Negative Nicknames

The Washington Redskins mascot has been scrutinized for years, but it seems that the Redskins controversy has risen to a whole new level lately ever since Bob Costas verbalized his views on national television.  

I can understand the viewpoint of those in favor of a name change.  It could be insensitive to some.  It could even be offensive.  But what I don't understand is why the Redskins seem to be the only team in the crosshairs of the public's eye.  Most of the mascots in the National Football League could be deemed as offensive, if not now, certainly in the future. 

Here's a list:

New York Jets:  September 11, 2001 will always be a day that weighs heavy on the minds of Americans.  However, the country will always be reminded of the projectiles used to carry out so much devastation due to a mascot that is certain to bring nightmares to those directly affected by the tragedy.  Ironically, this event took place in the very city that the Jets represent.

New York Giants:  Mayor Bloomberg should find this one offensive.  He is outspoken about his goal to curb obesity, but fails to recognize that the Giants nickname could be offensive to the morbidly obese.

Green Bay Packers:  how has the LGBT community not attacked this one yet?  While "Packers" is derived from a completely different source, meat packing and fudge packing has a completely different connotation nowadays.

Kansas City Chiefs:  the mascot may not be offensive, but isn't the color scheme for the team a representation of what the Oneida tribe finds offensive with the Redskin mascot?

Arizona Cardinals:  with all the corruption within the Catholic Church, especially amongst its leaders with the way young boys are treated, I am really surprised that victims of child molestation haven't looked to the Arizona Cardinals as an opportunity for making a quick and easy dollar.

Carolina Panthers:  the fact that the Panther on the side of the helmet is black speaks volumes.  The Black Panthers were an extremely racially charged group.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers:  the NFL is going to extreme measures to clean up criminal activity off the field by those who represent the NFL community.  Having a mascot that represents criminal behavior seems quite counterintuitive.  

Oakland Raiders: see above.  Except, in this case, the mascot gives the city an accurate depiction.

San Diego Chargers:  how are the Christians not offended by this one?  John the Baptist's head was carried on a charger.  Therefore, a charger could be a representation of Christian persecution.

New England Patriots:  the Patriot Act has really been a sore spot in conservative circles.  Since the revelation from Eric Snowden about the NSA, the conservatives have felt betrayed by their former president,  George W.  The Patriot Act sure seems like a bad idea now, at least poorly thought out.

Buffalo Bills:  Buffalo Bill Cody got his nickname from a buffalo killing contest with William Comstock.  The winner would be able to claim the "Buffalo Bill" nickname.  Cody killed 68 buffalo to Comstock's 48.  How has PETA and anyone else concerned about the buffalo population not offended by this mindless and unnecessary slaughter of buffalo?

Baltimore Ravens:  the Ravens mascot is named from a poem written by Edgar Allen Poe.  Any association with Poe should be deemed offensive.

Dallas Cowboys:  who killed the Redskins?

My point is that no matter the team nickname or mascot, people can find something offensive about it, if not now, soon.  If this wacky society continues to fail to look past petty differences, or develop thick skins, the only real solution would be to get rid of mascots and nicknames altogether and refer to the teams simply by the city.  

Denny and Un

Sports and politics have always had a history of accompanying one another.  The gladiatorial fights were sponsored for half the year by the Roman government.  Championship teams visit the White House.  Many former athletes have pursued political careers.  But of all the unlikely combinations that the two worlds could have conjured, the dress rehearsal that took place this week may win the prize.

Dennis Rodman, not Hillary Rodham, took a trip to North Korea this past week.  That's right, Dennis Rodman, the guy who dressed up in a wedding dress.  The Dennis Rodman who has more holes, piercings, and ink than Swiss cheese at a tattoo parlor.  The guy who made a living rebounding in the NBA, grabbing enough balls to make even Richard Simmons nauseous.   

We know he made it through airport security somehow, despite wearing more rings than the Kayan people of Burma, but no one really knows what the motivation behind the trip was, but we can certainly speculate. 

Hillary Clinton was the most travelled Secretary of State, piling up as many frequent flyer miles as an albatross.  Despite all that traveling, she never made it north of the 38th parallel on the Korean Peninsula.  Rodman certainly deserves some consideration as a future ambassador.  Perhaps Hillary Clinton's intern (Bill had one) or John Kerry's assistant.  Maybe this trip was a tryout for a future in politics.

Or given Rodman's eccentricity, maybe he was looking for one of those famous North Korean unicorns.  

The most likely scenario was that both he and Kim Jong-Un shared a mutual cognitive  kinship.  Rodman spent a lot of time with the North Korean leader, enough time to consider Kim Jong-Un a lifelong friend.  Kim Jong-Un has already topped Madonna in Rodman's hierarchy of relationships.  They probably got tattooed BFF anklets together.  

But a hook up of this nature is not unprecedented.  You may recall the movie "Benny and Joon", the story of a pair of mentally disabled people becoming lifelong friends.  This story definitely has its similarities.  Two nut jobs, one living in isolation.  This storyline has the potential for the making of a new movie, "Denny and Un".

But regardless of the motivation behind the meeting, this union certainly offers a comedic break to an otherwise tense situation between North Korea and the rest of the world.  Perhaps Dave Chappelle will travel there as Clayton Bigsby.  They have too much in common.  

Oscar's Grouch

The only event that takes place during this time of year is the Oscars.  I'm sure the blank calendar had a lot to do with Hollywood's scheduling tactics.  

The best part of the Oscars is it gives a television gluttoned society the opportunity to consume more television.  We have already seen these movies, and we have already decided which movies were the best, we just have to see what others think about them, and watch them get trophies for it.  And if that wasn't good enough, we get excited and feel the need to watch those movies all over again. 

Having been the exception to society, I failed to watch any of these over celebrated movies on the big-screen.  Seeing the long list of movies nominated as picture of the year make me realize that I didn't miss out on anything.  Apparently none of them were able to stand out.

Among the nine movies nominated for best picture were "The Life of Pi", whose story apparently goes in circles; "Argo", a movie about the filming of a movie; and "Les Misérables", a movie titled miserable.  

What really gets me is how much air time is dedicated to watching the audience show up.  People get to see those same movie stars on television once again, and ogle at the dress that some gay guy pulled out of his rear.  We get to watch Jennifer Aniston blend in with the red carpet. 

It's too bad that this isn't enough to quench women's thirst for window shopping. 

We get to listen to an analysis of Nicole Kidman's hairstyle.  We get to observe Adele flaunting her over exaggerated curves.  We get to watch Bradley Cooper's ostrich escort him.  We get to observe the identical tuxedos that all the men are wearing.

And because we are all incapable of formulating our own opinions, we have to tune in to listen to Joan Rivers offer her expert opinion.

The sad part is that most of the viewers are in denial.  Of course this plays such a big role in pop culture.  Without it, how else would we know that Halle Berry is still the hottest woman in Hollywood?  Without it, how would we know that Fergie was pregnant? 

To me, it is a clear indication to the extent of the withdrawals America is experiencing just a couple weeks after football is over.   

Credit Score Myth

It seems that every activity we do everyday is tied to some sort of reminder to our credit scores.  Whether it is some ad on the radio, an e-mail, billboard, or television, we are constantly being reminded that this number is the most important number for our financial well-being, and protecting it can mean the difference between prosperity and poverty.  

The purpose of the credit score is to allow creditors to take a glimpse at someone's financial history, more specifically, how successful one has been in paying their bills in a timely manner.  

This number can be the difference between a $100,000 loan and a $1,000 loan.  It can be the difference between a 2013 Audi A8 and a 1993 Geo Metro.  It can be the difference between a 3.5% interest rate and a 6.5% interest rate.  Because of these differences, I can understand why creditors place so much weight and focus on this number. 

However, this score might be the most overrated and overused number that we have become associated with.  

Why?

Because, for many, it is a gauge that indicates how much debt, or more debt, one can acquire.  Overrated because people actually go through great lengths to ensure a favorable score, and overused because people actually use it to take out unnecessary loans.

An acquaintance of mine, I'll call him Rick, actually considered himself a millionaire because he took advantage of his credit rating.  He took out loans to buy several expensive cars, boats, houses, and a plethora of other expensive toys.  The combined value of those assets were enough to place him in his desired financial status.  

Unfortunately, too many people abuse their credit score in the same way.  Instead of being responsible, they take advantage of their available credit to satisfy a craving.  

Rick eventually lost everything.  He failed to make the payments and eventually filed for bankruptcy.  I wish I could say that this was an isolated incident, but stories like this happen all too often.  

If people were willing to be responsible for their own financial well-being, banks wouldn't have over lent, people wouldn't have defaulted on loans, banks wouldn't have gone bankrupt, and the most recent economic turmoil may have been averted.  

And yet, these are the people that complained about the economy.  These are the people that blamed Washington D.C. for their foreclosures and repossessions.  

These are the people that enthusiastically grabbed their own ankles, begging for their credit scores to rape them. 

Razorback Ricochet

In case you missed it, one of the most bizarre hunting accidents took place in France recently.  It is a story that could replace Dick Cheney at the mantle of hunting misfortunes.  It was an unlikely set of events that would make even the Big Bang theory seem probable.

The story starts when a 68 year-old avid French hunter takes aim at a boar and hits the trigger button with his booger hook.  The story then takes a vicious turn when the bullet ricochets off the boar at a right angle, travels through the air for two kilometers (1.25 miles), goes through a windshield, strikes the driver, and kills him instantly.

For the typical French investigator, the logical course of action is to give up and close the case, chalking it up as a typical hunting accident. 

However, anyone familiar with ballistics and calibers would be more than willing to look into this one a bit deeper.  Just a little bit.

The first question that comes to mind is the caliber.  It ricocheted at a 90 degree angle, travelled two kilometers, had enough juice to plow through a windshield, and still had enough power to kill a person.  It would have had to be a large caliber on steroids in order to make such an incredible journey.  But a large, powerful caliber wouldn't ricochet off a boar, it would turn the pig into ground sausage.  Interestingly enough, this event took place right before Groundhog Day.  

The next question has to do with science.  How did such a powerful projectile overcome the laws of physics?  How does a bullet that loses half of its kinetic energy from the ricochet off a soft pig, and continues to lose kinetic energy through two kilometers of fields, muster the strength to not ricochet off a hard windshield?  

Mythbusters demonstrated a bullet's difficulty to penetrate paper following a ricochet.  The French investigators are telling us that the bullet gained momentum following the ricochet, and maintained that momentum following its collision with the windshield.  

This would actually be groundbreaking evidence for some JFK assassination theorists.  The Magic Bullet theory is one that is criticized in the same way.  In essence, it theorizes that a single bullet created all seven wounds found in John F. Kennedy, ultimately killing him, and found its way into Texas governor John Connally.  

But in the realistic scenario that the bullet isn't magical and that the laws of physics are consistent, the only other explanations would be foul play or gross negligence.  

I can understand negligence if this were his first time holding a rifle and didn't know to keep his finger off the trigger.  I can understand negligence if a shotgun were used while pheasant hunting. 

A 1.25 mile shot takes more than just a magic bullet.  It takes more than just a large caliber.  It takes cooperative elements.  It takes an experienced marksman, perhaps an avid hunter.  It appears that it may take a 68 year-old French hunter.  

Offense Wins Championships?

One of the most debated adages in football is that offense wins games, defense wins championships.  This mindset has certainly been under fire over the last decade as we have witnessed the evolution of the pass happy offense.  The writers at Freakonomics, was the latest to conclude that the defense is given a disproportionate amount of championship credit.  A quick look at the numbers and one could make such a conclusion, but an in depth analysis will paint a different picture.

Statistics are an interesting thing.  You can look at the season end numbers and determine which quarterbacks were most successful.  You can see which offenses were the most anemic, which defenses were the most porous, and which kicker was the most accurate.  Unfortunately, those numbers fail to capture the most important depiction, how those teams are performing going into the playoffs.

Here's an example.  The New York Giants defense entered the playoffs in 2012 ranked 27th out of the 32 teams.  If you look back at the way the team performed through the final six games, you would think they were the best defense that year.  They overcame injuries and other inconsistencies to become a dynamic defense.  Unfortunately, their 27th rank made them look like a prime candidate to run up the score on.  We saw differently in the playoffs.

Another example.  Buffalo Bills fans are familiar with Ryan Fitzpatrick's struggles in 2011.  After a phenomenal first half of the season, he completely tanked and and finished with mediocre statistics.  He literally went from tops in the league, to middle of the pack, which means his performance over the final eight games must have been worst in the NFL.  

The problem with looking at the season statistics is it doesn't depict an accurate placement of where a person or team currently stands.  Perhaps a five-game running average of statistics would provide more solid statistics for where a team is trending.

Perhaps the key to understanding the adage is realizing the grammatical significance the "s" makes on championships.  This would indicate multiple championships—dynasties.  

What defenses in the leagues history has had the opportunity to carry their respective teams to perennial greatness?  The Pittsburg Steelers had their Steel Curtain, the Vikings had their Purple People Eaters, and the Rams had their Fearsome Foursome.  The Patriots had a defense that was at the top in the league when they were winning their Super Bowls.

Freakonomics also points out that the Super Bowls have had a higher scoring output than the respective teams score during the regular season.  However, they also fail to mention that the two weeks to prepare for a game is a luxury that just isn't available during the regular season.  In fact, teams coming off a bye week generally do score more points in their next game, so their data is obviously incomprehensible and flawed.  

I will say though, if there is anything that we can learn from the Super Bowl tonight, it is that the special teams are too often overlooked, and that it is important to pay more than just half the power bill.

Right-Wing Gun Ban

Anyone who has tried recently to buy an AR-15 may have noticed the difficulty of even finding one.  This is in large part due to the widespread panic resulting from a possible firearms ban, specifically assault rifles.  Living in the most conservative part of the country accentuates how misinformed, preconceived notions contribute to the widespread panic.

Four years ago, Obama was elected and there was a similar pattern.  People ran to the gun shops buying up all the firearms out of fear that a democratic president would ban guns.  It took two years for the demand to level out despite no real evidence that the president had it in his agenda to ban guns.  Interestingly enough, Obama made it through his entire first term without making a gun ban part of his agenda.

Now, following an announcement by the president, the panic is back amongst the conservatives because they only heard half of the announcement.  Had they listened to the entire statement, they may have concluded that Obama made one of the most bipartisan moves possible.  He essentially took elements of every proposal out there and put them in the hands of Congress.

Anyone who has ever tried to negotiate knows the way to do it is start out with an extreme proposal, knowing that the compromise will be somewhere in the middle.  That middle is a more extensive background check.  Ironically, that was the part that Obama tried to sign as an executive order, knowing that if it were up to Congress, nothing would get done.

Observation of the panic in consumer behavior reveals its cyclical nature, and this one is no different.  Fear results in demand.  High demand takes a bite out of supply.  Short supply creates higher prices, and higher prices are obviously Obama's fault, at least that is what the right-wingers believe.

Essentially what we have is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Panic creates short supply and high prices, effectively eliminating assault rifles from the market for a couple years.  This happens out of fear of something that never took place–a gun ban.  Panicking right-wingers have given the left exactly what they want.  

Perhaps the right can learn from this.  Propose a ban that the left are passionate about and create panic.

Maybe the right needs to spread rumors of a food stamp ban.  Then there would be widespread panic amongst the recipients.  Perhaps it would encourage those recipients to get jobs, create businesses, and become productive.  Maybe they can become assets to an otherwise stagnant economy.  

Maybe the right just needs to practice a little common sense, a trait they try to preach to the left.  

Manti Te'oed

By now, we have all had the opportunity to hear about one of the most bizarre stories anyone could ever conjure.  The conundrum that Manti Te'o found himself neck deep in had more twists than Chubby Checker.  

It contained elements of nearly every other bizarre sports story we had ever heard.  Multiple women like the Tiger Woods drama.  Imaginary friends like the Alex Rodriguez saga.  Hidden personality traits like the Herschel Walker story.  

The inspirational story takes its first turn when Deadspin reports that Te'o's girlfriend, Lennay Kekua was actually a non-existent entity, and Te'o was behind the hoax.  Suddenly, Te'o's squeaky clean reputation is under the microscope.  

The question at this point is "why?".  It couldn't be to propel his Heisman Trophy candidacy, no defensive player had ever won the award, and his name wasn't even in the discussion this early in the season.  Perhaps he is trying to redirect his homosexuality.  Both the football community and the Mormon faith are fairly closed-minded about it.  This is the only logical explanation.  He would follow the example of Herschel Walker when he tried to hide his five personalities.  (Two of those manifested themselves during his football career.  There was the touchdown machine in college, and the fumbler in the pros)

Then, Reagan Maui'a, an NFL player, acknowledges the existence of Lennay Kekua, saying that he has even met her, becoming a close friend of hers.  This once fictitious character now really exists.  Manti Te'o is once again straight and sober.

Then we find out that Kekua called Te'o a few months later telling him that she had to fake her own death to evade drug traffickers and that her real name was Leah.  Now, Lennay, a real, fake, existing individual, is now only partially real.  She is actually a different woman.  

Then we find out that the perpetrator confessed to a friend that he had pulled off the most improbable of practical jokes on Te'o, and that Manti was not the first victim.  Apparently, Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, a first cousin, and a friend were the masterminds behind Lennay Kekua.  

Te'o's love, Kekua, was now Leah, a real fake person, existing through two guys and a girl.  Sounds like a storyline that would make Jerry Springer salivate.

Manti Te'o was once again the naive, innocent Mormon Samoan who was duped into believing he was dating a model online.  He was a victim of his own religion and culture.

I would like to get some details on his conversations with the Nigerian prince.

Freedom of Speech Control

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, we as Americans had the opportunity to be serenaded by the extremists on both ends of the spectrum as to the most effective avenue to curb violence.  From arming the teachers to banning firearms, obvious solutions were acting as the rope in a giant tug of war match being played by the media.  

The knee-jerk reactions completely ignored the details and questions that should have been asked.  For example, Adam Lanza was diagnosed as autistic, mentally handicapped.  How was it even possible that he would have access to firearms.  Residences with handicapped persons and are subsidized by the government are subject to higher safety standards.  Inspections are supposed to take place regularly to ensure those safety standards are met.  Who dropped the ball on this one?  

People with autism struggle to get themselves dressed.  How in the world did he learn to operate an AR-15, or any gun?  How did he have the mental capacity to destroy his computer, get to the school, realize authorities were closing in on him, and pull the trigger on himself, effectively covering his tracks.

Instead, Americans thoughts were immediately turned towards preventing such heinous crimes from happening in the future.  Ironically, it was a British man that offered the most sensible solution.  Piers Morgan stated that any American who failed to see the need for more gun control are idiots.  Gun control is a compromise of these two solutions.  It doesn't place a ban on guns, and it makes it more difficult for irresponsible persons to get their hands on firearms.  

As of right now, purchasing a firearm is as easy as a criminal background check.  Why not include a pharmaceutical background check as well?  My feelings wouldn't be hurt if persons taking medications for mental stability were spurned from a firearm purchase.  Or what if those background checks looked into the other residents of the household?  

Or what if food stamp recipients were prohibited from purchasing firearms?  They shouldn't have the money for one anyway.  If they give up their right to be self-sustaining, it only makes sense that they are willing to forfeit other freedoms.  There is nothing wrong with a little more gun control if it is logically sound.

What intrigues me is the reaction to Morgan's comments.  Tens of thousands petitioned to have Piers Morgan deported because of his statement.  Morgan then stated that he would consider deporting himself if nothing happened.

Isn't it ironic that those 2nd amendment enthusiasts aren't so enthusiastic about the 1st amendment.  It is a violation to set rules on firearms, but the freedom of speech and the freedom of press should be regulated.  Perhaps they are the mentally handicapped.

Parental Advisory

I work in a position where I have the opportunity to interview many people for job openings that may exist in my department.  I have even hired some of those applicants that I have interviewed.  Every interview has been unique, but one in particular was extremely startling.

He approached me with his application and said he had an interview that morning.  My interview calendar was empty that morning so I asked him what he was interviewing for.  Without hesitation, he called his mom to find out who the interview was with and for what position.  Further questioning revealed that his mother filled out the application.  He was 33.

If you are familiar with "helicopter parenting", you have probably already made that connection.  For those unfamiliar with that term, it is a parenting style in which parents act as helicopters over their children.  They hover over them, rescuing them at every turn.  They interfere with every aspect of the child's life that the child fails to experience overcoming failure for themselves.

Helicopter parents have always existed, but there seems to be an epidemic with the current generation.  I observed it in high school, college, and now in the work place.  

My immediate thought after this experience was turned toward the long term effects that it has on the lives of those children.  In this case, a 33 year old had become so crippled from the damaging affects of dependency on his parents that he couldn't even fill out a job application.  Independence would have been much too overwhelming for him.

I wonder how many of these children, after being pushed out of the nest, turn to the easiest source of dependence outside of the home.  How many of them turn to the welfare system as their primary source of help?  Is it any wonder that they feel entitled to these programs?  

Once in a while, there comes a child that finds a way to overcome this.  I recently read about Aubrey Ireland, a college senior, who was granted a restraining order against her parents.  This article made me think about a story with much more historical significance.  

In 1776, the United States signed its own restraining order against England.  Think about all the "children", or dependent countries that Great Britain had control of at the time.  One of the children got fed up with it and did something about it.  

It is too bad that such a high percentage of victims of "helicopter parenting" fail to declare their own independence.  Perhaps if they had someone to depend on for their freedom, they would actually get it, someone like their parents.