vocabulary and intellect.
4) While we are at it, there is no need to roll down your window to share the full extent of your i.q. with a hand gesture. We know that even a "1" is a strain of your full capacities. No need to ensure we all know it.
5) For that matter, if you feel unable to maneuver a vehicle with some semblance of courtesy, feel free to stay at home, or in your state, or just the hell away from me.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Here's To You, Mr. Kalt
As some of you regular readers know, I wrote a piece about cancer a few weeks back and mentioned a friend, and teammate of mine, who is recovering from cancer. He has been sorely missed on the ice the last few weeks as we moved from the regular season into the playoffs, and so the team dedicated, as teams often appropriately do, in one of those truly meaningful and heartfelt gestures found in the bonds of athletics and team, the path to victory to him.
Last night the ArseFlies, as our team is known (the summer combination of the BarFlies and Arsenal), swept the best of 3 championship series. Short 3 forwards and Mr. Kalt, the team stepped it up and beat a very good team, the Wreckers, 4-0. It was a sweet win. The forwards fore checked their defense to complete distraction. By the end of the second period their defense was on its back heels and completely unable to mount a consistent clear. We scored, scored and scored again to add to our 1st period (16 seconds into the game) go ahead goal. Our goalie stood on his head and the defense, with our forwards swarming their points, stifled any offensive attempts. It was, in military parlance, a total victory.
Our hockey team is like a grown ups fraternity, not that any of those of us who play are grown ups (just ask our wives). Playing is that rare combination of exercise, competition and socializing. It is a few hours of time in which guys get to be guys, to enjoy the stories of the week or past and just enjoy the many idiosyncrasies of each other (of which there are many). There is plenty of beer, parties on off weekends and even our wives are included as a sort of affiliated "sorority". It is an "Animal House" of sorts.
Last night our fraternity (at least the summer one which is the ArseFlies) threw a party on the ice and off. We smashed the guitar, drove our bike up the stairs and shot a horse in the dean's office. The German's did not bomb Pearl Harbor, but we sure as hell bombed the Wreckers, right off the ice.
The championship was nice. The tribute was better. The friendship and teammates and the time spent with them was the best. So, here is to you, Mr. Kalt and my ArseFly teammates, until next summer.
Last night the ArseFlies, as our team is known (the summer combination of the BarFlies and Arsenal), swept the best of 3 championship series. Short 3 forwards and Mr. Kalt, the team stepped it up and beat a very good team, the Wreckers, 4-0. It was a sweet win. The forwards fore checked their defense to complete distraction. By the end of the second period their defense was on its back heels and completely unable to mount a consistent clear. We scored, scored and scored again to add to our 1st period (16 seconds into the game) go ahead goal. Our goalie stood on his head and the defense, with our forwards swarming their points, stifled any offensive attempts. It was, in military parlance, a total victory.
Our hockey team is like a grown ups fraternity, not that any of those of us who play are grown ups (just ask our wives). Playing is that rare combination of exercise, competition and socializing. It is a few hours of time in which guys get to be guys, to enjoy the stories of the week or past and just enjoy the many idiosyncrasies of each other (of which there are many). There is plenty of beer, parties on off weekends and even our wives are included as a sort of affiliated "sorority". It is an "Animal House" of sorts.
Last night our fraternity (at least the summer one which is the ArseFlies) threw a party on the ice and off. We smashed the guitar, drove our bike up the stairs and shot a horse in the dean's office. The German's did not bomb Pearl Harbor, but we sure as hell bombed the Wreckers, right off the ice.
The championship was nice. The tribute was better. The friendship and teammates and the time spent with them was the best. So, here is to you, Mr. Kalt and my ArseFly teammates, until next summer.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Rant
Today let me just share a stream of conscience with you.
The manager of my son's soccer team is a tool. Not sure there is a better word to describe him. I won't make fun of his inability to use spell check to proof his largely incoherent emails. I won't point out the fact that his mastery of the English language is only slightly above that of a third grader, but I will point out that he is a tool. He should check his ambitions at the door, acknowledge that he never played professional soccer and that he should shut the heck up...How about we re institute "playground rules". I'd like to see how many of the big shots and blowhards we run into daily would behave if you could just call them out and go straight to fisticuffs. I am guessing their behavior would, in most cases, be much changed. I have no problem mixing it up. Never have, but I do have the scars to prove it (I was not always the victor). Let's see if some of the tough guys out there are really "tough"..Obama, I cannot remember a President who talked so much and did so little (though Clinton's hobnobbing with the pop stars, movie stars and other social illiterate made a run at it). Why doesn't he put his head down and get to work like the rest of us. I don't know about you but I don't give a crap about where he vacations; and, quite frankly, given how tough things are for everyone here, think he should pass on the photo ops in Hawaii, Maine or Martha's Vineyard and do some damn work. Better yet, maybe he could do us all a favor, admit he is in way over his head and resign...While Obama is at it, maybe he can take all of Congress with him...How, as a nation, are we so stupid as to be unable to pass term limitations? Service in government was never meant to be a career. That is called bureaucracy...Better even still, how about we put in term limits and pay each member of Congress (and the President) $1 a year in salary. We will give them room and board but nothing else and maybe then only people who really want to do the job, for the right reasons, will do it...Why does anyone watch the news any more? Just read the op ed, assuming one can read. The news channels have become op eds themselves and a disgrace...Speaking of disgrace, why are we wasting tax payer money on the two escaped convicts who raped and murdered 3/4s of a Chesire, CT family (the father, a local doctor survived the ordeal but is now reliving it through the prosecution of the trial). Tell you what, if no one else will, I will pull the switch. Save us all a couple dollars. I don't really want to hear how these two degenerates had it hard before they stumbled on this family, forcing the mother to withdraw $15,000 from her local bank while they held her two daughters hostage, then raping her and ultimately killing the two girls as they set the house on fire and the girls were chained to a radiator in the house. It is tough out there for everyone. Some just should not be given a second chance. Just flip the switch...And how about Braylon Edwards? aside from his personal grooming habits, why was he allowed to play football last week? He was arrested after blowing more than 2 times the legal limit at 5:15am. This is the same guy who left Cleveland, having supposedly making amends for smacking his then girlfriend by contributing some cash to make the story go away. Ah, and yes, who was he out partying with? The NY Jet who hit and killed an immigrant worker around the same time in the morning a few years back while drunk as a skunk. he, too, paid money and professed "remorse" to lighten his punishment. Nice...Did I leave anyone or anything out?
The manager of my son's soccer team is a tool. Not sure there is a better word to describe him. I won't make fun of his inability to use spell check to proof his largely incoherent emails. I won't point out the fact that his mastery of the English language is only slightly above that of a third grader, but I will point out that he is a tool. He should check his ambitions at the door, acknowledge that he never played professional soccer and that he should shut the heck up...How about we re institute "playground rules". I'd like to see how many of the big shots and blowhards we run into daily would behave if you could just call them out and go straight to fisticuffs. I am guessing their behavior would, in most cases, be much changed. I have no problem mixing it up. Never have, but I do have the scars to prove it (I was not always the victor). Let's see if some of the tough guys out there are really "tough"..Obama, I cannot remember a President who talked so much and did so little (though Clinton's hobnobbing with the pop stars, movie stars and other social illiterate made a run at it). Why doesn't he put his head down and get to work like the rest of us. I don't know about you but I don't give a crap about where he vacations; and, quite frankly, given how tough things are for everyone here, think he should pass on the photo ops in Hawaii, Maine or Martha's Vineyard and do some damn work. Better yet, maybe he could do us all a favor, admit he is in way over his head and resign...While Obama is at it, maybe he can take all of Congress with him...How, as a nation, are we so stupid as to be unable to pass term limitations? Service in government was never meant to be a career. That is called bureaucracy...Better even still, how about we put in term limits and pay each member of Congress (and the President) $1 a year in salary. We will give them room and board but nothing else and maybe then only people who really want to do the job, for the right reasons, will do it...Why does anyone watch the news any more? Just read the op ed, assuming one can read. The news channels have become op eds themselves and a disgrace...Speaking of disgrace, why are we wasting tax payer money on the two escaped convicts who raped and murdered 3/4s of a Chesire, CT family (the father, a local doctor survived the ordeal but is now reliving it through the prosecution of the trial). Tell you what, if no one else will, I will pull the switch. Save us all a couple dollars. I don't really want to hear how these two degenerates had it hard before they stumbled on this family, forcing the mother to withdraw $15,000 from her local bank while they held her two daughters hostage, then raping her and ultimately killing the two girls as they set the house on fire and the girls were chained to a radiator in the house. It is tough out there for everyone. Some just should not be given a second chance. Just flip the switch...And how about Braylon Edwards? aside from his personal grooming habits, why was he allowed to play football last week? He was arrested after blowing more than 2 times the legal limit at 5:15am. This is the same guy who left Cleveland, having supposedly making amends for smacking his then girlfriend by contributing some cash to make the story go away. Ah, and yes, who was he out partying with? The NY Jet who hit and killed an immigrant worker around the same time in the morning a few years back while drunk as a skunk. he, too, paid money and professed "remorse" to lighten his punishment. Nice...Did I leave anyone or anything out?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
People Are Crazy
So my oldest is playing travel soccer this year. He loves the game, and, despite being his father and having an opinion of less than honest objectivity, he is good. He has always been able to boot the heck out the ball with either left or right feet and has great field vision. He is a natural roving midfielder. He should be. His mother played at Colorado State and was a pretty stellar player herself, winning 3 state titles while is high school in Colorado before playing collegiately (clearly nothing rubbing off from me).
That is the extent of my "putting on the crazy". That is my brag about my own child's ability. That is the limit of my lunacy when it comes to my children and their participation in athletics. That is not the depth of depravity and lunacy which I have seen of late.
It may be that my children are getting older and thus experiencing that transition to more competitive sports from the pleasantries and niceties of rec league. It may be that my town of Camelot has let too many heathens across the border to take up stakes and spread their social plague. It may be that the whole world is just turning on its head as we prepare for the approach of the 4 horsemen. What ever the case, I wanted to relay a more than amusing incident which occurred this past week.
On my son's travel soccer team are some very nice people. They, of course, are part of the kingdom of Camelot, so they live as happy vassals amid the golden spires and streets of our fair community. On our team there are some not so nice people, who when quiet can be tolerated. And, on our team there are some less than savoury characters. Amusingly they are the most vocal (with the least reason to be...vocal).
One such master of black magic is our team manager. He is passionate about the "beautiful" game - to the point of distraction - and his inability to put a governor on his mouth (as exhibited through his emails) has proven to be a problem for team unity, and, potentially, his physical well-being. After the boys' very first game, this manager (a voluntary position) felt the need to castigate the coach via an email to all the parents. He followed this up with further penning, critiquing the coaching talent and pointing out the short-comings of the team play. This escalated into a name calling debacle with one of the other parents on the team, who requested that her family be removed from the stream of vitriol, and ended with the husband of the offended family physically threatening the crazy sorcerer of book keeping and logistics (all these emails of accusation and reaction were copied to all the parents on the team).
This is a 3rd grade travel soccer team. The manager's son is not Lionel Messi (though his dad has clearly brain-washed him with hours of Messi's highlight reels, which has not served the lad well). These are young boys who have much to develop by learning and playing different positions (by the way, the manager's son has only played left or right inner, choosing the perceived glory of offense over defense - I feel exactly the opposite about which is the better discipline to play). This is again a case of parents trying to fulfill some sense of long lost prospect of their own talent and inabilities through transference to their children. There is no excuse for this. The boys do not benefit. The team does not benefit. The game does not benefit.
When do we start psychological screening for all those parents who want to be involved, or even watch, their children in athletics?
I think it all comes back to border control. Let's keep Camelot the gleaming beacon of hope, and the Riders of the Apocalypse at bay. Let's take back all the corners of our castle. Let's separate the loonies from the bin.
Until we do, can we all just watch the game and shut the hell up.
That is the extent of my "putting on the crazy". That is my brag about my own child's ability. That is the limit of my lunacy when it comes to my children and their participation in athletics. That is not the depth of depravity and lunacy which I have seen of late.
It may be that my children are getting older and thus experiencing that transition to more competitive sports from the pleasantries and niceties of rec league. It may be that my town of Camelot has let too many heathens across the border to take up stakes and spread their social plague. It may be that the whole world is just turning on its head as we prepare for the approach of the 4 horsemen. What ever the case, I wanted to relay a more than amusing incident which occurred this past week.
On my son's travel soccer team are some very nice people. They, of course, are part of the kingdom of Camelot, so they live as happy vassals amid the golden spires and streets of our fair community. On our team there are some not so nice people, who when quiet can be tolerated. And, on our team there are some less than savoury characters. Amusingly they are the most vocal (with the least reason to be...vocal).
One such master of black magic is our team manager. He is passionate about the "beautiful" game - to the point of distraction - and his inability to put a governor on his mouth (as exhibited through his emails) has proven to be a problem for team unity, and, potentially, his physical well-being. After the boys' very first game, this manager (a voluntary position) felt the need to castigate the coach via an email to all the parents. He followed this up with further penning, critiquing the coaching talent and pointing out the short-comings of the team play. This escalated into a name calling debacle with one of the other parents on the team, who requested that her family be removed from the stream of vitriol, and ended with the husband of the offended family physically threatening the crazy sorcerer of book keeping and logistics (all these emails of accusation and reaction were copied to all the parents on the team).
This is a 3rd grade travel soccer team. The manager's son is not Lionel Messi (though his dad has clearly brain-washed him with hours of Messi's highlight reels, which has not served the lad well). These are young boys who have much to develop by learning and playing different positions (by the way, the manager's son has only played left or right inner, choosing the perceived glory of offense over defense - I feel exactly the opposite about which is the better discipline to play). This is again a case of parents trying to fulfill some sense of long lost prospect of their own talent and inabilities through transference to their children. There is no excuse for this. The boys do not benefit. The team does not benefit. The game does not benefit.
When do we start psychological screening for all those parents who want to be involved, or even watch, their children in athletics?
I think it all comes back to border control. Let's keep Camelot the gleaming beacon of hope, and the Riders of the Apocalypse at bay. Let's take back all the corners of our castle. Let's separate the loonies from the bin.
Until we do, can we all just watch the game and shut the hell up.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
SHHHH...Cancer
I was in the locker room before a hockey game last night, taking my time getting dressed. I am very regimented and arrive, usually first in the lockers, to begin my pregame routine. My teammates all think I am nuts. I lay out my equipment, stretch and begin to dress. I wear over-the-knee, argyle socks for practical reasons related to a knee brace and a desire to keep my knees from chaffing under perpetually wet shin pads, though I suppose I could just wear plan coloured socks - but what would be the fun in that. I get my skates on and then sit, usually for at least 20 minutes, waiting for the zamboni to finish its rounds and most of my teammates to show before donning my shoulder pads, jersey, helmet and gloves. I don't really ever deviate and I almost never show up late. It screws up my game. I am a prima donna and I know it and am happy with it.
Last night, while working through my pregame, a teammate of mine arrived and a curious discussion began, which became more curious as he lifted his shirt to reveal a shaved abdomen and some black magic markings. The discussion became a broad locker room address in which the teammate wanted those of us who were unaware to know that he had just been diagnosed with cancer. The prognosis was good post a round of radiation treatment, which had significantly shrunk the tumour, and he was in good spirits and grateful for all the support from the team members who were aware of his situation.
It was sobering.
The teammate in question is a good guy, a father and family man and fun to be out on the ice with. He is very self-deprecating about his skills on the ice, but generally hustles his ass off to play his position (every now and again getting a stupid penalty, but then who doesn't other than Lady Bing). He is no different than you or me. There is no reason why this devastating disease sought him out and chose to, at least in the near term, turn his life upside down. It certainly has no correlation to his inability to back check.
Shhhh. He has (cancer).
There is no reasoning at all with this disease. We don't understand it: only the strain and pain caused by its arrival. We don't seem to be able to find a cure for it (sure, some cancers are more manageable than others). The National Cancer Institute says that cancer care was approximately $104.1bn in 2006 and growing. Another article says that annual cancer medical research spending is now in the area of $95bn per year. Cancer death rates have declined 21% among men and 12.3% for women during the period of 1991 to 2006, according to the American Cancer Society and the rates of cancer are declining (-1.3% per year among men and -0.5% among women). Yet armed with this data, the facts are no comfort when facing the diagnosis of friend or family and we seem to know more and more (maybe it is measure of our aging) who are afflicted or touched by this disease.
I am no expert here. You can talk to my brother who is battling a fairly rare form of cancer (lipo myxoid sarcoma). He is my expert. His cancer, which we thought we had beat, appears to be back. He and his wife have had a rough go of it as she lost her brother to cancer and is now dealing with a father who also has it (as, of course, does her husband - my brother). He has his own illness to contend with against the backdrop of a mother who is a breast cancer survivor. It is a lot to manage in his household, and yet he has (they have). The cancer has energized him. He spearheads a foundation dedicated to the type of cancer he has and has touched the lives of some who suffer, and in some tragic cases, lost their battle with the disease.
His courage is admirable. He has set an example which should inspire all (and he is not alone in his battle with this stealthy assassin). That said, he is my brother and while his illness makes me grasp my life and what I have, in family and friends, all the more tightly, his illness, cancer, leaves me terrified, hiding under the proverbial bed, hoping that no news is good news.
So, why don't we yell from the tops of the mountains instead of hiding under a bed or in a closet? Call this disease out. Make it a national cause. Not that we have not found great support in our efforts to meet cancer on the field of battle. But why do we tolerate those we love doing things like smoking? What part of the warning on the package don't they understand? If they don't understand that writing, what will they understand? What do we do for those who wake up one day to find a murderer in their bedrooms and kitchens with no provocation whatsoever? Can't we take a megaphone, yell from the top of our cancer free lungs and figure out how we beat this thing to a pulp, make it a piece of our past and enable our friends and family (and ourselves) to live a much calmer, happier and healthier lives?
Don't tell me to shhhh.
Last night, while working through my pregame, a teammate of mine arrived and a curious discussion began, which became more curious as he lifted his shirt to reveal a shaved abdomen and some black magic markings. The discussion became a broad locker room address in which the teammate wanted those of us who were unaware to know that he had just been diagnosed with cancer. The prognosis was good post a round of radiation treatment, which had significantly shrunk the tumour, and he was in good spirits and grateful for all the support from the team members who were aware of his situation.
It was sobering.
The teammate in question is a good guy, a father and family man and fun to be out on the ice with. He is very self-deprecating about his skills on the ice, but generally hustles his ass off to play his position (every now and again getting a stupid penalty, but then who doesn't other than Lady Bing). He is no different than you or me. There is no reason why this devastating disease sought him out and chose to, at least in the near term, turn his life upside down. It certainly has no correlation to his inability to back check.
Shhhh. He has (cancer).
There is no reasoning at all with this disease. We don't understand it: only the strain and pain caused by its arrival. We don't seem to be able to find a cure for it (sure, some cancers are more manageable than others). The National Cancer Institute says that cancer care was approximately $104.1bn in 2006 and growing. Another article says that annual cancer medical research spending is now in the area of $95bn per year. Cancer death rates have declined 21% among men and 12.3% for women during the period of 1991 to 2006, according to the American Cancer Society and the rates of cancer are declining (-1.3% per year among men and -0.5% among women). Yet armed with this data, the facts are no comfort when facing the diagnosis of friend or family and we seem to know more and more (maybe it is measure of our aging) who are afflicted or touched by this disease.
I am no expert here. You can talk to my brother who is battling a fairly rare form of cancer (lipo myxoid sarcoma). He is my expert. His cancer, which we thought we had beat, appears to be back. He and his wife have had a rough go of it as she lost her brother to cancer and is now dealing with a father who also has it (as, of course, does her husband - my brother). He has his own illness to contend with against the backdrop of a mother who is a breast cancer survivor. It is a lot to manage in his household, and yet he has (they have). The cancer has energized him. He spearheads a foundation dedicated to the type of cancer he has and has touched the lives of some who suffer, and in some tragic cases, lost their battle with the disease.
His courage is admirable. He has set an example which should inspire all (and he is not alone in his battle with this stealthy assassin). That said, he is my brother and while his illness makes me grasp my life and what I have, in family and friends, all the more tightly, his illness, cancer, leaves me terrified, hiding under the proverbial bed, hoping that no news is good news.
So, why don't we yell from the tops of the mountains instead of hiding under a bed or in a closet? Call this disease out. Make it a national cause. Not that we have not found great support in our efforts to meet cancer on the field of battle. But why do we tolerate those we love doing things like smoking? What part of the warning on the package don't they understand? If they don't understand that writing, what will they understand? What do we do for those who wake up one day to find a murderer in their bedrooms and kitchens with no provocation whatsoever? Can't we take a megaphone, yell from the top of our cancer free lungs and figure out how we beat this thing to a pulp, make it a piece of our past and enable our friends and family (and ourselves) to live a much calmer, happier and healthier lives?
Don't tell me to shhhh.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Not In My Backyard
So, I was asked this morning when I was going to tackle the debate over the mosque in lower Manhattan, two block from the ruins of the Twin Towers. I have thought long and hard about tackling this topic and have hesitated for fear of the vitriol it might induce. I am not a fan of current Islam. Not because of any tenants of the religion, but because decent, moderate Muslims do not stand up and decry the radical elements of the religion which have hijacked it on the public stage, preaching death to America and blowing themselves, and others sky high, to promote their true cause of chaos and subjugation - something which Islam, in its basic doctrine, does not support.
Islam, like all other religions, has been manipulated by minorities which have sought to override the rational and genuinely balanced needs of the general masses, seeking comfort and guidance with a moral compass from belief in a divine being and a tablet of how to treat each other (We, Christians, have had plenty of our own lunatics should Muslims feel aggrieved at being singled out. That said, America is not singling out Islam for extermination, as we have largely welcomed Islam, as other religions, with some understandable adjustment pains). The uneducated and vocal minority which screams of the "Great Satan" dressed in tails and stripey pants with a top hat and beard should be taken for what it is, a rabble of miscreants (amusingly often pictured drinking a coke while wearing a polo shirt and nikes). They hate us because some bearded moron, with his own agenda, which strikes fear in their hearts and coin in his purse, speaks to them at a level we never will, with a knife and gun and the threat of death to their families and a perpetual trip to their vision of hell (as opposed to their promoted vision of heaven, achieved through a sacrifice in a vest of explosives and giving one a shot at 27 virgins in perpetual bliss).
As the Great Satan, our foreign policy missteps have not helped our cause, but they are often used as a cheap excuse on the global stage. We may not have entered Iraq with the most just of intentions, but, while the full end game is still to be determined, the situation seems to have played out in our favor as the last of our 56,000 combat battalions exited last Friday. Sure Shiites and Sunnis will likely still kill each other based on centuries old rivalries and conflict in doctrine, but the leaders of that country, including the supreme Shiite religious leader (Ali-Sistani) genuinely seem to want to create a calm and democratic environment. Iraq may not be the thorn between Islam and America many would like to make it. As a matter of fact, Iraq has been more of a secular and regime-related issue with an overlay of religion, and as a result somewhat easier top deal with.
Afghanistan is another story. The country has defeated Khan (he chose to treat it as an autonomous region within his empire rather than attempt to fully subjugate it), the British Empire, the Russians and now seems to be chewing us up. It is a country created by an imperialist rivalry which carved up tribal territories and sought to make a state where only an ideological and geological wasteland exists. Like much of the world (Africa and Asia as well), the West placed its map among tribes, peoples and religions where borders did not exist and do not belong. The USA has perpetuated much of this missmarking, especially during the period of superpower hegemony rising from WWII and the impact of ideology in the Cold War, but do we bear the sole blame? Let's not forget the role of the French, English and others here. But I digress...
Does anyone really care about Afghanistan? There is no oil or any other natural resource of any measure or matter. They have poppy crops which delightfully gives the world heroin (is it a problem when the only major cash crop you have is effectively a drug crop?). They have widespread and massive corruption and their current defacto leader (defacto as there is no one in that political hierarchy worth the salt and water they are composed of) is as big a crook as the rest of their long list of graft-driven criminals. They have the Taliban, and there is not a lot to say about them that is encouraging. They harboured Al Qaeda. They beat women and do not allow their education. They destroyed cultural and historical icons in a bid to create a state of controlled chaos and complete intolerance. The world welcomed our decision to invade to free a people probably (now with hindsight) not worth freeing for their complete inability to lift themselves up by the bootstraps (One has to want a better life and has to contribute to get it). Now the world condemns our use of force and the resulting civilian casualties as our troops give their lives to try to give the Afghans a better life (No matter what you say about America and its motivations, the end result there, as we have envisioned it, CANNOT be worse than what they have had).
We can throw our largely blind backing of the Israelis in their attempts to stave Middle Eastern extinction (though I think the constant friction they create by building in the West Bank is inexcusable provocation) as an excuse for Muslim ill-will. We can point to our desire to get rid of the lunatic in Tehran. We can be blamed for a lot, but what we cannot be blamed for is a growing belief that the Mmoderate Muslim populous, abstains from standing up and decrying the radicals within its ranks. Until they do, there is every reason to believe we are in the midst of crusade. The thing that is crazy about this crusade is the perception that is Christian against Muslim, when, in fact, it is really a conflict of good versus evil, citizen versus criminal, Samaritan versus terrorist.
This leads us back to NYC and "The Mosque". The U. S. Constitution is founded on a few basic beliefs: one of which is the Freedom of Religion ["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances"]. We all know that. Our forefathers were persecuted right out of England and founded a largely Christian/Protestant state which did seek to ensure that the civil liberties of its citizens would also include the liberty of freedom to practice "their" religion (they were also largely motivated by the prospect of eliminating taxation without representation - a topic for another day as I think those who do not pay tax, do not vote - the Declaration of Independence did not envision votes for all). This freedom has enabled us to welcome Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims (among others) into our borders in waves of immigration and liberation from regimes which repressed what we consider an absolute: the freedom to pray to any god you like. That said, the Constitution does mandate that this worship also respect the other basic tenants in its foundation: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America).
Domestic Tranquility. Does a Mosque in that location really promote tranquility? Two blocks was well within the cloud of poison which enveloped lower Manhattan courtesy of a handful of the deranged manipulators of Islam (the idiots on the plane were also clearly manipulated by their handlers, who notably were not on the plane but probably at home watching reruns of the Simpson's while eating a combo meal from McDonald's). Manhattan is 23 square miles. Is there no better real estate space within that acreage to site a mosque? The Imam associated with the project actually has a very good track record of moderation and has been asked by a number of state agencies to speak and promote a rational face of Islam in America. The administration has promoted the cause on the basis of freedom of religion, but has yet to sort out the trials of the co-conspirators in the 9/11 bombings. As a matter of fact, remember this administration had proposed trying these criminals in NYC at the risk of further symbolic violence and civil strife and massive cost, so it's sensitivity to domestic tranquility is clearly in question, as is its judgement in these matters. On the other side of the argument, we have the likes of Sarah Palin moaning about a topic she knows as much about as the process of nuclear fision, and who only proves that Seward's Folly was a great buy for natural resources but not for intelligent women politicians.
When we take out the complete bias of the lunatic left and right and the fully biased 3rd estate which no longer shows any impartiality in reporting news, as opposed to opinion, should we just be asking whether it is really necessary to rub salt in the wounds. Sure, the developers have the right to build their place of worship, but shouldn't they also have the decency to be sensitive to the memory of the nearly 3000 who perished within a stone's throw?
Islam, like all other religions, has been manipulated by minorities which have sought to override the rational and genuinely balanced needs of the general masses, seeking comfort and guidance with a moral compass from belief in a divine being and a tablet of how to treat each other (We, Christians, have had plenty of our own lunatics should Muslims feel aggrieved at being singled out. That said, America is not singling out Islam for extermination, as we have largely welcomed Islam, as other religions, with some understandable adjustment pains). The uneducated and vocal minority which screams of the "Great Satan" dressed in tails and stripey pants with a top hat and beard should be taken for what it is, a rabble of miscreants (amusingly often pictured drinking a coke while wearing a polo shirt and nikes). They hate us because some bearded moron, with his own agenda, which strikes fear in their hearts and coin in his purse, speaks to them at a level we never will, with a knife and gun and the threat of death to their families and a perpetual trip to their vision of hell (as opposed to their promoted vision of heaven, achieved through a sacrifice in a vest of explosives and giving one a shot at 27 virgins in perpetual bliss).
As the Great Satan, our foreign policy missteps have not helped our cause, but they are often used as a cheap excuse on the global stage. We may not have entered Iraq with the most just of intentions, but, while the full end game is still to be determined, the situation seems to have played out in our favor as the last of our 56,000 combat battalions exited last Friday. Sure Shiites and Sunnis will likely still kill each other based on centuries old rivalries and conflict in doctrine, but the leaders of that country, including the supreme Shiite religious leader (Ali-Sistani) genuinely seem to want to create a calm and democratic environment. Iraq may not be the thorn between Islam and America many would like to make it. As a matter of fact, Iraq has been more of a secular and regime-related issue with an overlay of religion, and as a result somewhat easier top deal with.
Afghanistan is another story. The country has defeated Khan (he chose to treat it as an autonomous region within his empire rather than attempt to fully subjugate it), the British Empire, the Russians and now seems to be chewing us up. It is a country created by an imperialist rivalry which carved up tribal territories and sought to make a state where only an ideological and geological wasteland exists. Like much of the world (Africa and Asia as well), the West placed its map among tribes, peoples and religions where borders did not exist and do not belong. The USA has perpetuated much of this missmarking, especially during the period of superpower hegemony rising from WWII and the impact of ideology in the Cold War, but do we bear the sole blame? Let's not forget the role of the French, English and others here. But I digress...
Does anyone really care about Afghanistan? There is no oil or any other natural resource of any measure or matter. They have poppy crops which delightfully gives the world heroin (is it a problem when the only major cash crop you have is effectively a drug crop?). They have widespread and massive corruption and their current defacto leader (defacto as there is no one in that political hierarchy worth the salt and water they are composed of) is as big a crook as the rest of their long list of graft-driven criminals. They have the Taliban, and there is not a lot to say about them that is encouraging. They harboured Al Qaeda. They beat women and do not allow their education. They destroyed cultural and historical icons in a bid to create a state of controlled chaos and complete intolerance. The world welcomed our decision to invade to free a people probably (now with hindsight) not worth freeing for their complete inability to lift themselves up by the bootstraps (One has to want a better life and has to contribute to get it). Now the world condemns our use of force and the resulting civilian casualties as our troops give their lives to try to give the Afghans a better life (No matter what you say about America and its motivations, the end result there, as we have envisioned it, CANNOT be worse than what they have had).
We can throw our largely blind backing of the Israelis in their attempts to stave Middle Eastern extinction (though I think the constant friction they create by building in the West Bank is inexcusable provocation) as an excuse for Muslim ill-will. We can point to our desire to get rid of the lunatic in Tehran. We can be blamed for a lot, but what we cannot be blamed for is a growing belief that the Mmoderate Muslim populous, abstains from standing up and decrying the radicals within its ranks. Until they do, there is every reason to believe we are in the midst of crusade. The thing that is crazy about this crusade is the perception that is Christian against Muslim, when, in fact, it is really a conflict of good versus evil, citizen versus criminal, Samaritan versus terrorist.
This leads us back to NYC and "The Mosque". The U. S. Constitution is founded on a few basic beliefs: one of which is the Freedom of Religion ["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances"]. We all know that. Our forefathers were persecuted right out of England and founded a largely Christian/Protestant state which did seek to ensure that the civil liberties of its citizens would also include the liberty of freedom to practice "their" religion (they were also largely motivated by the prospect of eliminating taxation without representation - a topic for another day as I think those who do not pay tax, do not vote - the Declaration of Independence did not envision votes for all). This freedom has enabled us to welcome Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims (among others) into our borders in waves of immigration and liberation from regimes which repressed what we consider an absolute: the freedom to pray to any god you like. That said, the Constitution does mandate that this worship also respect the other basic tenants in its foundation: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America).
Domestic Tranquility. Does a Mosque in that location really promote tranquility? Two blocks was well within the cloud of poison which enveloped lower Manhattan courtesy of a handful of the deranged manipulators of Islam (the idiots on the plane were also clearly manipulated by their handlers, who notably were not on the plane but probably at home watching reruns of the Simpson's while eating a combo meal from McDonald's). Manhattan is 23 square miles. Is there no better real estate space within that acreage to site a mosque? The Imam associated with the project actually has a very good track record of moderation and has been asked by a number of state agencies to speak and promote a rational face of Islam in America. The administration has promoted the cause on the basis of freedom of religion, but has yet to sort out the trials of the co-conspirators in the 9/11 bombings. As a matter of fact, remember this administration had proposed trying these criminals in NYC at the risk of further symbolic violence and civil strife and massive cost, so it's sensitivity to domestic tranquility is clearly in question, as is its judgement in these matters. On the other side of the argument, we have the likes of Sarah Palin moaning about a topic she knows as much about as the process of nuclear fision, and who only proves that Seward's Folly was a great buy for natural resources but not for intelligent women politicians.
When we take out the complete bias of the lunatic left and right and the fully biased 3rd estate which no longer shows any impartiality in reporting news, as opposed to opinion, should we just be asking whether it is really necessary to rub salt in the wounds. Sure, the developers have the right to build their place of worship, but shouldn't they also have the decency to be sensitive to the memory of the nearly 3000 who perished within a stone's throw?
Friday, August 20, 2010
Fuel Gage or Gauge
Let me introduce you to my local gas station. It is a "Mobil" branded station. It has one full set of self-service pumps - front and back side. It has one set which is half (one side) self-service and one side full service. It has a convenience store, which one could argue is no more convenient than, say, the local grocery stores 3 to 4 blocks away, or the local news stand across the street, or a rug bazaar in the back alleys of Marakesh. What it does have is the most predatory and outrageous attitude towards gasoline prices and it's local denizens.
I think we all know within a few cents, the price of 93 octane (or if you are too cheap maybe 89 octane, or being really cheap and, owning some Korean piece of crap, and don't really care maybe 83 octane fuel) gasoline. Given roughly $80/barrel oil, the price you and I should pay, less the goverment misuse tax, is approximately $3.00/gallon. At the New Canaan Mobil, you pay $3.55. Let me help you with the math: that is 55 cents per gallon of usury. On a car which holds a 15 gallon tank, you are paying the amount of an extra bottle of good Aussie Shiraz to this petrol plundered, which quite frankly would be better consumed in your tank than lining his shyster pockets.
Why does the pernicious proprietor of this filling station charge so much? I have heard all the carte Blanche excuses. It costs more to bring the gas to New Canaan. The real estate is more expensive, so the gas must cost more to offset the higher fixed costs. The fact that we live in Camelot means that the gas is actually made from spun gold to line the streets as one drives over them. Okay, that last one is not really a true reason, but neither is any of the other excuses I have heard given. Let's call it what it is: highway robbery.
So, as we have no navy to deal with this particular economic pirate, I propose we all boycott the Mobil station in New Canaan. Let the guy sell lottery tickets to the desperate and slurpies to the school dodging dropouts, but no gasoline to us. Buy your gas elsewhere. Let's show this guy and Mobil that lack of morals equals lack of dollars.
I think we all know within a few cents, the price of 93 octane (or if you are too cheap maybe 89 octane, or being really cheap and, owning some Korean piece of crap, and don't really care maybe 83 octane fuel) gasoline. Given roughly $80/barrel oil, the price you and I should pay, less the goverment misuse tax, is approximately $3.00/gallon. At the New Canaan Mobil, you pay $3.55. Let me help you with the math: that is 55 cents per gallon of usury. On a car which holds a 15 gallon tank, you are paying the amount of an extra bottle of good Aussie Shiraz to this petrol plundered, which quite frankly would be better consumed in your tank than lining his shyster pockets.
Why does the pernicious proprietor of this filling station charge so much? I have heard all the carte Blanche excuses. It costs more to bring the gas to New Canaan. The real estate is more expensive, so the gas must cost more to offset the higher fixed costs. The fact that we live in Camelot means that the gas is actually made from spun gold to line the streets as one drives over them. Okay, that last one is not really a true reason, but neither is any of the other excuses I have heard given. Let's call it what it is: highway robbery.
So, as we have no navy to deal with this particular economic pirate, I propose we all boycott the Mobil station in New Canaan. Let the guy sell lottery tickets to the desperate and slurpies to the school dodging dropouts, but no gasoline to us. Buy your gas elsewhere. Let's show this guy and Mobil that lack of morals equals lack of dollars.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Worst President Ever
A group of my highly educated (as defined by the amount of money their parents' spent to send them to institutions of higher learning and not what they learned) friends and I recently sat and debated who was the worst president in American history. The immediate target was the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but it was determined that this was too easy. So the debate began in earnest to identify the "next worst:.
For my money, it was a much more difficult debate than one would have thought. The easy money pointed to Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover, but they ultimately were not even runner ups. Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives (technically charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act) but was acquitted by one vote margin in the Senate. His shortcomings were clearly issues of patronage and political dispute resulting from, among other things, his hurry to bring the south back into the union. He alienated both the Democrats and the Republicans. Hoover, forever immortalized for his "chicken in every pot", was not a politician and had never held elected office (he served as Secretary of Commerce under both Coolidge and Harding) prior to his winning the White House. He inherited an economy and a financial system which were untenable and his lack of experience and timing has forever tarred him with being the sitting president for the beginning of the Great Depression.
Though popular, these two former Chief Executives did not even make the top 5 of our discussion. We had a difficult time isolating a number one. FDR was a divisive choice. We noted that his admirers have crowned him the savior of the Great Depression, but we concluded (as have many more scholarly folk) that it was really WWII which turned the economic tide, putting Americans back to work and shifting the balance of trade. We debated the writings of the likes of John Toland, who believed it was FDR's decision, and one of his most unpardonable sins, to ensure American entry into WWII by ignoring intercepted plans and allowing Pearl Harbor to transpire as it did, enraging the nation and driving even the most fervent of isolationists into the battle (Toland wrote a conspiratist's tome, noting that America's entire carrier fleet just happened to be out of harbor and cruising the Aleutians on December 7th). We talked about how, in the final stretches of the war, FDR sold out Eastern Europe and much of Germany in his attempts to curry favor with Stalin. He left a legacy of "big government" and bureaucratic handouts that continue to blight our society.
We argued, as well, for Bill Clinton to garner the top spot. We talked about he launched us into Balkan politics (less you forget it was his command which bombed Sarajevo to remove a war criminal and dictator). We talked about his decision to throw American troops into an impossible situation in Somalia (immortalized by "Black Hawk Down"). We had heated discussion over his gaining credit for presiding over one of the greatest economic recoveries, but in doing so removing the curbs which had protected the financial system from the abuses which nearly brought us to ruin again in 2008 (the repeal of Glass-Steagall, among other things). More than these flaws, though, we felt him one of the worst in direct correlation to his taste in women. Aside from a discussion of Hilary, which took a while, we rued that the most powerful man in the world managed affairs with a string of women who could have made the trailer trash hall of fame. We discussed his crowing glory in this regard which was, of course, Monica Lewinsky. [The best he could muster was a chubby, unattractive, and mostly crazy, young intern? To top off his well known womanizing, certainly not a flaw in some European ruling circles, Bill had the audacity to lie under oath about this activities in the Oval Office while proving just how poor the educational system; and, in this specific case, the sex education system in Arkansas was when he denied having sex (only oral)].
Another too easy target, in our discussions was W, but the group argued that his failings, and inherent stupidity, were ultimately and directly related to the idiots he surrounded himself with as advisers (anyone want to go shooting with Cheney?). How about JFK someone asked? We gave him credit for his alleged affair with Marilyn (after all, one can marry for wealth but have other needs - not something I subscribe to personally, but also not something for which he should gain a vote as worst of all timer for - after all she was an icon). What many, in the discussion had forgotten, is that Kennedy, aside from his clubby Boston and family politics, was the President who launched our involvement in Vietnam. [Not a crowing glory but a major failing which is largely overlooked as a result of his assassination and the ascendancy of his VP, Lyndon B Johnson, who magnified the problems for us in South East Asia. Johnson' s Great Society proved to be anything but great as was his overall legacy]. Carter got a nod for his mis-steps: rabid inflation, Tehran and Billy. There were even a few votes for Grant and his legacy of graft.
In the end, though, our discussion reverted back to the fund raiser from Chicago. I'd like to say that we decided to give him the rest of his term to make final decision, but we did not. In the end, one of my friends summed it all up: January 20, 2013.
For my money, it was a much more difficult debate than one would have thought. The easy money pointed to Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover, but they ultimately were not even runner ups. Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives (technically charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act) but was acquitted by one vote margin in the Senate. His shortcomings were clearly issues of patronage and political dispute resulting from, among other things, his hurry to bring the south back into the union. He alienated both the Democrats and the Republicans. Hoover, forever immortalized for his "chicken in every pot", was not a politician and had never held elected office (he served as Secretary of Commerce under both Coolidge and Harding) prior to his winning the White House. He inherited an economy and a financial system which were untenable and his lack of experience and timing has forever tarred him with being the sitting president for the beginning of the Great Depression.
Though popular, these two former Chief Executives did not even make the top 5 of our discussion. We had a difficult time isolating a number one. FDR was a divisive choice. We noted that his admirers have crowned him the savior of the Great Depression, but we concluded (as have many more scholarly folk) that it was really WWII which turned the economic tide, putting Americans back to work and shifting the balance of trade. We debated the writings of the likes of John Toland, who believed it was FDR's decision, and one of his most unpardonable sins, to ensure American entry into WWII by ignoring intercepted plans and allowing Pearl Harbor to transpire as it did, enraging the nation and driving even the most fervent of isolationists into the battle (Toland wrote a conspiratist's tome, noting that America's entire carrier fleet just happened to be out of harbor and cruising the Aleutians on December 7th). We talked about how, in the final stretches of the war, FDR sold out Eastern Europe and much of Germany in his attempts to curry favor with Stalin. He left a legacy of "big government" and bureaucratic handouts that continue to blight our society.
We argued, as well, for Bill Clinton to garner the top spot. We talked about he launched us into Balkan politics (less you forget it was his command which bombed Sarajevo to remove a war criminal and dictator). We talked about his decision to throw American troops into an impossible situation in Somalia (immortalized by "Black Hawk Down"). We had heated discussion over his gaining credit for presiding over one of the greatest economic recoveries, but in doing so removing the curbs which had protected the financial system from the abuses which nearly brought us to ruin again in 2008 (the repeal of Glass-Steagall, among other things). More than these flaws, though, we felt him one of the worst in direct correlation to his taste in women. Aside from a discussion of Hilary, which took a while, we rued that the most powerful man in the world managed affairs with a string of women who could have made the trailer trash hall of fame. We discussed his crowing glory in this regard which was, of course, Monica Lewinsky. [The best he could muster was a chubby, unattractive, and mostly crazy, young intern? To top off his well known womanizing, certainly not a flaw in some European ruling circles, Bill had the audacity to lie under oath about this activities in the Oval Office while proving just how poor the educational system; and, in this specific case, the sex education system in Arkansas was when he denied having sex (only oral)].
Another too easy target, in our discussions was W, but the group argued that his failings, and inherent stupidity, were ultimately and directly related to the idiots he surrounded himself with as advisers (anyone want to go shooting with Cheney?). How about JFK someone asked? We gave him credit for his alleged affair with Marilyn (after all, one can marry for wealth but have other needs - not something I subscribe to personally, but also not something for which he should gain a vote as worst of all timer for - after all she was an icon). What many, in the discussion had forgotten, is that Kennedy, aside from his clubby Boston and family politics, was the President who launched our involvement in Vietnam. [Not a crowing glory but a major failing which is largely overlooked as a result of his assassination and the ascendancy of his VP, Lyndon B Johnson, who magnified the problems for us in South East Asia. Johnson' s Great Society proved to be anything but great as was his overall legacy]. Carter got a nod for his mis-steps: rabid inflation, Tehran and Billy. There were even a few votes for Grant and his legacy of graft.
In the end, though, our discussion reverted back to the fund raiser from Chicago. I'd like to say that we decided to give him the rest of his term to make final decision, but we did not. In the end, one of my friends summed it all up: January 20, 2013.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Crosswalks
So, I live in Camelot. Unfortunately, even Camelot has streets (yes, they are all paved in gold - at least they were before this Government started stealing from everyone and anyone they could). At the end of my street, which we can call "Hilary Place", there is a cross walk. This cross walk is used often by the denizens of Hilary Place to walk the 1/4 mile into town or visit the grocery store across the street (which is a Food Emporium and one of the worst excuses for a food retailer that exists on this planet save for the hawker's stall in a bazaar in Kinshasha). This cross walk is supposed to be protected by a state law in Connecticut (for all of you who do not know this read and learn as detailed in Sec 14-300c of Chapter 249 of the Connecticut General Statutes) which requires all vehicles to yield to pedestrians at such marked crosswalks. It doesn't always happen, and so part of the reason for today's posting.
Hilary Place has some 30 odd (they are no more odd than children can be, but the families have been so fertile that I cannot keep track of how many there currently are) children under the age of 10. They can be an unruly bunch, as are most kids at this range of age (except for some of those precious, little angels raised by the type of people we all know and can point out like picking rotten fruit from a barrel). They, do not, however, typically cross out of Hilary Place without a parent, as was the case yesterday when my neighbor and her four children (stop with the birth control snickers as I have four children, too) went to walk to town. A car approached, and stopped as they crossed, but a second car pulled up behind the first and began honking its horn, actually scaring the elderly lady in the first car, setting off a chain reaction which almost left my neighbor short a few of her children.
Now, we could address the issue of the elderly woman and her panic, but we will all be old at some point (the alternative to getting old being a whole lot less pleasant to think about) and our motor skills and reaction times will dull with time like a well-used knife. She is not the antagonist in this story. The man in the second car is. The man who "honked his horn", gunned his engine and was just a general nuisance. It is this man and his behavior, or lack there of, which worth addressing, or rather more a "dressing down", but I will get to that in due course.
What I enjoyed (and there was not much) hearing, as this story was relayed, is that my neighbor approached the offending car and let him know, as is her Constistutional right, that she had an opinion of him and his behavior, as well as the place of his birth and the sire from which he came. As one would expect from such an individual, and representative of his I.Q., he responded with a lace of profanity unfit for a group of Somali pirates. My neighbor astutely took the license plate number and called the local constabulary, which initially responded as one would expect, asking her to report to the station to file a complaint and with genuine concern. Upon arriving at the station (even Camelot needs police to handle the hordes who tresspass its borders), she was berated by a different officer who questioned her desire to make a report and the "wasting" of his precious time for such a matter as the near death of her children.
There are two best parts to this story. First, there is the part which invovles the animal in the car who was clearly in such a rush to get to his trivial and meaningless job, family or life that he could not wait the extra 30 seconds to allow children to safely cross the road. [Let me just throw out into the cosmos that if I run into this "gentleman", I will take a baseball bat to his auto, if not him, smiling as I do it]. The second part involves the local constable. I have a number of friends in our local police force and they are to (the one exception clearly mentioned here) a man the best of the best professionals. They are caring and considerate of the community which they protect. They allow me to sleep safely at night, knowing my family and I are safe. That said, my neighbor ran into the one hot shot who clearly does not understand the responsibility of his role in the community. My guess is that after this incident and the wave of calls and complaints already lodged, and likely to follow, he will adjust his attitude (especially when it is pointed out to him that if an accident had occured the liability, let alone the tragedy, would have beeen rather significant for the town).
But let's not discuss things of a litigious nature. Let's focus on the remedy. First, as we have discussed in the past (and forgiving my occasional speeding, and thus disregard of the law, on the highway), let's understand that a crosswalk is sacrosanct. There is nowhere you need to be that is so important that you should not observe state law, and common courtesy, to stop for pedestrians at a crosswalk. I am tired of being in downtown Camelot and watching black. blue and white license plates (New Yorkers in case you did not get the less than subtle hint) blow through the two or three cross walks in our village center under the banner of ignorance, or idiocy.
If you are so busy, rushed, harried or self-important, do me a favor and stay across the border in your own land. You are not wanted and you should know that. Quite frankly we should have border patrol, or maybe even a fence as they do in Arizona. If you are a young rookie constable and some mother calls you regarding the well-being of her cubs, jump. Jump as high as you can. Smile and remember what makes our Camelot the place it is, is that we all care. We care about the town and each other, and if you don't, there is always some Hades we can ship you off to, quite happily.
Hilary Place has some 30 odd (they are no more odd than children can be, but the families have been so fertile that I cannot keep track of how many there currently are) children under the age of 10. They can be an unruly bunch, as are most kids at this range of age (except for some of those precious, little angels raised by the type of people we all know and can point out like picking rotten fruit from a barrel). They, do not, however, typically cross out of Hilary Place without a parent, as was the case yesterday when my neighbor and her four children (stop with the birth control snickers as I have four children, too) went to walk to town. A car approached, and stopped as they crossed, but a second car pulled up behind the first and began honking its horn, actually scaring the elderly lady in the first car, setting off a chain reaction which almost left my neighbor short a few of her children.
Now, we could address the issue of the elderly woman and her panic, but we will all be old at some point (the alternative to getting old being a whole lot less pleasant to think about) and our motor skills and reaction times will dull with time like a well-used knife. She is not the antagonist in this story. The man in the second car is. The man who "honked his horn", gunned his engine and was just a general nuisance. It is this man and his behavior, or lack there of, which worth addressing, or rather more a "dressing down", but I will get to that in due course.
What I enjoyed (and there was not much) hearing, as this story was relayed, is that my neighbor approached the offending car and let him know, as is her Constistutional right, that she had an opinion of him and his behavior, as well as the place of his birth and the sire from which he came. As one would expect from such an individual, and representative of his I.Q., he responded with a lace of profanity unfit for a group of Somali pirates. My neighbor astutely took the license plate number and called the local constabulary, which initially responded as one would expect, asking her to report to the station to file a complaint and with genuine concern. Upon arriving at the station (even Camelot needs police to handle the hordes who tresspass its borders), she was berated by a different officer who questioned her desire to make a report and the "wasting" of his precious time for such a matter as the near death of her children.
There are two best parts to this story. First, there is the part which invovles the animal in the car who was clearly in such a rush to get to his trivial and meaningless job, family or life that he could not wait the extra 30 seconds to allow children to safely cross the road. [Let me just throw out into the cosmos that if I run into this "gentleman", I will take a baseball bat to his auto, if not him, smiling as I do it]. The second part involves the local constable. I have a number of friends in our local police force and they are to (the one exception clearly mentioned here) a man the best of the best professionals. They are caring and considerate of the community which they protect. They allow me to sleep safely at night, knowing my family and I are safe. That said, my neighbor ran into the one hot shot who clearly does not understand the responsibility of his role in the community. My guess is that after this incident and the wave of calls and complaints already lodged, and likely to follow, he will adjust his attitude (especially when it is pointed out to him that if an accident had occured the liability, let alone the tragedy, would have beeen rather significant for the town).
But let's not discuss things of a litigious nature. Let's focus on the remedy. First, as we have discussed in the past (and forgiving my occasional speeding, and thus disregard of the law, on the highway), let's understand that a crosswalk is sacrosanct. There is nowhere you need to be that is so important that you should not observe state law, and common courtesy, to stop for pedestrians at a crosswalk. I am tired of being in downtown Camelot and watching black. blue and white license plates (New Yorkers in case you did not get the less than subtle hint) blow through the two or three cross walks in our village center under the banner of ignorance, or idiocy.
If you are so busy, rushed, harried or self-important, do me a favor and stay across the border in your own land. You are not wanted and you should know that. Quite frankly we should have border patrol, or maybe even a fence as they do in Arizona. If you are a young rookie constable and some mother calls you regarding the well-being of her cubs, jump. Jump as high as you can. Smile and remember what makes our Camelot the place it is, is that we all care. We care about the town and each other, and if you don't, there is always some Hades we can ship you off to, quite happily.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
So, I was trying to think about a suitable topic for today's rant, and coming up blank, until we started discussing GM's decision to pay $3.5bn for AmeriCredit. Hmmm. Let's think about that. GM, the bankrupt, government-bailed out (US taxpayer bailed out, which is inclusive of Wall Streeters and their tax donations), crappy car maker is buying a subprime lender. They are doing it before plans to ipo the company. They are doing it, ostensibly, to enable unqualified and uncreditworthy borrowers to get access to loans for cars.
Really? We want to make it easier for uncreditworthy borrowers to get access to credit to buy vehicles which they probably cannot afford anyway? (By the way, given the quality, or lack there of, in GM product, this seems more punishment than pleasure). Didn't we just live through the same thing in the housing market? Wasn't it the bubble that nearly brought down the entire financial system?
Let's review. People making $35k, or so, per year were able to get a zero money down mortgage on a $500k house which they were never going to able to afford. Of course, Washington said it was the "wicked" lenders, shysters who knew that they were screwing hard working and wholesome Americans by fleecing them with low rate mortgages that stepped to unmanageable levels as soon as the ink was dry. These "bad people" never explained the full risks and the expression of "it seeming to good to be true" never came into play. It was never those people who were gaming the system to live well beyond their means (because, of course, that is really the American dream) who were to blame.
This week, Obama's "pay czar" (whichever way you prefer to spell it - czar or tsar - it still spells a*shole) said he is going to clawback compensation (the residual amounts) from 2008 for all employees of firms which received a bailout. [Let's see: what is he clawing back from GM employees, their Chevy Malibu's? They can keep those because no one else wants them]. Seems like a wonderful political ploy for an administration under duress for its inability to achieve any legislation of any merit (by the way, where did that massive overhaul of healthcare disappear to?). As has been their usual blueprint, fall back on Wall Street whenever public opinion sways. For that matter, cry fire in a crowded theater, tell everyone who will listen the sky is falling and blame Wall Street, while canonizing middle America and the hard working, skilled, and unionized labourers, like those at GM.
In the end we wind up here again. GM, which should stand for Giant Moneypit, is now going to invest $3.5bn to buy a business to lend to people who should, quite frankly, be happy with used cars. They should consider walking to work (uphill and downhill, both ways, like your dad used to tell you he did when growing up). Heck, they could try mass transit and actually do something environmentally sound to support their liberal leanings. GM has still not paid the taxpayer back fully and assumes that this "growth" story window dressing will help it achieve a better multiple in its ipo (by the way, to whom do they think they are going to sell the shares in the ipo - more stupid citizens?). Maybe we should pay Obama and his merry band in Congress with GM shares in lieu of good old greenbacks. Maybe then, they would consider getting the joke.
Really? We want to make it easier for uncreditworthy borrowers to get access to credit to buy vehicles which they probably cannot afford anyway? (By the way, given the quality, or lack there of, in GM product, this seems more punishment than pleasure). Didn't we just live through the same thing in the housing market? Wasn't it the bubble that nearly brought down the entire financial system?
Let's review. People making $35k, or so, per year were able to get a zero money down mortgage on a $500k house which they were never going to able to afford. Of course, Washington said it was the "wicked" lenders, shysters who knew that they were screwing hard working and wholesome Americans by fleecing them with low rate mortgages that stepped to unmanageable levels as soon as the ink was dry. These "bad people" never explained the full risks and the expression of "it seeming to good to be true" never came into play. It was never those people who were gaming the system to live well beyond their means (because, of course, that is really the American dream) who were to blame.
This week, Obama's "pay czar" (whichever way you prefer to spell it - czar or tsar - it still spells a*shole) said he is going to clawback compensation (the residual amounts) from 2008 for all employees of firms which received a bailout. [Let's see: what is he clawing back from GM employees, their Chevy Malibu's? They can keep those because no one else wants them]. Seems like a wonderful political ploy for an administration under duress for its inability to achieve any legislation of any merit (by the way, where did that massive overhaul of healthcare disappear to?). As has been their usual blueprint, fall back on Wall Street whenever public opinion sways. For that matter, cry fire in a crowded theater, tell everyone who will listen the sky is falling and blame Wall Street, while canonizing middle America and the hard working, skilled, and unionized labourers, like those at GM.
In the end we wind up here again. GM, which should stand for Giant Moneypit, is now going to invest $3.5bn to buy a business to lend to people who should, quite frankly, be happy with used cars. They should consider walking to work (uphill and downhill, both ways, like your dad used to tell you he did when growing up). Heck, they could try mass transit and actually do something environmentally sound to support their liberal leanings. GM has still not paid the taxpayer back fully and assumes that this "growth" story window dressing will help it achieve a better multiple in its ipo (by the way, to whom do they think they are going to sell the shares in the ipo - more stupid citizens?). Maybe we should pay Obama and his merry band in Congress with GM shares in lieu of good old greenbacks. Maybe then, they would consider getting the joke.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
One Nation Under God
So I was driving down the Merritt Parkway the other day when I passed (yes, as usual driving faster than is posted - get over it) a humvee with 3 national guardsman in it. They looked all of about 12, but were fully camo-uniformed and acknowledged my salute as I passed. They clearly were not currently serving in Kandahar or Fallujah or some other delightful tourist destination (For a bit of trivia, do you know where we currently have active combat troops deployed? Give up? How about Iraq, Afghanistan (those are the easy ones), South Korea (less you forget bordering on a nation, technically still at war with our ally and run by a pompadour wearing, Elvis like crazy man), Kosovo (yes, we are still there mediating between parties of centuries' old local grievances) and Bosnia (right next door). That said, they might have come back or be heading out, for all I know. They may have endured conditions we can only imagine through Hollywood's dramatization. Let's be frank: you and I, having not been "in combat" have no idea what they may have or might face.
I have more respect for those kids I passed than I do for most residents of a neighboring county, who drive over the border to my fair Camelot and behave like barnyard animals at a trough. These kids show a selflessness, which some of these neighboring residents should learn, and a sense of duty which should make us all stand at attention. Remember that line from "A Few Good Men"? There is an exchange between Demi Moore and Kevin Pollak. She asks him why he hates the soldiers involved so much and he asks her why she likes them so much. Demi's character says: "Because they stand up on a wall, and they say 'Nothing's gonna hurt you tonight. not on my watch'".
That should give you goose bumps. It does me. While a line from Hollywood fiction, it means a lot to me. It means that some young man or woman, maybe just in lieu of a career elsewhere, is willing to sacrifice him/herself to protect what we have here. Sure, the objectives of each individual serviceman/woman may not be that noble, but I choose to believe the vast majority are. I have friends who have served, are serving. I recently lost a neighbor who was an army pilot (there was no air force in WWII), who was shot down over Germany and became a POW before escaping back to Paris. I was close with a friend who's father landed on the beaches at D-Day. These folks served out of pride. I'd like to think they were not alone.
This is not just a nation of people but of ideas and spirit. It is an eagle on an unfurled banner. It is the red, white and blue of "Old Glory". It is "the land of the free and the home of the brave". It is that rush of both warm and cold emotion and nearing tears that wash over me when I think about those symbols of my patriotism, when I stand at attention, hand over heart and sing Francis Scott Key's 1814 Overture. This is "One Nation Under God" and it is all our Gods. This is what these young men protect.
I wondered, as I drove on what the world held for those boys. I wondered if I could have mustered to the call and why I did not (I had my letters for the Air Force Academy being prepared when I was told that I could not fly - too many broken bones, and I bailed). I wonder what I will say of one of my kids asks me what I think about them "joining up". All I do know, is that I did not know those 3 young men, but I could not have been more proud of them.
I have more respect for those kids I passed than I do for most residents of a neighboring county, who drive over the border to my fair Camelot and behave like barnyard animals at a trough. These kids show a selflessness, which some of these neighboring residents should learn, and a sense of duty which should make us all stand at attention. Remember that line from "A Few Good Men"? There is an exchange between Demi Moore and Kevin Pollak. She asks him why he hates the soldiers involved so much and he asks her why she likes them so much. Demi's character says: "Because they stand up on a wall, and they say 'Nothing's gonna hurt you tonight. not on my watch'".
That should give you goose bumps. It does me. While a line from Hollywood fiction, it means a lot to me. It means that some young man or woman, maybe just in lieu of a career elsewhere, is willing to sacrifice him/herself to protect what we have here. Sure, the objectives of each individual serviceman/woman may not be that noble, but I choose to believe the vast majority are. I have friends who have served, are serving. I recently lost a neighbor who was an army pilot (there was no air force in WWII), who was shot down over Germany and became a POW before escaping back to Paris. I was close with a friend who's father landed on the beaches at D-Day. These folks served out of pride. I'd like to think they were not alone.
This is not just a nation of people but of ideas and spirit. It is an eagle on an unfurled banner. It is the red, white and blue of "Old Glory". It is "the land of the free and the home of the brave". It is that rush of both warm and cold emotion and nearing tears that wash over me when I think about those symbols of my patriotism, when I stand at attention, hand over heart and sing Francis Scott Key's 1814 Overture. This is "One Nation Under God" and it is all our Gods. This is what these young men protect.
I wondered, as I drove on what the world held for those boys. I wondered if I could have mustered to the call and why I did not (I had my letters for the Air Force Academy being prepared when I was told that I could not fly - too many broken bones, and I bailed). I wonder what I will say of one of my kids asks me what I think about them "joining up". All I do know, is that I did not know those 3 young men, but I could not have been more proud of them.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The End is Nigh
Could not resist the post here. One more sign of how full of themselves players in the NBA are (and delightfully tied to and not allowing the Lebron "Derision" to die down), Dwayne Wade actually had the audacity to compare a string of potential losses with his new "superstar-studded" team this upcoming season to the tragedy of the Twin Towers. Dwayne's exact quote was: "Of course, there's going to be times when we might lose one or two games in a row, three games in a row, you never know. It's going to seem like the world is crashed down...You all are going to make it seem like the World Trade has just went down again".
Aside from his delightful grammar and his shortening the World Trade Center to World Trade, or maybe just making assumptions about his team's impact on global trade with the world trade reference (given something like the chain of jersey sales which would impact importers, exporters and manufacturers from China all the way to Miami), I loved his belief that anyone could equate the losses of a few self-centered infants to the tragic deaths of thousands. I liked his clarification, and "apology" even more as he was quoted (note: quoted, again) as saying it was never his intent to compare basketball success to the tragedy of 9/11 and the destruction of the Twin Towers and that his comments were "taken completely out of context".
Seriously, I watched the interview. What context did he think was incorrect? Did he think he had actually muttered these words only internally and the governor on his grammatically pre-school mouth had malfunctioned? Did he think he was character in one of those old Japanese Godzilla movies? You know the ones where the dubbing into English from Japanese was so bad that it looked like a Milli-Vanilli lip syncing concert gone haywire? Dwayne opened his mouth and someone else placed the words out there like a ventriloquist? Maybe he thought that all of the reporters were just out to get him with misquotes (I think the National Enquirer ran a concurrent piece about his being the father of Hannah Montana or the Lebron, Wade, Bosh threesome being stranded on an island off the Keys with Ginger and Marianne). Whatever the case, Dwayne managed to make Lebron look only half as stupid with his comments (note: half as stupid, which proportionally, given the stupidity involved, is still a multiple of stupidity greater than anything you or I have ever done. Really.).
When do we get tired off these professional babies and megalomaniacs? When do we stop treating them as deities? This guy, in question, and his two teammates can throw a round ball through a peach basket hoop. They can barely, collectively, string together a sentence and they think more of themselves than Donald Trump, which we all know is hard to do. Why don't we just do the smart thing, vote with our feet. Watch college ball. Heck, turn on the Italian or Greek basketball leagues. At least maybe our viewership would help to bail out the financial crisis in Europe through higher revenues (I still think the EU should have paid E1bn to Americans to summer in Greece and Europe to better effect than spending it directly on the Europeans themselves). Better yet, why don't we sell Miami and its contents to Chavez. At least that way there would be competition for the title of biggest fool.
Whatever we do, could we get these gentlemen a tutor. If they are going to say such stupid things, maybe they can at least do so and sound intelligent.
Aside from his delightful grammar and his shortening the World Trade Center to World Trade, or maybe just making assumptions about his team's impact on global trade with the world trade reference (given something like the chain of jersey sales which would impact importers, exporters and manufacturers from China all the way to Miami), I loved his belief that anyone could equate the losses of a few self-centered infants to the tragic deaths of thousands. I liked his clarification, and "apology" even more as he was quoted (note: quoted, again) as saying it was never his intent to compare basketball success to the tragedy of 9/11 and the destruction of the Twin Towers and that his comments were "taken completely out of context".
Seriously, I watched the interview. What context did he think was incorrect? Did he think he had actually muttered these words only internally and the governor on his grammatically pre-school mouth had malfunctioned? Did he think he was character in one of those old Japanese Godzilla movies? You know the ones where the dubbing into English from Japanese was so bad that it looked like a Milli-Vanilli lip syncing concert gone haywire? Dwayne opened his mouth and someone else placed the words out there like a ventriloquist? Maybe he thought that all of the reporters were just out to get him with misquotes (I think the National Enquirer ran a concurrent piece about his being the father of Hannah Montana or the Lebron, Wade, Bosh threesome being stranded on an island off the Keys with Ginger and Marianne). Whatever the case, Dwayne managed to make Lebron look only half as stupid with his comments (note: half as stupid, which proportionally, given the stupidity involved, is still a multiple of stupidity greater than anything you or I have ever done. Really.).
When do we get tired off these professional babies and megalomaniacs? When do we stop treating them as deities? This guy, in question, and his two teammates can throw a round ball through a peach basket hoop. They can barely, collectively, string together a sentence and they think more of themselves than Donald Trump, which we all know is hard to do. Why don't we just do the smart thing, vote with our feet. Watch college ball. Heck, turn on the Italian or Greek basketball leagues. At least maybe our viewership would help to bail out the financial crisis in Europe through higher revenues (I still think the EU should have paid E1bn to Americans to summer in Greece and Europe to better effect than spending it directly on the Europeans themselves). Better yet, why don't we sell Miami and its contents to Chavez. At least that way there would be competition for the title of biggest fool.
Whatever we do, could we get these gentlemen a tutor. If they are going to say such stupid things, maybe they can at least do so and sound intelligent.
Two Hands on the Steering Wheel
I live in Connecticut where the law makes hand held cell phone usage illegal while driving. I drove back from New Hampshire yesterday, passing though New Hampshire (cell phone usage is illegal currently for all drivers), Massachusetts (for all drivers as of 9/30/10) and Connecticut (all drivers) and could not have kept track of the number of people I passed (yes, I exceeded the speed limit and am therefore qualifying my hypocrisy upfront) yapping on their phones. Not only did I pass other drivers distracted by their cell phones, but I passed one woman applying makeup, a man balancing a dip cup and a woman reading a book (all while talking as well). This all happened at some point as I raced (with these and other drivers) south on I-93, I-290, I-90, I-91, I-84 and the US15 (all major highways). As I drove, I wondered how many accidents occur each year as a result of cell phones in the car and why people don't realize they are awful, managing just one task - let alone two.
Think about it. We work on a trading floor where one has to be able to carry on a conversation or typing a Bloomberg/email, while at the same time listening to traders and trades around to us ensure we are not missing a key event or price action. We are, generally, the exception that proves the rule, and I have worked with some people who could barely manage even one of those tasks. If you ask my wife, she does not believe that I can manage more than one task (as I generally ignore her, or so she thinks, while glued to some garbage television unwinding at the end of the day). So, how does Joe or Jane Doe think that while barreling down the interstate that they can manage dual tasks?
A car at 75 miles an hour is a speeding bullet of steel (well mostly aluminum and plastic depending on which brand of Amero-Asian garbage you drive these days). At any given moment you are forced to decide on lane changes, speed differentials and directions, as routes converge and diverge. You, generally, have plenty of time to decide your path and speed but, as we all know, you will also, generally, on a moderate to long trip, find yourself faced with a split decision (forced by someone else who is distracted by something other than driving) which requires your full faculties in avoiding some fender bender, or worse.
So, why throw a cell phone into the mix. Let's be honest, there should be an I.Q. test as part of the driving test, and if there was, most people would fail. I know this would result in taxing an already overburdened mass transit system, if we were to force all the citizens who failed a certain measure of intellect, to hop a bus or train or plane instead of driving. Needless to say the auto manufacturers, and now by extension, the US Government as well, would scream at the impact on car sales and thus jobs and votes from such garden spots as Ohio (my usual unwillingness to pass on a jab at Ohio and its contingent cities like Cleveland). But, until they invent cars which drive on their own (they park on their own now - the effectiveness of which I have not personally witnessed), I remain committed to the thought of eliminating a slew of current drivers, especially those who choose to try to drive and talk (on their cell phones), or better yet text (have you ever been behind one of those idiots?).
I also have to ask why can't one spend the $100 to buy a Bluetooth ear piece or a parrot insert for your car, and what the heck is so important that one needs to be talking on his/her phone and driving? I will guarantee you that those who will say buying a Bluetooth is too expensive (These are the same people who have a 60 inch flat screen in their house. The house which they lied on their application to finance, and which they are now one of the many risking default and further financial consequences). I will also guarantee that these people are discussing such wonderfully inane topics as to make my 7 year old daughter seem like Rhodes Scholar (and that is giving "them" credit as she is pretty darned smart).
Why don't we give law enforcement a real ability to enforce the "no cell phone" law? We could allow for immediate incarceration and huge fines for release and expunging of "driving while handheld talking" records. Think of the benefit to local municipalities, who currently, and notoriously, post end of the month speed traps to ensure a top up of revenues. We could force people caught driving and talking to be "named and shamed in the local papers, forced to share the all important topic of their conversation when pulled over (think how embarrassing that could potentially be). We could also send repeat driver/talkers to cell phone drivers' anonymous or some group therapy session to eliminate and reform their need to talk while steering. [I would not advocate, as a friend of mine does, giving drivers the free pass to shoot drivers using cell phones, as I think guns should be even further up the I.Q, cut off chain].
In the end, why don't people just put the phone down and realize that the amount of carbon emissions from all their yapping is not helping the environment, or the highway.
Think about it. We work on a trading floor where one has to be able to carry on a conversation or typing a Bloomberg/email, while at the same time listening to traders and trades around to us ensure we are not missing a key event or price action. We are, generally, the exception that proves the rule, and I have worked with some people who could barely manage even one of those tasks. If you ask my wife, she does not believe that I can manage more than one task (as I generally ignore her, or so she thinks, while glued to some garbage television unwinding at the end of the day). So, how does Joe or Jane Doe think that while barreling down the interstate that they can manage dual tasks?
A car at 75 miles an hour is a speeding bullet of steel (well mostly aluminum and plastic depending on which brand of Amero-Asian garbage you drive these days). At any given moment you are forced to decide on lane changes, speed differentials and directions, as routes converge and diverge. You, generally, have plenty of time to decide your path and speed but, as we all know, you will also, generally, on a moderate to long trip, find yourself faced with a split decision (forced by someone else who is distracted by something other than driving) which requires your full faculties in avoiding some fender bender, or worse.
So, why throw a cell phone into the mix. Let's be honest, there should be an I.Q. test as part of the driving test, and if there was, most people would fail. I know this would result in taxing an already overburdened mass transit system, if we were to force all the citizens who failed a certain measure of intellect, to hop a bus or train or plane instead of driving. Needless to say the auto manufacturers, and now by extension, the US Government as well, would scream at the impact on car sales and thus jobs and votes from such garden spots as Ohio (my usual unwillingness to pass on a jab at Ohio and its contingent cities like Cleveland). But, until they invent cars which drive on their own (they park on their own now - the effectiveness of which I have not personally witnessed), I remain committed to the thought of eliminating a slew of current drivers, especially those who choose to try to drive and talk (on their cell phones), or better yet text (have you ever been behind one of those idiots?).
I also have to ask why can't one spend the $100 to buy a Bluetooth ear piece or a parrot insert for your car, and what the heck is so important that one needs to be talking on his/her phone and driving? I will guarantee you that those who will say buying a Bluetooth is too expensive (These are the same people who have a 60 inch flat screen in their house. The house which they lied on their application to finance, and which they are now one of the many risking default and further financial consequences). I will also guarantee that these people are discussing such wonderfully inane topics as to make my 7 year old daughter seem like Rhodes Scholar (and that is giving "them" credit as she is pretty darned smart).
Why don't we give law enforcement a real ability to enforce the "no cell phone" law? We could allow for immediate incarceration and huge fines for release and expunging of "driving while handheld talking" records. Think of the benefit to local municipalities, who currently, and notoriously, post end of the month speed traps to ensure a top up of revenues. We could force people caught driving and talking to be "named and shamed in the local papers, forced to share the all important topic of their conversation when pulled over (think how embarrassing that could potentially be). We could also send repeat driver/talkers to cell phone drivers' anonymous or some group therapy session to eliminate and reform their need to talk while steering. [I would not advocate, as a friend of mine does, giving drivers the free pass to shoot drivers using cell phones, as I think guns should be even further up the I.Q, cut off chain].
In the end, why don't people just put the phone down and realize that the amount of carbon emissions from all their yapping is not helping the environment, or the highway.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Nicely Stung
I went to The Metropolitan Opera last night. I saw Sting. It was hard to describe. It was like sitting through a car accident or drowning - that moment before. The music overwhelms. You find yourself travelling through a slideshow of your life. Slide after slide captures moments in time, people, places, smells, your life.
I saw Sting as I originally saw him, not that he has aged. But I saw myself as I saw him, in highschool. He was wearing that Russian naval, horizontal blue and white striped shirt (you know the one from the 80s when we were smuggling blue jean and cassete tapes into Moscow in exchange for fur caps and pea coats). I was wearing a red mohawk. Not just red, but bright red. Aided by a little lemon, a lot of "sun in" and a blow dryer (hey, it was the 80s). I wore Doc Martens and Diesel Tee Shirts. I sang to "The Sex Pistols: God Save the Queen" like it was my own personal, national anthem, and then I melted to songs like Roxanne and Walking on the Moon. I found a voice in a man, and a group, who felt as I did but could say it, sing it, so much cooler. Last night he brought me up to date.
Over the years, Sting has meant my wife and married life (she has threatened on more than one ocassion to leave me for him). His music has captured the room where my first son, and child, was born. It has reminded me of an open air ride to a soccer game with the whole family jamming to a version of Synchronicity (even my two year old, who just yelled anything and everything he could to keep up). It is joy, sadness and longing, but overall it is everything I feel: good and bad.
If I take one thing from tonight, as I look around at all the people here, different people, but happy people, it is the electricity and energy. Maybe its not love but it is emotion. I wonder what would happen if we could get Osama and Obama, Jews and Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, Democrats and Republicans, Yankees and Red Sox all in the hall to listen to Sting. Bring their wives and lovers, fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers to hear his music. To feel that slideshow of emotion. I wonder if we could not solve a lot of what plagues us today.
I saw Sting as I originally saw him, not that he has aged. But I saw myself as I saw him, in highschool. He was wearing that Russian naval, horizontal blue and white striped shirt (you know the one from the 80s when we were smuggling blue jean and cassete tapes into Moscow in exchange for fur caps and pea coats). I was wearing a red mohawk. Not just red, but bright red. Aided by a little lemon, a lot of "sun in" and a blow dryer (hey, it was the 80s). I wore Doc Martens and Diesel Tee Shirts. I sang to "The Sex Pistols: God Save the Queen" like it was my own personal, national anthem, and then I melted to songs like Roxanne and Walking on the Moon. I found a voice in a man, and a group, who felt as I did but could say it, sing it, so much cooler. Last night he brought me up to date.
Over the years, Sting has meant my wife and married life (she has threatened on more than one ocassion to leave me for him). His music has captured the room where my first son, and child, was born. It has reminded me of an open air ride to a soccer game with the whole family jamming to a version of Synchronicity (even my two year old, who just yelled anything and everything he could to keep up). It is joy, sadness and longing, but overall it is everything I feel: good and bad.
If I take one thing from tonight, as I look around at all the people here, different people, but happy people, it is the electricity and energy. Maybe its not love but it is emotion. I wonder what would happen if we could get Osama and Obama, Jews and Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, Democrats and Republicans, Yankees and Red Sox all in the hall to listen to Sting. Bring their wives and lovers, fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers to hear his music. To feel that slideshow of emotion. I wonder if we could not solve a lot of what plagues us today.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Reverend Jessie Jack*ss
How can I leave it be. Jessie Jackson has felt the need to insert himself into the Lebron situation and owner Dan Gilbert's response. The Reverend Jessie Jackson. He managed to draw in an analogy to a slave and his master. Only Jessie Jackson (well not actually just Jessie, prepare for Al Sharpton as we have not heard his attempt at capitalizing on this yet) could find a dispute between player and owner (of a basketball team) to be tied to a tragic and unfortunate 100 plus year old piece of American history.
I am pretty sure everyone who reads this understands the gravity and morally bankrupt policy which was perpetuated in this country before 1865, and quite frankly not fully addressed (and some would argue still not fully addressed today) as regards slavery and the "owning of a human being". I also think that "owning" a basketball team is not even in the same category. Gilbert is a passionate owner. He has a responsibility to his fans (and don't anyone out there say that they have not been on the other side of the coin here, ready to pillory an owner who has shown a propensity to be cheap, ignoring the fans' desire for a winning team). Gilbert reacted to a very poorly handled situation by a player. His team's leader and might I add a high schooler (in educational value). A man, who's maturity is clearly in question which may be a result of his growing up on the basketball court instead of fully developing in a classroom (sure, we can argue whether college is necessary for all, but clearly Lebron did not learn any humility at whatever level of education he did complete). He behaved poorly. He gave his owner no time to prepare for a "game changing" situation. Sure, his owner's motivation is also financial. He lost his "goose that was laying the golden egg". That said, he also saw his loyalty to a player paid well and treated like a king in his city tossed aside in a spectacle that deserves all the "derision" it has received.
So, where does Jessie Jackson get off inserting himself in this process. Doesn't he have some high profile gala cum fundraiser cum other self-promotion that needs more attention? Does he really need that much attention. After all, he has been awfully quiet of late, dwarfed by real African American role models who have achieved positions and success of real importance (Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and despite my dislike for his politics, Obama). Jessie's time has past. let's put him out to pasture. Better yet, let's send him to Miami, as tall as he thinks he is, maybe he can play center with Bosh, Wade and Lebron.
I am pretty sure everyone who reads this understands the gravity and morally bankrupt policy which was perpetuated in this country before 1865, and quite frankly not fully addressed (and some would argue still not fully addressed today) as regards slavery and the "owning of a human being". I also think that "owning" a basketball team is not even in the same category. Gilbert is a passionate owner. He has a responsibility to his fans (and don't anyone out there say that they have not been on the other side of the coin here, ready to pillory an owner who has shown a propensity to be cheap, ignoring the fans' desire for a winning team). Gilbert reacted to a very poorly handled situation by a player. His team's leader and might I add a high schooler (in educational value). A man, who's maturity is clearly in question which may be a result of his growing up on the basketball court instead of fully developing in a classroom (sure, we can argue whether college is necessary for all, but clearly Lebron did not learn any humility at whatever level of education he did complete). He behaved poorly. He gave his owner no time to prepare for a "game changing" situation. Sure, his owner's motivation is also financial. He lost his "goose that was laying the golden egg". That said, he also saw his loyalty to a player paid well and treated like a king in his city tossed aside in a spectacle that deserves all the "derision" it has received.
So, where does Jessie Jackson get off inserting himself in this process. Doesn't he have some high profile gala cum fundraiser cum other self-promotion that needs more attention? Does he really need that much attention. After all, he has been awfully quiet of late, dwarfed by real African American role models who have achieved positions and success of real importance (Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and despite my dislike for his politics, Obama). Jessie's time has past. let's put him out to pasture. Better yet, let's send him to Miami, as tall as he thinks he is, maybe he can play center with Bosh, Wade and Lebron.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Athletes and Movie Stars
Michael Vick cannot leave Philadelphia. Post a shooting at his birthday party last month, while on probation for his "dog sporting", he appears to have lied about the timing of his departure from the party and the subsequent timing of the shooting (he claimed a much wider gap in the timing). Prior to his travel ban, Vick had to have all his travel plans approved. He missed attendance this weekend at his own golf tournament in Atlanta and a youth football camp in Raleigh, NC. He stayed in Philly.
Do we really care. The prosecutors say he was not involved in the shooting but that he was involved in a confrontation earlier at the party. This is a guy who kept dogs and had them fight each other to the death, burying the losers in a field on his property. Upon his release from prison he pledged his "reformed" nature and humbly begged forgiveness for past behavior. He vowed "to change", to earn his redemption, and to be a role model. Yup. Heard it all before. Anyone who believed anything he said, is either a wonderful Christian who truly does believe in redemption or a completely naive fool. How many times do we need to grant these athletes and Hollywood types a free pass for behavior that would put most "common" people on a permanent list of "pariahs". What makes these guys more exempt than the father of 3 or the 25 year old office worker who does something stupid (even if a repetition as opposed to a one-off). They can throw a ball or kiss some hot leading lady? Why do we continue to pay the GDP of a small country to these athletes and actors who take "selfish" to new heights and morals to new lows. Are we really that dumb, or just caught up in the fairytale belief that these people care about us and maybe, just maybe, their luck and life may rub off on us some how. The American dream was always about hard work to achieve a better life. Not a lottery win or a gambling run at a casino. We were never entitled to anything other than better ourselves through effort. When did everyone get the right to have a flat screen tv, two new cars in the driveway and a swimming pool in the backyard?
Vick should have spent as much time as he could at home watching tv after 7pm (or reading a book, assuming he can read something other than a playbook). He should have been devoting every spare minute to animal rights causes and children. He should have been doing everything he could to truly act for, as opposed to giving lip service to, his chance at redemption. He should not have been at some club at 2am with a "posse" of what I am sure was all model, church going, citizens. But, what do we expect, we hold these guys and more to a higher standard. Maybe we can get Michael a cell with Charlie Sheen. They might have a lot to talk about.
Do we really care. The prosecutors say he was not involved in the shooting but that he was involved in a confrontation earlier at the party. This is a guy who kept dogs and had them fight each other to the death, burying the losers in a field on his property. Upon his release from prison he pledged his "reformed" nature and humbly begged forgiveness for past behavior. He vowed "to change", to earn his redemption, and to be a role model. Yup. Heard it all before. Anyone who believed anything he said, is either a wonderful Christian who truly does believe in redemption or a completely naive fool. How many times do we need to grant these athletes and Hollywood types a free pass for behavior that would put most "common" people on a permanent list of "pariahs". What makes these guys more exempt than the father of 3 or the 25 year old office worker who does something stupid (even if a repetition as opposed to a one-off). They can throw a ball or kiss some hot leading lady? Why do we continue to pay the GDP of a small country to these athletes and actors who take "selfish" to new heights and morals to new lows. Are we really that dumb, or just caught up in the fairytale belief that these people care about us and maybe, just maybe, their luck and life may rub off on us some how. The American dream was always about hard work to achieve a better life. Not a lottery win or a gambling run at a casino. We were never entitled to anything other than better ourselves through effort. When did everyone get the right to have a flat screen tv, two new cars in the driveway and a swimming pool in the backyard?
Vick should have spent as much time as he could at home watching tv after 7pm (or reading a book, assuming he can read something other than a playbook). He should have been devoting every spare minute to animal rights causes and children. He should have been doing everything he could to truly act for, as opposed to giving lip service to, his chance at redemption. He should not have been at some club at 2am with a "posse" of what I am sure was all model, church going, citizens. But, what do we expect, we hold these guys and more to a higher standard. Maybe we can get Michael a cell with Charlie Sheen. They might have a lot to talk about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)