Not So Civil War

As we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Antietam, it would only be appropriate to see how far we have come from the bloodiest day in American history.  

On September 17, 1862, Union and Confederate forces met in Maryland and by the end of the day, more than 23,000 casualties had been reported.  Of course the Union would eventually go on to win, but the scars that this ugly war had left would become the very blueprint for the war we are fighting today.  

Depending on who you ask, the Civil War was fought for one of two reasons—states rights and slavery.  There was an economic issue and a social issue.  Both the Confederates and the Union were right, but at the same time, they were both so wrong.  Because they were stubborn and unwilling to compromise, both sides relinquished what little dignity they had left and resorted to primitive forms of persuasion.  The lead slinging went on for a few years, claiming more than a million lives, until a "compromise" was reached.

The irony of the current situation is that it is no different than it was 150 years ago.  The division between the republicans and the democrats is wider and more defined than they have ever been.  The fight is still over economic issues and social issues.  A quick peek into those issues and you will quickly realize that both sides are right, and at the same time, both sides are so wrong.  The only difference is the projectiles that are being shot at one another.

The social issues that are at the center of the rift are same sex marriage and abortion.  Democrats say both should be legalized while republicans say to ban them both.  How about a compromise?  Legalize them and tax the both so heavily it would discourage anyone from taking part in them.  Or better yet, let the respective states decide what they want to do.  Wasn't that one of the issues that sparked the Civil War to begin with?  Yet, these social issues continue to find its way to the forefront as major issues in this election cycle.

Economic issues will always revolve around policies that encourage either capitalism or socialism.  While both sides are quick to point out the inefficiencies of their economic counterparts, they fail to recognize the flaws of their respective views.  Republicans point out that the outrageous spending is spiraling this country into financial oblivion.  Democrats point out that the current economic turmoil took place under the republicans watch.  The result is two political parties giving each other the silent treatment and a war being fought by airing political propaganda slandering and demeaning one another.  Is this really that much different than the war fought 150 years ago?

And as if the political division weren't similar enough, the geographical rift eerily parallels one another.  Take a look at the 2008 electoral map compared to the map of the United and Confederate States of America 150 years ago.  The division between the red and the blue east of the Mississippi paints the obvious picture of how little we have changed.  

I guess the best way to remember the sesquicentennial of the Battle of Antietam is by reenacting its events.

Timeshares.........

I went on vacation this past week to the Smoky Mountains.  The variety of tourist attractions provided a nice little break from the monotony of the most beautiful parts of the country.  It also gave me the opportunity to learn more about one of the most subtle scams that has ever been conjured—timeshares.

I've had a mild interest in learning about timeshares since the people who have them consider them to be investments.  While my wife didn't exactly enjoy the two hours spent talking to Wyndham about the "investment opportunity", it did net us free tickets to a show, $40, and a "free" two night stay for our next vacation.

Just like any other sales pitch, this one came in three parts, just like a meal.  There's the  appetizer, main course, and dessert.  

The appetizer's purpose is to develop an appetite for what they are trying to sell you–vacations.  By asking questions that make you think about families and time, it is easy to get someone emotionally interested in vacations.  And that is exactly what the first server brought us.  

Then the next server brought out the main course, the actual numbers and figures of this "investment".  He made his sales pitch, throwing in inflation figures, future values, and payoff dates.  

Finally, the dessert server showed up and sweetened the deal.  More than double the points, a financing deal, and even paperwork ready to be signed.  Efficient, rewarding, and good value, can't get much better than that–that is until I started crunching numbers in my head, and asked more questions.

The first red flag for me came when the second server told me that this was a one-time offer, that he wouldn't be able to replicate the deal for me in the future, so I needed to act now.  One-time offers have never made sense to me, especially since those one-time deals show up all the time.  It's kind of like the "biggest sale ever" that takes place at JC Penny every other week.  Or Victoria's Secret monthly "semi-annual sale".

Then he told me that the inflation rates in the hotel industry is about 12% annually.  I literally pulled out the B.S. card on that one.  I quickly did the math and realized that what he's telling me is that a hotel that charges $150 a night today only charged $38 a night in 2000?  I think he inflated his inflation number. 

Once he realized he wasn't getting anywhere with me, the deal sweetener showed up with even more.  Just like the infomercials, he told me that if I act now, he would double my points.  And with the timeshare rental program, he could hold this "one-time offer" for me for 20 months.  For a one-time offer, it sure lasts a long time.

Then came the most blatant attempt to mislead.  He told me that once the timeshare had been paid off, there would be no more payments, no more fees, and all the charges for hotel stays would be nonexistent.  I then pointed to the bottom of the offer sheet and asked him what the $80 maintenance fee was about.  It is a monthly fee that has the potential to go up or down.  Since it is in the hotel industry, I am going to make the assumption that it will only go in one direction by about 12%.  Further interrogation revealed even more fees and limitations associated with booking vacations.  

I promptly told him that we weren't interested in it at the time and his demeanor flipped like a switch, further cementing my opinion of timeshares as subtle scams.  

Knowing that almost all owners of timeshares regret the purchase confirms my notion.    

Worldwide Football

Because the Olympics and the NFL training camps schedules coincided, much of the chatter in the sports world revolved around the two.  The question of American football as an Olympic sport has been brought up in the past, and it will continue to be a topic for debate in the future.

Besides the Sarconomist's absolute disdain for any team sport making its way into the Olympics, there are other reasons for pessimism that such an event would ever occur.

The first step for such an unlikely scenario to occur would be for football to become a worldwide sport.  Everyone that I have ever talked to about the topic are quick to point out the sheer expense of the sport.  From pads and salaries to training facilities and infrastructure, it is easy to see how such an undertaking would be overly aggressive and fiscally irresponsible.  

My biggest concern would be that of education.  Most sports in the Olympics require no manual to understand.  Anyone can watch soccer for the first time and within five minutes, they will have a basic understanding of how the game is played.  Same is true for basketball, baseball, water polo, handball, lacrosse, and checkers.

I spent several weeks trying to teach a Chinese man the basics of football.  I failed.  The complexities of the game and its rules were to much for him to comprehend.  Add in the fact that the individual nuances of the game are complicated enough to make Bobby Fischer's head spin, and my student completely lost interest by the time I got to defense.  

Football in its primitive form played more like rugby than what we are familiar with.  The evolution of the game has created a set of rules that are far more complex than any other sport.  We had the advantage of being raised in it and we understand it as if it were a second language.   Football has essentially become a chess game on green grass.  Individual pieces with a completely different skill sets create the ultimate team sport.  Teaching foreign athletes this concept would be monumental task.  Educating the prospective fans would be borderline impossible.  

If the world is somehow able to overcome that hurdle and the popularity of the sport pushed it into the Olympics, it would be a short lived stint.  Softball was yanked as an Olympic event because the U.S. team kept winning, seemingly toying with the rest of the world.  No competition meant no excitement or purpose for having the event altogether.  If Michael Phelps found the fountain of youth, I'm sure his events would be excluded at some point as well.  

And then there is the time issue.  Trying to cram a football tournament into two weeks would be next to impossible.

Essentially, the introduction and reintroduction of football to the rest of the world would be like the path that 3D TV has taken.  Introduced, reintroduced, and rereintroduced, and it has failed every time.  History can only repeat itself so many times.

Olympic Endorsements

Now that the Olympics have come to a close, athletes will undoubtedly sign endorsements deals that will reflect their accomplishments in the Olympics.  Much like Forrest Gump's endorsement of the ping pong paddle he had never used, a long list of improbable matches will likely surface in the next few weeks. 

Usain Bolt will be the face of 5G.  

Lolo Jones, who cried like a baby on the 'Today' show, may be the new spokeswoman for Gerber.  

Nick Delpopolo, who tested positive for pot, will probably be on the next box of Weedies.

Michael Phelps will endorse Florida as a great place for retirement.  Phelps will then be endorsed by Brett Farve when he contemplates competing in Rio de Janeiro.

But the endorsement that all 10,500 athletes in London are sure to be vying for is Durex.  Durex is the official and exclusive condom supplier of Olympic Village, the dorms that the athletes have exclusive access to.  The 150,000 condoms supplied are expected to be about right for the two weeks that the Olympic Village is inhabited.  

Assuming that all the athletes are staying for the entire two weeks of the Olympics, that age means nothing, that Lolo Jones got married the day of the opening ceremonies, that there is no fear of being stoned, that there are no lesbians, and that there are a lot of brave soldiers, each athlete will be using two condoms a day.  And that calculation doesn't include the contraband contraception that found its way into the dorms.  Turns out that the sneaky condoms weren't Trojan, but Kangaroo condoms for the "gland down under".  

So the real question is, who will be the face of Durex?  Ryan Lochte may be the most logical choice.  It would only make sense that his swimmers could swim as well.  And it appears that his mother is leading his campaign efforts as she has bragged about his one night stands.  Plus he wears rubber on his head.  

Simon Grotelühen, the gold medalist sailor from Germany, wouldn't be a bad choice either.  He has proven to be a natural seaman.  

Renaud Lavillenie is the gold medalist in pole vaulting.  He has shown stellar control of his pole throughout the competition. 

Hope Solo may not have a appropriate name for Olympic bed hopping, but she has become the face of the cesspool as she has stated that she looks forward to life of free love in the hippie commune.

So while all the athletes are competing and picking up endorsements, the only thing that the games will validate is that all the athletes are whores.  Here is your next class of role models.

Absurd Birds Flock to Chick-Fil-A

One of the big stories from the past couple weeks is that of the comments by Chick-Fil-A CEO, Dan Cathy.  In an appearance on "The Ken Coleman Show",  the CEO stated,

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'...I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about....We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives..."

These series of statements set off a barrage of attacks against Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A, and anyone who agreed with Cathy's beliefs.  The impending result was a boycott on Chick-Fil-A, and a counter measure to show support for the CEO.  Chick-Fil-A supporters flocked to the restaurant in a record sales day for the company.  Intolerance was fought with intolerance, and countered with intolerance.  

This whole process is awesome as it allows people to exercise their freedom of opinion.  My issue with all of this is the lack of consistency displayed by those that showed their support for Chick-Fil-A.  Inconsistency you may ask?  

How many of these supporters arrived at Chick-Fil-A listening to Lady Gaga, Clay Aiken or Adam Lambert?  How many of these supporters left listening to Queen, Green Day, or Village People?  How many of these supporters went home and watched Modern Family?  

And then how many of Dan Cathy's supporters actually listened to what he said?  How many of those supporters have moved past their first marriages, or even third marriages?  

Isn't it ironic that the christian moral activists community has a strong presence on Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerburg is atheist?  

Perhaps the most perplexing issue to me is that of Dan Cathy.  As a self proclaimed "Christian", it would seem to me that he would at least try to live his life the way Jesus taught in the New Testament.  If we are thinking about the same Jesus, I recall him hanging out with the sinners, teaching and encouraging them, not judging them and calling them out on their imperfections.  If its the same Jesus I grew up learning about, I seem to recall him saying something about letting the sinless cast the first stone.  

So if judging others and looking down on them for not possessing the same beliefs is your idea of "Christianity", I wish you well on your present-day crusade.

Queer Questions

For those of you who use the term "butt-load" to refer to a lot of something, you may be surprised to hear that there is an actual unit of measure called a "butt-load".  Apparently, it is approximately 126 gallons.  However, when you are using it in the context of Barney Frank, Anderson Cooper, or Freddie Mercury, it may have a completely different connotation.  

Growing up in an extremely conservative home, in an ultra conservative state, I was raised with a low tolerance for any kind of homosexual activity.  It was barely surpassed by murder as the most grievous sin one could commit.  It wasn't until I moved to California that I at least made an attempt to understand the background of the most despicable of lifestyles.  That attempt came to an abrupt end when a gay man held me at knifepoint.  

Now that I live in what is widely considered the most conservative place in America, I'm willing to make another attempt at understanding so that I can make the giant leap from tolerance to acceptance.  I just need a few questions answered.  

1.  Why are lesbians attracted to other women who look like men?

2.  Why are gay men attracted to other gay men who dress like women? 

3.  Props to the brilliant gay engineer who quadrupled the seating capacity in the gay bar simply by turning the stools upside down.  However, the gay scientist who decided that being gay is an inherent quality they were born with has some explaining to do.  Being born with a certain quality would infer that it is a hereditary trait.  Under basic Darwinistic theory, survival of the fittest, homosexuals would be deemed "unfit" for survival.  Therefore, under genetic theory, that gene would become so recessive that it would eventually be nonexistent.

4.  What is up with the "lithp"?  I cannot say I have ever met a woman, who is attracted to men, talk with such poor articulation–so why should a man who is attracted to men speak with such poor enunciation?

5.  How is the flamboyance supposed to encourage a more broad acceptance of homosexuality?  I find it annoyingly revolting.  Peacocks use a flamboyant display in an attempt to attract the opposite sex.  The colors are symbolically cohesive, while the motives are quite different.  

6.  Forget the square peg in the round hole analogy.  A more appropriate analogy would be the square peg in a round peg.  It makes no geometrical sense.  

Since the view on this topic is essentially split,  there should be plenty readers who can make sense of the rainbow movement.  Any kind of logical input would be greatly appreciated.

Politics and Parenting

I made a keen observation at work in which I witnessed a child take a toy from presumably its older sibling.  A punch turned into tears and the mother intervened.  After watching the way the mother handled the situation, my thoughts immediately turned to economic and political views, and how those views effect the way we parent.  

This mother told her children to share their toys and not to hit.  Is this mother an isolationistic socialist?  

As a father of two, I now wonder if my parenting is a reflection of my political and economic ideology.  The way my parents raised me was certainly a reflection on their beliefs.

So here is the question, do you think there is a connection between parenting and political/economic beliefs?  Or are we as parents a bunch of hypocrites?  

Capitol Hill Agreement

Perhaps the most talked about topic in Washington D.C. is that of the inability of the democrats and the republicans to come to any kind of consensus on any matter, that is until recently.  

With the Summer Olympics quickly approaching, Ralph Lauren unveiled the uniforms Team USA are to wear during the opening ceremony.  Representatives from both parties were quick to note that the uniforms were made in China, and promptly criticized the U.S. Olympic Committee for dressing the U.S. team in Chinese manufactured berets, blazers, and pants, while the economy still struggled with unemployment.  

"It is not just a label, it's an economic solution," said Rep. Steve Israel. 

In other words, if you are trying to build a house, just use duct tape.  I guess fixing this country's problems is as simple as making clothes for a few Ken dolls. 

While I can kinda see the point they are trying to make, I am struggling to see the consistency in their argument.  For example, have they not looked at the list of sponsors that are supporting the U.S. Olympic team?  

I was watching the swimming trials and was intrigued by one of the commercials that aired.  It was a BMW spot, stating that it was a proud sponsor of the U.S. Olympic team.  Last I checked, Bavarian Motor Works was a German car company.  Why is GM, a U.S. government owned car company, not the official car sponsor of the U.S. Olympic team?  Looks like you dropped the ball on that one, D.C.

Then there is BP, British Petroleum, the company responsible for destroying the gulf coast.  What in the world is a destructive foreign oil company doing sponsoring the U.S. team, when its citizens are whining about high gas prices? 

And then there is AtoS, the French IT company.  A quick look at their website shows that they are always looking for opportunities for outsourcing, a sore subject in D.C.  But aside from that, it's a French company.  Are we encouraging our athletes to just give up?  Sounds like the French Nike slogan.  

And speaking of Nike, another sponsor, at least it is an American company.  However, most of its products are made in...China. 

So while i can vaguely understand the rhetoric coming from Capitol Hill, the inconsistencies are laughable at best.  

Perhaps the most telling statement came from Sen. Israel when he wrote, "there is no compelling reason why all of the uniforms cannot be made here on U.S. soil at the same price..."

Why should clothes made here cost the same as it does when made elsewhere and shipped here?  Maybe if D.C. were to stop blaming Ralph Lauren for the economic woes that has plagued this country, and create policies and business environments friendly to domestic productivity, perhaps those labels would eventually lead to an economic solution.

But what do I know, I've never tried constructing a house with duct tape.

Who's Against Obamacare?

Now that Obamacare is officially constitutional, the next step is to read through the 2700 pages of the legislation to figure out how it affects us.  Since it is named after a children's book author, it can't be too complex, so I took the liberty of reading the CliffsNotes condensed version.  

Gallup polls show that support for Obamacare is split, meaning half of those polled are for it, and the other half is against it.  In an attempt to identify those who should be against it, I will summarize the taxes and penalties for each group affected by this novel.  

Uninsured:

Social media outlets were flooded with comments following news of Obamacare's constitutionality, and almost all of them surrounded that of the penalties for being uninsured.  There were already penalties for not having car insurance so a precedent had been set for topics of this nature.  It really was just a matter of time.  

Basically, if you don't have health insurance, you will be paying a fine to the IRS when filing taxes.  If you fail to pay the fine, there is a slim chance that you will get caught; and if you are caught, the penalty isn't much worse than the fine.  So if you want to get out of it, just don't pay the penalty.  

This isn't going to be a very big source for revenue since only 16% of Americans are uninsured, that according the Kaiser Health.  Factor in the people who will be getting health insurance and that number drops significantly.  

Top 1.2%:

Those who make more than $200,000 are subject to a couple more taxes.  Taxes on investment income will go up 3.8% and Medicaid taxes will go up .9%.  Those who have "Cadillac Health Care Plans" are subject to additional taxes too.  Since people who have this plan are mostly executives of big corporations, it's probably safe to assume they are in this category.  

According to the most recent data from the IRS, only 1.2% of Americans make more than $200,000.  

Fake Bakers:

According the American Academy of Dermatology, 32% of Americans has visited a tanning salon in the last year.  As of 2010, a 10% tax has been levied on indoor tanning.  That means for every $10 tan, $1 goes towards Obamacare.  

Despite the tax increase, there hasn’t been a noticeable drop in tanners.  Because of the apparent inelastic demand that is inherent with tanning, we could assume that we are 1.2 trillion tans away from balancing the budget for 2012.  

Patricia Krentcil could almost balance the budget on her own.

Interestingly enough, these three groups combined add up to...49.2%, about half of the population.  So if you are an insured natural tanner making less than $200,000, this legislation will not affect your life.

However, if you are grabbing your ankles as an uninsured tanner making more than $200,000, make sure you have a good proctologist.  

Title IX

The 40th anniversary of Title IX has come and gone and, while it is remembered as the piece of legislation that would have the greatest impact on women’s rights since granting women’s suffrage in 1920, I think it is important to realize that it may not have provided the desired results that were envisioned when it was drafted by Senator Birch Bayh in 1972.  

The purpose of the legislation was to provide the “under-represented sex” with the opportunity of equality in federally funded athletic programs, and to bring it to the forefront.  Schools across the country complied and immediately made changes that would allow women’s athletics to be enjoyed by everyone.

Has Title IX succeeded in its intentions?  Sure.  But could it be possible that the negative effects of it has more than nullified what it has accomplished?

An analysis of each sport may provide clarity to the picture I'm trying to paint.  

Basketball:

The WNBA began in 1996 as a direct result of Title IX.  The goal was provide women's basketball with opportunity to showcase the athleticism and natural competitive nature that women possess, and bring it to the forefront.

The result has been dismal.  A large portion of the deficit the that the NBA carried over the last several years has been because of the WNBA.  More embarrassing is the dismal turnout for these games.  Games are almost considered "sold-out" when the court-side seats are filled.  

Could the only popular product to come from the WNBA be this video game?

Soccer:

The only two things that come to mind when thinking about women's soccer are Brandi Chastain and the pictures of the Brazilian women's soccer team.  The similarities are uncanny.

Volleyball:

Misty May and Kerri Walsh may be the greatest beach volleyball tandem that has ever competed.  The combo attracts spectators and viewers from all over the world as they run on a beach sporting bikinis.  It helps that they are actually good at what they do.

Tennis:

Anna Kournikova may be known more for appearances in Sports Illustrated, FHM, and Maxim, but few people realize the great success she enjoyed as the eighth most dominate tennis player in the world.  She never won a title.

Then, there are the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena.  Their dominance on the tennis court is well documented.  The irony is that tennis has always taken a backseat to their passion for fashion.  Years past their prime, they are still "competing" and losing everything.  One can only wonder if, at this stage of their careers, they are simply using the court as a convenient runway for their fashion line.  You have to wonder if Serena’s wardrobe malfunction will hurt her line.

Football:

The Lingerie Football League receives more airtime than women’s hockey.  This league of amateur participants volunteer themselves to play simultaneously with the Super Bowl in order to generate ideal interest from their target demographic.  Yes, you read that right, volunteer.  In essence, they are placing themselves in a zoo attended mostly by drunk 21 year-olds.  Perhaps it will be the advent of Victoria's Secret reality catalog.

Hockey: 

See above.

Jennifer Kessey...

Natalie Coughlin...

Amanda Beard...

Dara Torres...

Not to mention the one magazine issue that keeps Sports Illustrated afloat.

Had there been just a couple isolated examples, perhaps it wouldn't have even caught my attention; but the fact that the problem is ubiquitous throughout the entire spectrum of women's sports, the obvious common denominator is Title IX.  In an effort to bring forth sexual equality, it appears that the commercialism of female sexuality is the sole benefactor.  

So if becoming the laughing stock of sports circles was its intent, consider it a success.  If self objectification was its goal, well done, because never before have we seen success of this magnitude.   I'm not going to complain though; Blair O'Neal in a bikini is a lot more pleasant on the eye than Joe Namath in stockings.

Dottie's Disconnected Dots

Disclaimer:  Due to the sensitive nature of the morass that Jerry Sandusky has immersed himself in, some of the following content may be offensive to those who fail to find humor in everything around them.  Please read with caution.

Now that Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty, I suppose it would be safe to say that he will find himself at the “butt” end of a lot of jokes.  How’s that for role reversal?  

And speaking of role reversal, I’m sure he’s the one that will be picking up the soap in the prison showers for the next 60 to 420 years in prison.  He just needs to watch out for the tickle monsters.  My understanding is that they keep the biggest, meanest tickle monsters in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.

Apparently, there are special accommodations made for older prisoners to make life easier for them.  These “Jerry”atric conditions seem a bit unfair for someone that faces an astronomical jail time and gets a cushy lifestyle.  They should at least take away his dentures and feed him steak every night.  Not to get all religious on the topic, but Jesus would have had no sympathy for someone like this.  He would have a “millstone hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea”.  

Now that the trial is over, the next step is for the investigators to look into Penn State, and determine which heads are going to roll.  From the faculty to the board of trustees, it doesn’t appear that anyone is safe.  However, there is one name in the whole process that has gone without scrutiny, and I find it difficult to understand how she isn’t at the top of the list in this witch hunt.  Dottie Sandusky, Jerry’s ultra faithful wife, has stood by him and even testified for him.  How is it possible to live with someone who is guilty of such heinous crimes for all those years, and not have any suspicion?  

Did she not realize her husband was spending more time showering than coaching?  Was she completely deaf to the cries and blind to the tears of her adopted son?  I’m sure she had to have detected feces on his wiener many times during foreplay.  I can imagine that conversation:

“How did you get poop here?”

“I was attempting a new wiping technique, apparently it doesn’t work.  Let me go over to campus and take a shower.”

“You got poop here again.”

“Yeah, I took my kids, I mean students to the agricultural barn to let them take care of the horses.  I wasn’t dressed appropriately.  Let me go over to campus and take a shower.”

“Again?”

“Um, yeah.  I decided to clean the toilets right after getting out of the shower, and those toilets needed some rigorous agitation.  Let me go over to campus and take a shower.”  

Was Dottie just unable to connect the dots, or was she the hypotenuse in Jerry’s love triangle?  Was she really that oblivious and unobservant to what was going on around her, or was she a silent partner in Jerry’s crime ring?

One thing is for sure though-Dottie may be the most clueless person in the history of this world, but her devotion to Jerry despite his convictions make her the most loyal spouse in the history of matrimony.

Next weeks topic: Title IX