Inflated Deflategate Hate

I’ve been surprised how many people I have heard say they were thinking about not watching the Super Bowl because of the cheating allegations from deflated footballs.  I can’t speak about everywhere else, but living in what would be considered the Denver Bronco market, it seems that the fans here have taken cheating personally, starting with Ray Lewis’s deer antler spray 2 years ago, Seattle’s Adderall use last year, and now their rival, and Peyton Manning’s nemesis, has moved on to the big game all because of deflated footballs.

It’s ridiculous to me that fans or teams would feel victimized by all this, especially since a lot of these claims and accusations were unfounded, and the results of the deflation investigation haven’t been released yet. 

Given the Broncos recent history of cheating, it would be extremely hypocritical for their fans to get upset about it.  In 2007, the Patriots were involved with “spygate” in which they were “caught” videotaping a Jets practice.  In 2010, the Broncos were caught doing the same thing to the 49ers.  This year, the Broncos are being looked at for the way they handled and misled injury reporting surrounding Manning.

So my next question is, if fans are wanting to boycott this Super Bowl because of “cheating”, why didn’t they do it last year, or the year before that? 

Gaining an advantage over an opponent isn’t anything new.  Last year, the Giants were faking injuries to slow down the Eagles fast paced no-huddle offense.  The Colts were pumping in artificial crowd noise a just a couple years ago.  The Redskins were penalized for salary cap violations recently.  The Giants kicked footballs that were lined up on the line of scrimmage in Super Bowl 25 to slow down the Bills no huddle offense.  The Giants also filmed the Bills practices for that Super Bowl, too.  Bill Romanowski was infamous for his steroid use.  Offensive linemen use double-sided carpet tape to hold down their jerseys to prevent defensive linemen from being able to grab them.  They also used Vaseline in the ‘80’s to accomplish the same thing.  Fred Biletnikoff and Lester Hayes were famous for their use of Stickum when they were amongst the league leaders in receptions and interceptions respectively.  Paul Hornung was suspended for the 1963 season for betting.  In 1925, the Milwaukee Badgers fielded a team of high schoolers in a colluded effort with the Chicago Cardinals to inflate their win percentage.  

And pro football probably has the shortest list of cheating per capita compared to all the other sports.

Much like the wealthy taking advantage of loopholes in the tax system, the working class milking the clock at work, and presidents of the United States issuing executive orders to circumnavigate proper procedures, NFL teams will look to gain advantages over opponents.  Of all the forms of “cheating” that I have seen over the years, deflated footballs seem like the least likely to offer a real advantage.

But if fans are really going to consider this “cheating”, where will they stop?  Stadium designs?  The Seahawks stadium is designed to amplify crowd noise.  

Russell Wilson, following the Seahawks improbable win in the NFC championship game, blamed divine intervention for the victory.  If that's not blatant cheating, I'm not convinced anything else qualifies.

Revelation Revolution

Michael Sam's openness about his sexual orientation puts him on the brink of being the first professional football player to be openly gay. He becomes a pioneer of sorts, similar to that of Jackie Robinson, the first openly black man to play in Major League Baseball in the modern era.

While Sam may one day become lauded for his bravery as a homosexual trailblazer, it worries me that football for me may never be the same. When I see Sam at the bottom of a pileup, the only thing I will see is a cup of fruit-on-the-bottom yogurt. I will forever be haunted by the whispers of "taste the rainbow" every time he comes in contact with Seattle running back and Skittles spokesperson, Marshawn Lynch.

But aside from the psychological stalemate that I may experience, I can't help it but to think about the potential evolution of the game as more players become open about their homosexuality.

I'm not sure that there is a more heterosexually compromising position than that of the center to quarterback exchange. The two-man luge in slow motion, some of the maneuvers in wrestling, even the story in Blades of Glory pale in comparison to the picture of one man standing behind a bent over man while wearing skin-tight leotard capris.

It is a position that Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke attempted at the VMAs. It is the scene that Freddie Mercury and the Village People dream of reenacting. But as disturbing as these images are, or would be, it happens in every football game, usually about 115 times.

Does the increasing popularity of homosexuality mean that the offensive formations are going to evolve more rapidly to accommodate potentially gay centers or quarterbacks? Will we see a league in which offenses perform exclusively out of the shotgun formation? It would seem that it would have to, especially after the unveiling of the Jonathan Martin abuse in recent weeks. Teams will do everything possible to create an atmosphere conducive to making all team members comfortable.

It seems that the strides that teams will make to comply with the Jonathan Martin rule would also necessitate locker room arrangement modifications. The purpose of separate men's and women's bathrooms is to provide one with privacy from those who are attracted to the respective plumbing. I'm willing to bet that no straight man will feel comfortable whipping out his wiener at the urinal next to Michael Sam, which completely nullifies the entire purpose having the bathroom in a separate room.

Or what about the play by play commentary? Will they have to change the way they say things and the terms that are used? When Al Michaels says that the quarterback is under center, it now leaves a lot more to the imagination.

It would be a lot more beneficial to the NFL, the teams, and the fans if sexual orientation weren't even addressed. Teams excluding the New York Jets hate distractions. The NFL hates negative repercussions resonating from controversial topics. The fans want to see Michael Sam hit other players, not hit on other players. The fans want to see him put a a good lick on the running back on the football field, not wonder if he's doing the same in the locker room. They want to see him blow up a play, not a player.

I just hope that football's evolution doesn't become motivated by political correctness. I want to enjoy the game for its chess game strategies, not its sideshow tabloid material.

However, since he will inevitably join a team at some point whether through the draft or free agency, he does have the potential to do something fairly monumental in the eyes of many people. I'm sure they are hoping he doesn't blow it...or are they?

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.

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.