Friday, April 9, 2010
Friday, October 9, 2009
I Hate the Hate for Our President
I have tried to keep this blog (on those occasions when I have found time to write anything), politically neutral, and focused on topics that are in good fun and not of the greatest importance. But, something keeps happening, that the more I think about it, the more I hate it.
I sit here today, watching and reading the stories about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, is there room for debate about did he deserve it, and should an award be given based maybe more on what he wants to do, than what he has done, sure. But I am really stricken by the level of anger I am seeing and hearing from Americans just because their President won the Nobel Peace Price. This is particularly so because this is coming just one week after I watched and read so many Americans take a large amount of satisfaction from the United States not being rewarded the Olympics because the President wanted it.
What is really beginning to strike me about all of this - the level of anger towards this President receiving an award that should make all people regardless of politics proud, and the level of joy from a disappointment that had nothing to do with politics whatsoever - is not really what I am reading and seeing from those on the Right. These are the people that for 8 years fell right in line with George Bush and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. I did not really expect them to suddenly change their ways. No, what is starting to strike me the most is how much hate for Obama and how much satisfaction from any of his perceived or real failures, I see and hear from people that I have known for many, many years whom I never even knew cared at all about politics, never heard them say one word on any issue either way. But now, suddenly, they do not miss one opportunity to complain about or bash the President.
Now, maybe this is a product of the economy, and when the economy tanked, it made people who never cared about politics care because they want to keep their jobs, or find a job, or afford their bills and pay their mortgages. I guess that may make some sense.
But I cannot help but think I am ignoring the elephant in the room because the truth is if you are middle class, which applies to almost everyone I know, the economy hasn't been good in years, and yet I can't recall one word or one conversation where they had something politically to say, let alone something negative to say about our President.
Then, do I just have to admit to myself that these people simply are not comfortable with a black President? It might not be an outward act of racism, they may never say something outwardly racist. They may know better, or maybe they haven't even admitted it to themselves. They will never say outright that I want Obama to fail because he is black. But I can't help but thinking their motives are centered around because he is black, they want him to fail. And because of that, they don't let one thing go without jumping all over it.
Am I reading too much into all of this? Maybe, but I do not think so. Even in today's era of instant media, presidents are normally judged by bigger pictures, and when issues have not been about politics, we have all rooted for the President. They want to judge Obama like he was a batter in basbeall, on every at-bat, even every swing. If he takes a swing, they will complain, "He is trying to do too much!" If he swings and misses, "He hasn't done anything yet!"
Most of the leftiest liberals I know were still able to take some level of satisfaction when President Bush threw a strike in Yankee Stadium in 2001 - Yes that may have been a different time, but the point is there always seemed to be circumstances where if politics were not involved - like with receiving the Nobel Prize or trying to get the Olympics to this country - people, especially politically neutral people, would find a way to stand behind our President. Yet now, there are large groups of people angry when their President won a prize acknowledging peace? Or they hate the President so much they were glad the U.S. wasn't awarded the Olympics?
I am not someone who thinks that all criticism of the President is racist; but I am convinced that some of the over the top criticism I am seeing from people that prior to last November never really cared about politics, absolutely has its roots in racism. If someone thinks the economy isn't recovering fast enough, or we should have closed Guantanamo, or we need more troops in Afghanistan, or we need less troops there, or that the health care plan goes too far or not far enough - that is fine with me. Those are real issues. And we need real debate on all of them.
But when I can't go one day without seeing people react in anger towards anything that involves the President whatsoever, I can't help but realize that no matter how large a step this country took last November 4, we still have a long way to go. And President Obama, just in case trying to rescue this country from one of its worst economic crisis ever, bring health care to all Americans, end two wars, deal with Iran and North Korea and the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the swine flu wasn't enough, you have to also contend with trying to get people to somehow believe that wanting your President to succeed is a good thing.
I sit here today, watching and reading the stories about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, is there room for debate about did he deserve it, and should an award be given based maybe more on what he wants to do, than what he has done, sure. But I am really stricken by the level of anger I am seeing and hearing from Americans just because their President won the Nobel Peace Price. This is particularly so because this is coming just one week after I watched and read so many Americans take a large amount of satisfaction from the United States not being rewarded the Olympics because the President wanted it.
What is really beginning to strike me about all of this - the level of anger towards this President receiving an award that should make all people regardless of politics proud, and the level of joy from a disappointment that had nothing to do with politics whatsoever - is not really what I am reading and seeing from those on the Right. These are the people that for 8 years fell right in line with George Bush and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. I did not really expect them to suddenly change their ways. No, what is starting to strike me the most is how much hate for Obama and how much satisfaction from any of his perceived or real failures, I see and hear from people that I have known for many, many years whom I never even knew cared at all about politics, never heard them say one word on any issue either way. But now, suddenly, they do not miss one opportunity to complain about or bash the President.
Now, maybe this is a product of the economy, and when the economy tanked, it made people who never cared about politics care because they want to keep their jobs, or find a job, or afford their bills and pay their mortgages. I guess that may make some sense.
But I cannot help but think I am ignoring the elephant in the room because the truth is if you are middle class, which applies to almost everyone I know, the economy hasn't been good in years, and yet I can't recall one word or one conversation where they had something politically to say, let alone something negative to say about our President.
Then, do I just have to admit to myself that these people simply are not comfortable with a black President? It might not be an outward act of racism, they may never say something outwardly racist. They may know better, or maybe they haven't even admitted it to themselves. They will never say outright that I want Obama to fail because he is black. But I can't help but thinking their motives are centered around because he is black, they want him to fail. And because of that, they don't let one thing go without jumping all over it.
Am I reading too much into all of this? Maybe, but I do not think so. Even in today's era of instant media, presidents are normally judged by bigger pictures, and when issues have not been about politics, we have all rooted for the President. They want to judge Obama like he was a batter in basbeall, on every at-bat, even every swing. If he takes a swing, they will complain, "He is trying to do too much!" If he swings and misses, "He hasn't done anything yet!"
Most of the leftiest liberals I know were still able to take some level of satisfaction when President Bush threw a strike in Yankee Stadium in 2001 - Yes that may have been a different time, but the point is there always seemed to be circumstances where if politics were not involved - like with receiving the Nobel Prize or trying to get the Olympics to this country - people, especially politically neutral people, would find a way to stand behind our President. Yet now, there are large groups of people angry when their President won a prize acknowledging peace? Or they hate the President so much they were glad the U.S. wasn't awarded the Olympics?
I am not someone who thinks that all criticism of the President is racist; but I am convinced that some of the over the top criticism I am seeing from people that prior to last November never really cared about politics, absolutely has its roots in racism. If someone thinks the economy isn't recovering fast enough, or we should have closed Guantanamo, or we need more troops in Afghanistan, or we need less troops there, or that the health care plan goes too far or not far enough - that is fine with me. Those are real issues. And we need real debate on all of them.
But when I can't go one day without seeing people react in anger towards anything that involves the President whatsoever, I can't help but realize that no matter how large a step this country took last November 4, we still have a long way to go. And President Obama, just in case trying to rescue this country from one of its worst economic crisis ever, bring health care to all Americans, end two wars, deal with Iran and North Korea and the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the swine flu wasn't enough, you have to also contend with trying to get people to somehow believe that wanting your President to succeed is a good thing.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Traffic Cameras
I hate traffic cameras. I really hate them when they are alongside speed limits that leave drivers really no choice but to speed. This happens in the District of Columbia. On a three-lane open-road, where just moments earlier cars were driving 65 MPH, and with no change whatsoever in the road conditions, the speed limit amazingly plummets to35 MPH! And naturally, right above that 35 MPH sign is a traffic camera, ready to give tickets to each and every driver that goes past - and it should be each one because no one drives 35 MPH.
Anyway, for more on the D.C. Traffic Camera abuse, go here - dctrafficcameras.com
My suggestion to show really everyone how stupid some of these speed limits are, in particular this 35 MPH limit is to somehow organize a national drive the speed limit day. Everyone, throughout the country, unite in one effort to drive the speed limit no matter where you are. The exact speed limit, not over, not below. If the sign says 65, you drive it, 35 you drive it, etc. And the congestion and traffic and problems that would ensue might show some of these people in control just how absurd these speed limits are - something that is going to become more and more of a problem as cities continue adding traffic cameras in an effort to raise revenue.
Maybe this isn't the most pressing issue, but why should someone have to work long hours and then try to drive home only to deal with this type of nonsense.
Anyway, for more on the D.C. Traffic Camera abuse, go here - dctrafficcameras.com
My suggestion to show really everyone how stupid some of these speed limits are, in particular this 35 MPH limit is to somehow organize a national drive the speed limit day. Everyone, throughout the country, unite in one effort to drive the speed limit no matter where you are. The exact speed limit, not over, not below. If the sign says 65, you drive it, 35 you drive it, etc. And the congestion and traffic and problems that would ensue might show some of these people in control just how absurd these speed limits are - something that is going to become more and more of a problem as cities continue adding traffic cameras in an effort to raise revenue.
Maybe this isn't the most pressing issue, but why should someone have to work long hours and then try to drive home only to deal with this type of nonsense.
When Mike Florio Just Makes Things Up
Mike Florio at profootballtalk.com found a story yesterday that said Randy Moss was dogging it on Sunday. Now everyone with any sense has said the writer of the article was mistaken. Florio, on the other hand, went a different direction. He not only linked to the story, but then started to make stuff up in order to get even a bigger reaction. See for a guy like him, a story about Randy Moss was not enough. He needed more than to get a reaction from Patriots fans and Patriots haters. Just like someone listening to "Electric Avenue," he took that sh*t to the next level. He brought in Brett Favre to the mix. Right around now you may be wondering - how can a story about Randy Moss's efforts in New England possibly connect to Favre? Here is how, and we learned it all as kids watching Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. It is called make believe. Because when you are Mike Florio what you can do is pretend, shut your eyes, and think of ways to make the connection. He did and he wrote it - Moss wants out of New England to go play with Favre because Favre has been whispering in his ear.
Anyway, my friend Stew Winkel did a great job yesterday breaking down Florio's fiction - read it here.
Anyway, my friend Stew Winkel did a great job yesterday breaking down Florio's fiction - read it here.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Tony Mazz - You've done it again
So the Globe's Tony Massarotti is up to his old tricks again. He wrote an article today for the Globe about how the Yankees have caught up to the Sox in developing their own players, and they aren't just winning by spending money. He says for the Red Sox Dustin Pedroia, Yanks have Robinson Cano. For Jon Lester, there is Joba Chamberlain. For Daniel Bard, Phil Hughes. For Jacoby Ellsbury, there is Melky Cabrera. He then stops, because if he kept comparing home-grown talent, he'd have to acknowledge Sox also have Papelbon, Youkilis, and Buchholz on the team now. A slight edge. Not to mention that of those farm players the Sox have, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Papelbon and Youkilis are were key players on the Sox '07 World Series team.
But what about just his argument that the Yankees aren't just widely spending money to try to win. Let's look at some facts -
But what about just his argument that the Yankees aren't just widely spending money to try to win. Let's look at some facts -
- Of MLB's top 4 highest paid players, 3 are Yankees - A-Rod, Teixeira, Jeter.
- Of the top 25 highest paid players, Yankees have 6. Red Sox have zero.
- For their starting rotation to start the season plus closer, Yankees spent over $57 million. Sox under 35.
- For their opening day lineups, Yankees spent over $125-million; Sox under $70.
- Yankees outspend Red Sox at every single position, except right field.
- As far building from the farm system, Yankees pay $85 million this year to four players signed as free agents the last two offseasons.
- Highest paid Red Sox is JD Drew at $14-million per season. Yankees have six guys who make more than that.
- Yankees have nine players making over $10 million. Sox have four.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Why bother with facts? They just get in the way.
All us Red Sox fans know the team is in trouble. Today for Boston.com, writer Tony Massarotti writes about just that, noting that even if the Sox make the playoffs, it is going to be a battle to the end, which will stop the team from being able to rest in the final few days and set up their rotation.
A possible good point. But Mazz goes on to remind us about 2004 and 2007 - when the Sox decided that just making the playoffs via the Wild Card was enough, and didn’t go after the Division, choosing rather to rest. It paid off with the Wild Card in ‘04 and ‘07. One major problem - the Sox won the Division in 2007. It was kind of a big deal - first time since 1995, first time a team other than the Yankees won the Division since 1997. Remember ALCS - games six and seven played in Fenway? That doesn't happen without winning the division.
How he makes this error (and it isn’t caught by an editor) is beyond me. But it gets worse, because Mazz has to make his point. He writes, “Let's turn back the clock to 2007 for a moment. ‘It means a lot, but it means nothing as far as winning a World Series,’ manager Terry Francona said that year while the Red Sox were seemingly losing grasp of the division title. ‘It means a lot for what you set out to accomplish, I think. I don't think there's any getting around that, and I don't think we want to. But when it's all said and done, it won't have any bearing on how far we get into the postseason.’
So not only does Mazz, who gets paid to write about the Red Sox, not remember 2007, not only is he too lazy to fact check, but he compounds his error by making up facts when he writes, “while the Red Sox were seemingly losing grasp of the division title.”
Listen, I know errors can happen. But this is just so careless I find it really troubling. Aren’t there editors? If you walked into a sports bar in Boston and said the Sox did not win the Division in 2007, how long until 10 people told you you were wrong?
Mazz goes on to write this, “For these Red Sox, lest anyone misunderstand, this is all about the pitching. With the weekend results in Texas, the Sox are now 32-15 in games started by the tandem of Josh Beckett and Jon Lester, 34-36 in games started by anyone else.”
That is an interesting stat, but is also a rather large leap to say it means it is all about the pitching. Lester and Beckett are very good - of course the Sox will win most of their starts. They can win those games whether or not they are hitting. The fact the Sox are 34-36 in all other starts, can say as much about the lack of hitting as it can the pitching. There needs to be more information that easily could have been found out - WHIP, ERA, etc for the games not started by Beckett/Lester.
Clay Buchholz in his last two starts has gone 13 innings, allowed only 3 ER. The Sox lost both of those games - so, is it really all about the pitching, Mazz?
A possible good point. But Mazz goes on to remind us about 2004 and 2007 - when the Sox decided that just making the playoffs via the Wild Card was enough, and didn’t go after the Division, choosing rather to rest. It paid off with the Wild Card in ‘04 and ‘07. One major problem - the Sox won the Division in 2007. It was kind of a big deal - first time since 1995, first time a team other than the Yankees won the Division since 1997. Remember ALCS - games six and seven played in Fenway? That doesn't happen without winning the division.
How he makes this error (and it isn’t caught by an editor) is beyond me. But it gets worse, because Mazz has to make his point. He writes, “Let's turn back the clock to 2007 for a moment. ‘It means a lot, but it means nothing as far as winning a World Series,’ manager Terry Francona said that year while the Red Sox were seemingly losing grasp of the division title. ‘It means a lot for what you set out to accomplish, I think. I don't think there's any getting around that, and I don't think we want to. But when it's all said and done, it won't have any bearing on how far we get into the postseason.’
So not only does Mazz, who gets paid to write about the Red Sox, not remember 2007, not only is he too lazy to fact check, but he compounds his error by making up facts when he writes, “while the Red Sox were seemingly losing grasp of the division title.”
Listen, I know errors can happen. But this is just so careless I find it really troubling. Aren’t there editors? If you walked into a sports bar in Boston and said the Sox did not win the Division in 2007, how long until 10 people told you you were wrong?
Mazz goes on to write this, “For these Red Sox, lest anyone misunderstand, this is all about the pitching. With the weekend results in Texas, the Sox are now 32-15 in games started by the tandem of Josh Beckett and Jon Lester, 34-36 in games started by anyone else.”
That is an interesting stat, but is also a rather large leap to say it means it is all about the pitching. Lester and Beckett are very good - of course the Sox will win most of their starts. They can win those games whether or not they are hitting. The fact the Sox are 34-36 in all other starts, can say as much about the lack of hitting as it can the pitching. There needs to be more information that easily could have been found out - WHIP, ERA, etc for the games not started by Beckett/Lester.
Clay Buchholz in his last two starts has gone 13 innings, allowed only 3 ER. The Sox lost both of those games - so, is it really all about the pitching, Mazz?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
No, no, don't get up
I really hate this f#cking guy from this photo. I took this photo while riding on The Metro during rush hour. This guy was just lounging on the seat with his bike, checking his phone, while being surrounded by a train filled with people standing because there were no other seats. Hey you sir, lying on the seats - you are a douchebag.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Not a Good Day for Journalism
First, there is this on Time.com. They conducted a poll of who is the most trusted newscaster in America. The result - Jon Stewart. Now I love Stewart and The Daily Show, but I would have to guess that even Stewart himself would admit that the journalism profession should be able to produce a more trusted newscaster than himself. When Walter Cronkite died, and article after article commented on how he was the most trusted person in the news, I wondered who does America trust now? Unfortunately my fears were confirmed, that there really isn't anyone.
Then there is the continuing story of how ESPN ignored a story about Pittsburgh Steeler QB Ben Roethlisberger, even though every other serious sports media outlet reported on the story for days. ESPN came up with some lame excuse why they instructed their employees not to report on the story. But The Boston Globe's Chad Finn uncovered what is likely the true story. Big Ben is set to appear on an upcoming ABC show and of course ABC and ESPN are both owned by Disney. Again unfortunately, I was not surprised by this. It is really just par for the course for The Worldwide Leader.
Then there is the continuing story of how ESPN ignored a story about Pittsburgh Steeler QB Ben Roethlisberger, even though every other serious sports media outlet reported on the story for days. ESPN came up with some lame excuse why they instructed their employees not to report on the story. But The Boston Globe's Chad Finn uncovered what is likely the true story. Big Ben is set to appear on an upcoming ABC show and of course ABC and ESPN are both owned by Disney. Again unfortunately, I was not surprised by this. It is really just par for the course for The Worldwide Leader.
I know what I will be doing tomorrow
Prior to seeing this story, I already knew that I would be glued to the tv watching the WNBA All-Star game. But it just got even better - as I will also be refreshing twitter at a mad pace:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/wnba-players-to-tweet-all_n_244431.html
NEW YORK — Two WNBA players will update their Twitter accounts during Saturday's All-Star game.
The league said Thursday that Alana Beard of the Washington Mystics and Swin Cash of the Seattle Storm will post messages pregame and postgame, during timeouts and at halftime.
The game will be played at Mohegan Sun Arena in Uncasville, Conn.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/wnba-players-to-tweet-all_n_244431.html
Thursday, July 23, 2009
I hate umpires
This is another job well done by an MLB umpire - http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/NickPiecoro/58389
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)