You can't spell Twitter without TWIT.
Another reason not to like the NBA. Appears all the talent is going to be concentrated in six or eight teams. The rest are apparently just there to get clobbered by the major media market clubs.
So, hurry and shell out for those season tickets to watch your city's team get its collective head bashed in 60-plus times a year. Don't all stampede to the ticket windows at once.
Maybe they should cut the NBA to the NHL level of pre-1967: Six teams. So the big cities get their big stars and the rest of the country isn't asked to play the role of cannon fodder.
By NBA standards, the Green Bay-Pittsburgh Super Bowl earlier this month would be considered a disaster. Funny, but that game set viewership records. Without a New York, Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles involved. And last year? New Orleans-Indianapolis.
That's why the NFL and Major League Baseball -- and the NHL, for that matter -- all have a better league than the NBA. Somebody outside the top four or five TV markets gets a chance to win.
Can't really say that about college football, though. The odds are that only a handful of the 100-plus so-called major college teams have any real chance to compete for the national title -- or ever will.
Anybody envision a Northwestern-Vanderbilt title game? Anybody?
Wyoming? Mississippi State? Wake Forest? UTEP? Memphis? The list of no-chance schools goes on and on.
Having Wisconsin Democrats hiding out rather than face a vote they know they're going to lose is both silly and futile. Didn't work in Texas a couple of years back either.
On the other hand, doesn't busting unions -- which is what Wisconsin's governor is up to -- take power away from the people and put more power in the hands of government? Used to be that the GOP stood for less government, not more.
Not that Republicans ever had much use for unions ...
It could be said to some extent that unions have largely served their purpose.
Workers are far better off than they were 80 years ago, and now the unions seem more interested in protecting members who can't do their jobs than in producing quality American goods.
Still, when a state government agrees to collective bargaining, does the agreement state UNTIL WE CHANGE OUR MIND? Or is our leaders' word no better today than it was to Native Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
An old, old debate
We're hearing, at least from the political right, that the military doesn't care much for Barack Obama.
This has been going on for, oh, only 210 years or so.
There has long been chafing on the part of the military of civilian leadership. At the same time, there has long been a civilian distrust in putting too much power in the military's hands.
It was decided at the time the United States was founded that the military would be under civilian control. The President, a civilian, would be commander-in-chief of the armed services.
At the time, it was something of a progressive idea. After all, the European nations were ruled by kings, to whom the military answered personally.
For centuries, it was the king who led the military into battle or at least gave the orders.
That pretty much went out after Napoleon Bonaparte, the last major European leader to lead his armies into battle. By that time, most of his rivals were already employing professional military officers while the rulers kept a safe distance from the bloodshed.
Anyway, civilian control of the armed services was written into the Constitution when the United States was formed.
The first President, of course, left little room for carping from the military. George Washington's credibility with the army was beyond dispute.
The complaining on the part of the military probably began about the time the second President, John Adams, took office. He was, after all, not a military veteran.
Same with Thomas Jefferson and those who followed, up until Andrew Jackson.
Since Jackson, a few other military leaders have made it into the White House. Most were far less effective as President as they had been in uniform.
Although his Presidency is not held up as a shining example, credit has to be given to one ex-general who had a huge effect on the United States we know today.
Dwight Eisenhower saw the autobahns of Germany and brought them to the U.S. as the Interstate system.
His interest was as much military as anything else -- the Interstates are also known as National Defense Highways. Better highways mean moving troops around more rapidly.
Those around during the first Gulf War saw that idea in action as convoys of troops used freeways to get to airports and seaports for deployment.
Is there any significance to the fact that Eisenhower was an administrator and politician as a general, not a fighter? His service in World War II was far from the front lines, but his ability to get disparate leaders and nations to work together was invaluable.
And those who claim that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War do a great disservice to Eisenhower and his predecessor, Harry Truman. Those two had to deal with a far more dangerous leader in Moscow, Joseph Stalin, than did those who followed.
Of actual fighting generals, only Jackson was outstanding -- but his total disregard for the Supreme Court's ruling on the rights of the Cherokees would have been a major Constitutional crisis if most white Americans of the time weren't just as racist as Jackson toward Native Americans. Prejudice swept that one under the rug of history.
Only Abraham Lincoln, who threw the Bill of Rights out the White House window in his battle to save the Union, showed less respect to the Constitution.
But that's a rant for another day.
This has been going on for, oh, only 210 years or so.
There has long been chafing on the part of the military of civilian leadership. At the same time, there has long been a civilian distrust in putting too much power in the military's hands.
It was decided at the time the United States was founded that the military would be under civilian control. The President, a civilian, would be commander-in-chief of the armed services.
At the time, it was something of a progressive idea. After all, the European nations were ruled by kings, to whom the military answered personally.
For centuries, it was the king who led the military into battle or at least gave the orders.
That pretty much went out after Napoleon Bonaparte, the last major European leader to lead his armies into battle. By that time, most of his rivals were already employing professional military officers while the rulers kept a safe distance from the bloodshed.
Anyway, civilian control of the armed services was written into the Constitution when the United States was formed.
The first President, of course, left little room for carping from the military. George Washington's credibility with the army was beyond dispute.
The complaining on the part of the military probably began about the time the second President, John Adams, took office. He was, after all, not a military veteran.
Same with Thomas Jefferson and those who followed, up until Andrew Jackson.
Since Jackson, a few other military leaders have made it into the White House. Most were far less effective as President as they had been in uniform.
Although his Presidency is not held up as a shining example, credit has to be given to one ex-general who had a huge effect on the United States we know today.
Dwight Eisenhower saw the autobahns of Germany and brought them to the U.S. as the Interstate system.
His interest was as much military as anything else -- the Interstates are also known as National Defense Highways. Better highways mean moving troops around more rapidly.
Those around during the first Gulf War saw that idea in action as convoys of troops used freeways to get to airports and seaports for deployment.
Is there any significance to the fact that Eisenhower was an administrator and politician as a general, not a fighter? His service in World War II was far from the front lines, but his ability to get disparate leaders and nations to work together was invaluable.
And those who claim that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War do a great disservice to Eisenhower and his predecessor, Harry Truman. Those two had to deal with a far more dangerous leader in Moscow, Joseph Stalin, than did those who followed.
Of actual fighting generals, only Jackson was outstanding -- but his total disregard for the Supreme Court's ruling on the rights of the Cherokees would have been a major Constitutional crisis if most white Americans of the time weren't just as racist as Jackson toward Native Americans. Prejudice swept that one under the rug of history.
Only Abraham Lincoln, who threw the Bill of Rights out the White House window in his battle to save the Union, showed less respect to the Constitution.
But that's a rant for another day.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Mind games
The benefit to being out of your flippin' mind is that you can see things from a different perspective. "Out of the box" has nothing on out of your mind.
Of course, the down side is that nobody listens to you. After all, you're out of your flippin' mind.
Signs on doors at Target: Welcome -- Do not enter.
Sign on rural north Georgia highway (or it was way back in 1979): Two Mile Church, four miles.
TV ad: "If you or someone you love has died ..."
Brains sometimes work not in the usual way.
For example, this one has a vivid imagination. The problem with is it that it only imagines what and when it wants. Any attempt to brainstorm doesn't come up with as much as a drizzle.
Stream of consciousness often is simply reacting to what's going on around me. Sometimes what comes out is inane, irritating or even stupid.
In some cases, though, even this mind comes up with something worthwhile.
Present material isn't necessarily on of those worthwhile things.
Does writing a blog matter when nobody's reading it?
That's the problem with cyberspace. It's big. Really big. Easy to get lost in it.
Well, if nothing else, it's a whole lot cheaper than therapy. Which usually consists of nothing more than getting you to talk. No solutions offered.
So yeah, writing to nobody beats paying somebody listen to you.
We all know a lot of lawyers are full of crap.That degree doesn't make them any less full of it -- it can make them even more full of it, since lawyers are taught to win, win, win.
Right or wrong isn't the point. Just win, baby.
So why do we keep electing them to public office? Just how stupid are we?
The three-week boycott of sports talk radio and ESPN "SportsCenter" is under way.
Will they ever stop clubbing us over the head with Super Bowl stuff that nobody really wants to know about? Do you really think we care what the backup linebacker eats for dinner, or what the punter does for a hobby?
Just shut up and play the game already.
Of course, the down side is that nobody listens to you. After all, you're out of your flippin' mind.
Signs on doors at Target: Welcome -- Do not enter.
Sign on rural north Georgia highway (or it was way back in 1979): Two Mile Church, four miles.
TV ad: "If you or someone you love has died ..."
Brains sometimes work not in the usual way.
For example, this one has a vivid imagination. The problem with is it that it only imagines what and when it wants. Any attempt to brainstorm doesn't come up with as much as a drizzle.
Stream of consciousness often is simply reacting to what's going on around me. Sometimes what comes out is inane, irritating or even stupid.
In some cases, though, even this mind comes up with something worthwhile.
Present material isn't necessarily on of those worthwhile things.
Does writing a blog matter when nobody's reading it?
That's the problem with cyberspace. It's big. Really big. Easy to get lost in it.
Well, if nothing else, it's a whole lot cheaper than therapy. Which usually consists of nothing more than getting you to talk. No solutions offered.
So yeah, writing to nobody beats paying somebody listen to you.
We all know a lot of lawyers are full of crap.That degree doesn't make them any less full of it -- it can make them even more full of it, since lawyers are taught to win, win, win.
Right or wrong isn't the point. Just win, baby.
So why do we keep electing them to public office? Just how stupid are we?
The three-week boycott of sports talk radio and ESPN "SportsCenter" is under way.
Will they ever stop clubbing us over the head with Super Bowl stuff that nobody really wants to know about? Do you really think we care what the backup linebacker eats for dinner, or what the punter does for a hobby?
Just shut up and play the game already.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Right stuff
So Rush Limbaugh's come to the defense of Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" campaign.
What a shock. After all, Limbaugh has made a fortune with over-the-top and below-the-belt vitriol. If the Arizona shootings make such blather unpopular it could hurt his ratings -- and wallet.
The fact that many on the right are denying that inflammatory politicking had anything to do with the murders is just one more symptom of a sad truth in today's America -- nobody accepts responsibility for their actions any more.
Everybody -- left and right -- wants rights, but nobody wants responsibility.
But give the lone voice of conservatism on MSNBC some credit. Joe Scarborough, lambasted by many Republicans for pointing out what he sees wrong on the right side, says that the poisonous atmosphere of modern American politics is a major problem. That Republicans need to find some civility.
Nastiness isn't just a conservative problem. Anger, hatred and stupidity know no political bounds. It's just that the right's dose of the unholy trinity is a lot louder these days.
Speaking of Limbaugh, a local talk radio station posts billboards proclaiming Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and company as "the voices of reason."
Brings to mind the words of Elvis Costello: "Radio is sound salvation, radio is cleaning up the nation. They say you better listen to the voice of reason, but they don't give you any choice because they think that it's treason. So you had better do as you are told, you better listen to the radio."
Want to know why left-wing talk doesn't have much of an audience? Because politically correct wimps don't make for good talk radio, and nobody in their right (no pun intended) mind would listen to a bunch of Marxist/socialist crap.
Other than MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and the Internet's Huffington Post, who can you name as liberal attack dogs? Certainly no "voices of reason" out there.
Of course, many on the right will say that the mainstream media are liberal.
To some extent they are correct -- how many Republicans are willing to waste a perfectly good college degree on a career in media that doesn't pay worth crap unless you're in the top five percent of the field?
It's the Republicans who own the companies and the Democrats who work (cheap) for them.
Does that mean that the conservative bosses find liberal products a better sell? Or that they care less about the product than the profit margin?
What about moderates? Nobody listens to moderates. To conservatives they're liberals; to liberals they're conservatives.
There is little acceptance or interest in politics today for the middle of the road -- despite the fact that a large percentage of Americans think of themselves as moderates.
Why? Because you can't be moderate and spill out loads of hate politics, which is all most politicians know these days.
Being fair-minded doesn't lend itself to soundbites and slogans.
What a shock. After all, Limbaugh has made a fortune with over-the-top and below-the-belt vitriol. If the Arizona shootings make such blather unpopular it could hurt his ratings -- and wallet.
The fact that many on the right are denying that inflammatory politicking had anything to do with the murders is just one more symptom of a sad truth in today's America -- nobody accepts responsibility for their actions any more.
Everybody -- left and right -- wants rights, but nobody wants responsibility.
But give the lone voice of conservatism on MSNBC some credit. Joe Scarborough, lambasted by many Republicans for pointing out what he sees wrong on the right side, says that the poisonous atmosphere of modern American politics is a major problem. That Republicans need to find some civility.
Nastiness isn't just a conservative problem. Anger, hatred and stupidity know no political bounds. It's just that the right's dose of the unholy trinity is a lot louder these days.
Speaking of Limbaugh, a local talk radio station posts billboards proclaiming Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and company as "the voices of reason."
Brings to mind the words of Elvis Costello: "Radio is sound salvation, radio is cleaning up the nation. They say you better listen to the voice of reason, but they don't give you any choice because they think that it's treason. So you had better do as you are told, you better listen to the radio."
Want to know why left-wing talk doesn't have much of an audience? Because politically correct wimps don't make for good talk radio, and nobody in their right (no pun intended) mind would listen to a bunch of Marxist/socialist crap.
Other than MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and the Internet's Huffington Post, who can you name as liberal attack dogs? Certainly no "voices of reason" out there.
Of course, many on the right will say that the mainstream media are liberal.
To some extent they are correct -- how many Republicans are willing to waste a perfectly good college degree on a career in media that doesn't pay worth crap unless you're in the top five percent of the field?
It's the Republicans who own the companies and the Democrats who work (cheap) for them.
Does that mean that the conservative bosses find liberal products a better sell? Or that they care less about the product than the profit margin?
What about moderates? Nobody listens to moderates. To conservatives they're liberals; to liberals they're conservatives.
There is little acceptance or interest in politics today for the middle of the road -- despite the fact that a large percentage of Americans think of themselves as moderates.
Why? Because you can't be moderate and spill out loads of hate politics, which is all most politicians know these days.
Being fair-minded doesn't lend itself to soundbites and slogans.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
We had it coming
She was nine years old, born into tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001. To her family she was a hope for a better future.
She died Saturday in a hail of gunfire, along with five others including a federal judge. The primary target, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, remains in critical condition after being shot in the head.
It is sad to say that something like this happening isn't a surprise.
We have become a nation filled with hate. Filled with anger.
There's nothing wrong in having differences in opinion, religion, nationality. Upon such things we would like to believe our nation was founded -- except for that slavery thing.
But increasingly the differences are hardening into "my way or else."
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2008, I fully expected at least one attempt on her life.
The open hatred conservatives had for the former First Lady went far beyond reason.
As it turned out, Barack Obama was the Democrats' choice and became our president. And the new target of conservative hatred.
While there aren't any instances of attempts on his life that we know of, it would be of little surprise to find out that any number of plots have been brewed up. Maybe they never hatched, or maybe they were stopped before becoming public.
The Republican Party, and conservatives in general, are in some part to blame. Fired by those who use inflammatory language in search of ratings and personal gain -- Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck; politicians who stoke frustration and anger to gain support (Sarah Palin ring a bell?); a recession bordering on depression; all have increased national anger.
Is the left innocent? No. But then one or two smart-alecks on MSNBC (Keith Olbermann) don't balance out 24 hours of Fox News Channel, Limbaugh and the horde of right-wing radio talking heads.
And besides, to quote an old song from the Sixties, "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Hate, regardless of where it comes from, breeds more hate.
Labeling politicians as targets and drawing crosshairs on their images may be simple political rhetoric to some. To others, it's pouring gasoline on fires of anger and hatred. On minds twisted even before the gasoline is added.
One of those fires burst forth Saturday in Tucson, Ariz.
There will be more. How many more depends on how soon we remember that God-fearing includes compassion and humility.
She died Saturday in a hail of gunfire, along with five others including a federal judge. The primary target, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, remains in critical condition after being shot in the head.
It is sad to say that something like this happening isn't a surprise.
We have become a nation filled with hate. Filled with anger.
There's nothing wrong in having differences in opinion, religion, nationality. Upon such things we would like to believe our nation was founded -- except for that slavery thing.
But increasingly the differences are hardening into "my way or else."
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2008, I fully expected at least one attempt on her life.
The open hatred conservatives had for the former First Lady went far beyond reason.
As it turned out, Barack Obama was the Democrats' choice and became our president. And the new target of conservative hatred.
While there aren't any instances of attempts on his life that we know of, it would be of little surprise to find out that any number of plots have been brewed up. Maybe they never hatched, or maybe they were stopped before becoming public.
The Republican Party, and conservatives in general, are in some part to blame. Fired by those who use inflammatory language in search of ratings and personal gain -- Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck; politicians who stoke frustration and anger to gain support (Sarah Palin ring a bell?); a recession bordering on depression; all have increased national anger.
Is the left innocent? No. But then one or two smart-alecks on MSNBC (Keith Olbermann) don't balance out 24 hours of Fox News Channel, Limbaugh and the horde of right-wing radio talking heads.
And besides, to quote an old song from the Sixties, "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Hate, regardless of where it comes from, breeds more hate.
Labeling politicians as targets and drawing crosshairs on their images may be simple political rhetoric to some. To others, it's pouring gasoline on fires of anger and hatred. On minds twisted even before the gasoline is added.
One of those fires burst forth Saturday in Tucson, Ariz.
There will be more. How many more depends on how soon we remember that God-fearing includes compassion and humility.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
No, can't say I have
Most ridiculous bumper sticker out there at the moment: A photograph of President George W. Bush with the line "miss me yet?"
Doesn't anybody on their side of the political line remember that W is the reason Barack Obama is now the President?
Back Obama or hate him, he's in the White House because of the mess Bush left us.
Anybody remember that he left the economy in a shambles? That we've been (depending on where you live) in either a recession of a depression since 2008 because of Dubya?
Bush lied about why he invaded Iraq, then proclaimed "mission accomplished" as more and more good American service men and women died.
To make things worse, his invasion made Iraq a bastion of militant Islam.
Saddam Hussein, that two-bit tyrant, was at least no friend of fundamentalist Islam. For starters, he had distilleries in Iraq -- blasphemy to radical Muslims.
In fact, before going completely rogue, Bin Laden offered to take Saddam out for the Saudis. The Saudis, however, figured that armed Muslim fundamentalists running around Iraq would be worse than leaving Saddam in power. Bin Laden then left Saudi Arabia and set up camp in Afghanistan.
Oh yeah, Afghanistan. W's war in Iraq took badly needed men and equipment away from our troops fighting the Taliban and Bin Laden's terrorists. So they're still there, years later, but now with their slimy fingers in Iraq and Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.
Miss George W. Bush? Not hardly.
Lord knows New Orleans doesn't miss him.
His foot-in-mouth disease did provide a wealth of unintentionally funny lines. But that's hardly the stuff of presidential legacies -- until now.
Doesn't anybody on their side of the political line remember that W is the reason Barack Obama is now the President?
Back Obama or hate him, he's in the White House because of the mess Bush left us.
Anybody remember that he left the economy in a shambles? That we've been (depending on where you live) in either a recession of a depression since 2008 because of Dubya?
Bush lied about why he invaded Iraq, then proclaimed "mission accomplished" as more and more good American service men and women died.
To make things worse, his invasion made Iraq a bastion of militant Islam.
Saddam Hussein, that two-bit tyrant, was at least no friend of fundamentalist Islam. For starters, he had distilleries in Iraq -- blasphemy to radical Muslims.
In fact, before going completely rogue, Bin Laden offered to take Saddam out for the Saudis. The Saudis, however, figured that armed Muslim fundamentalists running around Iraq would be worse than leaving Saddam in power. Bin Laden then left Saudi Arabia and set up camp in Afghanistan.
Oh yeah, Afghanistan. W's war in Iraq took badly needed men and equipment away from our troops fighting the Taliban and Bin Laden's terrorists. So they're still there, years later, but now with their slimy fingers in Iraq and Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.
Miss George W. Bush? Not hardly.
Lord knows New Orleans doesn't miss him.
His foot-in-mouth disease did provide a wealth of unintentionally funny lines. But that's hardly the stuff of presidential legacies -- until now.
Friday, December 31, 2010
It's just a number on a calendar
Cannot for the life of me understand what the big deal is about New Year's Day.
It's just a tick on the clock and a turn of the calendar. Some numbers change.
People attribute all sorts of new beginnings to Jan. 1. How does anybody really expect anything to change because a number on the calendar changes?
It's great for calendar makers, but not for many other people.
The world can't even agree when the year changes, or even what year it is.
We have a main calendar, but the Chinese, the Vietnamese and the Jews, just to name three nations, have different calendars and different numbers of years. And they tend to go back more than 2011 years.
New Year's Day is an event that is over as soon as it begins. The clock ticks. Some big glittering ball slides down a pole.
WHOO-HOOOO! It's another year.
Then what?
Well, a lot of people get really drunk, some people get killed and then a really boring day ensues.
College football used to make Jan. 1 worthwhile, but the plethora of bowl games and holding the championship game 10 days later combine to make New Year's Day bowls all but irrelevant.
The TicketCity Bowl? The Outback Bowl? Seriously?
Where's the Sugar Bowl? The Orange Bowl? And why is the Rose Bowl reduced to a minor event?
Face it. New Year's Day isn't worth getting excited about.
It's just a tick on the clock and a turn of the calendar. Some numbers change.
People attribute all sorts of new beginnings to Jan. 1. How does anybody really expect anything to change because a number on the calendar changes?
It's great for calendar makers, but not for many other people.
The world can't even agree when the year changes, or even what year it is.
We have a main calendar, but the Chinese, the Vietnamese and the Jews, just to name three nations, have different calendars and different numbers of years. And they tend to go back more than 2011 years.
New Year's Day is an event that is over as soon as it begins. The clock ticks. Some big glittering ball slides down a pole.
WHOO-HOOOO! It's another year.
Then what?
Well, a lot of people get really drunk, some people get killed and then a really boring day ensues.
College football used to make Jan. 1 worthwhile, but the plethora of bowl games and holding the championship game 10 days later combine to make New Year's Day bowls all but irrelevant.
The TicketCity Bowl? The Outback Bowl? Seriously?
Where's the Sugar Bowl? The Orange Bowl? And why is the Rose Bowl reduced to a minor event?
Face it. New Year's Day isn't worth getting excited about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)