Fans Acting Fanatically Foolish is not Acceptable

30 Mar

Anyone who is a sports fan knows there is a part of the game that fans get fired up about: trash talking. It comes with being a fan of not only sports but if someone is a fan of anything that has a rivalry. Look at Apple vs Google/Microsoft, Ford vs Chevrolet, US vs anyone not the US, etc. It’s all part of the game and taken in fun, until it’s not.

As someone who was part of one of the most well-known college rivalries (Texas A&M vs. University of Texas) I’ve seen trash talking taken much too far. Sadly, I saw this again but on a grander scale and we have the Internet to thank for it.

A funny thing happens when people get behind the perceived safety of a keyboard, mouse and monitor, or a smartphone. Those people get some “e-courage” and start saying things they (hopefully) would never say in public to someone’s face. The comments made to Ashley Judd, in my opinion are indefensible.

It is not acceptable is to have people respond in a rude, vulgar and out right illegal manner. There is no excuse for a response of telling them they should die, should go to hell, get gang raped, you get the idea. It doesn’t matter if these unacceptable responses are directed at men, women, straight, gay, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc… This type of action should not be tolerated.

To me this is not political issue; it’s a simple right or wrong issue. People will always have disagreements about subjects no matter if they are political, sports, technology, religion, etc. At times those disagreements and arguments can get heated, no doubt about it. However, we can still be civil and if anyone ever does cross the line into incivility they need to be held accountable.

Sometimes when they are confronted with their actions, the person will be mature enough to admit they were wrong. We should all be mature enough to do that. Unfortunately that is not the case all the time. Sadly there are those who would defend and try to justify their indefensible actions.

Please don’t misunderstand; I am not talking about government censorship. I believe people should have the right to speak their hearts and minds. I am not talking about chilling or stopping the conversation of an issue. Doing that would get us nowhere to coming to a resolution.

What I am talking about is taking the comments about saying someone needs to be killed, raped, etc. out of the conversation, as they are likely in violation of laws already in place. Those who make such comments should be held accountable for their actions.

What about continued derogatory insults which don’t violate any laws? I would say report the comments to the medium in which they were made. Many sites on-line have the means to do so. Also, find a way to ban, ignore, and/or block those people. Sometimes it is up to us to take the responsibility to limit the negative voices in our lives. Not that we should ignore a problem as on-line bullying and stalking are real issues which have to be addressed.

I’ve seen bullies go away when confronted and the light shinned on them. Take the vile remarks made to Kurt Shilling about a comment he made as a proud father to his daughter. Once the light was shown on those making vulgar (and possibly illegal) remarks, they fled.

It goes back to what I said previously, those who make such comments would never make them in person. They hide behind a keyboard and throw insults and bully from there. That doesn’t mean everyone not using their real name acts like that. Those who do are either mature enough to admit their mistakes or run and hide when they are exposed.

We are all guilty of going too far at times, I know I have and I was wrong. We’re all human and make mistakes. Not one of us is walking on water. So we should be able to be humble enough to admit when we made a mistake, apologize and learn from it. Most of us were brought up that way and need to put those lessons into action.

Being a fan is fun and the experience should be enjoyed. Talking some smack with a rival teams fan can be fun for both sides. It’s all part of the game. However next time the feeling of “unloading” on someone comes up just because they said something you don’t like, whether it is on-line or in-person; let’s ask ourselves if we would want someone saying those things to one of our family or friends. I doubt any of us would.

Thanksgiving Hypocrite Conservatives

28 Nov

I remember growing up looking forward to Thanksgiving. I would get to see family I had not seen in a long time. Stories were shared, fun times were had and live long memories were made. Family was the most important thing.

Today, all Thanksgiving is to most people is a day to eat more than normal (or maybe not) and to go buy material wares in a guise of “saving” money. For the shopping to happen and the “savings” to be available a store has to be open. And for a store to be open, employees will have to sacrifice a day designed to celebrate family away from theirs.

Every single person who claims to be a conservative should boycott stores whom are open on Thanksgiving. The stores need to be only filled with people who think less of family and others. That is not supposed to be conservatives. We spout all the time about “family-values” and their continued deterioration of them in this country, and the world. Yet when conservatives have a chance to make a real difference they put those convictions of “family-values” aside so easily for the all mighty dollar.

Some will try to make the counter argument of, “But not everyone wants Thanksgiving off. Some people want to work and make extra money!” And to those people I would say thank you for proving my point. The fact people are so focused on making more money, to buy and have more stuff, is the exact problem with our society, country and world I am speaking about.

So for everyone of you conservatives who goes shopping today for those “bargains” just remember they come at a price. Nothing in this world is free. The price being paid is the continued erosion of real family-values, which was one cornerstone which made this country so great.

I’m Offended at Those Who Are So Easily Offended.

8 Apr

People have different beliefs regarding faith, politics, family, etc. In the United States of America they have the right to express those different beliefs without persecution from the government, at least that was the idea in decades past. Now one cannot practice those beliefs if one, just one, person is offended. I’m sorry, actually no I’m not, it’s time for people to get over it.

No where in the founding of the United States is it written people do not have a right to offend one another. Quite the contrary. By having the right to freedom of speech, being offended by something is guaranteed to happen. Someone will at some point say something to offend someone. What has gotten out of hand is the ridiculous oppression of speech by those who are so easily offended.

I’m offended on a daily basis by what I hear some people say. I have two choices, let it go or get worked up over it. Sometimes I let it go and sometimes I get worked up. What I do not do is run to some slimy lawyer and sue the person. Only the weakest, wimpiest people on this planet do something like that.

I’ve had just about every thing about me made fun of in my life. And yet, I’m still alive and breathing. I’m working and contributing to society financially (even after having the government steal money from my paycheck) and in various other ways. I cannot imagine what posses people to be so worked up they go out and get some waste of space lawyer to sue someone for being offended.

It’s time for people to get their feelings off their shoulders and “man up”. Don’t like the way someone did something? That’s fine. Have an opinion and feel free to voice it. Just don’t get offended when not everyone agrees with you. Welcome to the real world. Welcome to reality. Welcome to planet earth. Life’s tough, wear a helmet.

Oh the Huge Manatee: Target Catches Unnecessary Grief for Color Label

5 Apr

Ah the PC police are at it again. Seems someone on planet earth was yet again offended by what another person did. Shocking isn’t it? Apparently Target, the step above Walmart retailer, had a plus sized dress for sale with the color description of “Manatee Grey”.

While on the surface this could appear to be a cheap shot at fat/overweight women and it seems someone got their feelings hurt by his knee-jerk reaction. The offendee? Susan Clemens (aka Twitter user @suZen). She found the discrepancy between the color label of the plus size version of the dress and the “regular” size version, which uses the color label “Dark Heather Grey”.

Continue reading

Called Out: AP Drops “Illegal Immigrant” From Style Guide

3 Apr

Journalism used to be about telling an unbiased, factually correct story. The information was gathered and put into a form the general public could consume without distorting information. Sadly those days are gone and the Associated Press (AP) has capitulated in the demise of true journalism. Quite ironic.

In the latest blow, the AP has decided to bow down to political correctness and become intellectually incorrect by removing the use of the term “illegal immigrant”. Why do so? Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll states the style book is trying to rid itself of labels[1]. Huh? Human beings naturally group, classify and label everything around us.

Ms. Carroll wrote on her blog:

“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.”

Now those learning or currently practicing “journalism” will be seen in a negative way if they use technically correct term “illegal immigrant” as a descriptive term. The AP has long lost its credibility of being an unbiased, true journalistic entity. This current move clearly illustrates, yet again, their move to show their bias. Giving a weak excuse which anyone without cataracts can see through.

Continue reading

Name Game: Washington Redskins in Court Again for Team Name Suit

7 Mar

In the United States we have the right to free speech, with some limits. This means people have the right to speak what is on their minds and hearts. It does not mean those who are offended do not have the right to be unoffended. It’s time people who get offended by what other people say grow up and get over themselves.

Washington Redskins LogoAccording to a CBS article, the Redskins organization will go before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to defend their brand. The suit against them has been brought forth by group of Native Americans. A quick side note, every group who came to the North American continent was migrant from somewhere. Calling any group “native” is a misnomer. Back to the ridiculous lawsuit, the organization has faced issues over its name for some time. This latest suit is just another round it has faced from thin skinned babies.

According to Suzan Shown Harjo, “It’s just like a drive-by shooting, They’re trying to make money, and not caring who is injured in the process — or if anyone is injured in the process. I don’t think they wake up or go to sleep dreaming of ways to hurt Native people. I think they wake up and go to sleep thinking of ways to make money — off hurting Native people.”

Well Ms. Harjo, if the logic of the case is based upon making money hurting people, the courts are going to be over run with lawsuits very soon. Why? Well using her logic, every comedian who has ever told a joke and offended someone has made money hurting some person or group of people. Are we, as a country, going to allow case law be established outlawing comedy? One can only hope Ms. Harjo has never told any jokes in her lifetime which were recorded. She might be facing a lawsuit of her own then.

Interestingly enough, this specific case was tried before and Ms. Harjo and her group won back in 1999. Really? Fortunately it was overturned in 2003 on a technicality. Apparently Ms. Harjo and her group were now doubly offended and now a new group, playing by the rules set forth by the 2003 technicality ruling, filed another suit in 2006 to start this process (and waste tax money) again. Yes we the people are paying court costs for people being offended. Someone say sequester?

Why file another, costly, lawsuit? The answer is quite simple, according to the CBS article, “The motive is to force Redskins owner Dan Snyder into a change by weakening him financially.” That seems like a clear admission of abusing the legal system. The system was not setup so people could file lawsuit after lawsuit to bankrupt someone to get them to change. In fact, one might argue they just admitted to a form of extortion. Mr. Snyder has stated more than once a name change is not coming.

So far Ms. Harjo has been unsuccessful in her attempts to force a change in the Redskins organization. She has previously predicted a change would already have happened back in 1998, “I fully expect these names to be a thing of the past in 10 years. I think that will happen whether or not we win this suit.”. Much like the over hyped Mayan dooms day, that prediction fell flat. Hopefully this latest round will as well.

If Ms. Harjo and her thin skinned group does happen to win, what’s next? Are they going after the Atlanta Braves? Maybe some group can bring a suit against Cracker Barrel. The outlandish possibilities are endless for those so easily offended. The rest of us will look on, laugh and wonder why they don’t group up and sit with the rest of us at the adult table of life.

Source –

Fight On: Battle Over Redskins Name Goes Before Federal Board – CBS

Only 11 Things Wrong with Congress? Part 2

26 Feb

Continuing from part 1[1]  of Mr. Newman’s list of 11 things wrong with Congress[2] we pickup with number five.

5. Lobbyists

Now here’s one the masses get riled up about but don’t understand fully. Mr. Newman gives the impression all lobbyists are wealthy, entitled people who can bend a Congressman to their will by using money and power. However, that’s not the truth. What is a lobbyist? He or she is someone who, by definition lobbies. So what is lobbying? It is simply “the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies.”[3] In other words it is someone who goes to a representative and has them listen to their issue, cause or point of view on a subject. Anyone in this country could be a lobbyist. If someone has called up a representative to make their voice heard about an issue, guess what, they are a lobbyist. Unpaid for sure, but a lobbyist nonetheless. Granted not all lobbyists are good or do good work. But there are plenty groups of lobbyists who stand up for people who might not otherwise be heard. All lobbyists are not wrong. How some operate and how some get around the rules is wrong. That should be the focus of where something needs to be fixed.

 

6. Earmarks

Remember when these little additions of spending were big news? Many people had never heard of them before but did not know what exactly they were. In Congress they are “loosely defined as guarantees of federal expenditures to particular recipients in appropriations-related documents.”[4] There are a couple of types of ear marks:

Hard earmarks, or “hardmarks”, found in legislation, and soft earmarks, or “softmarks”, found in the text of congressional committee reports. Hard earmarks are legally binding, whereas soft earmarks are not but customarily are acted upon as if they were binding.

They have become synonymous with “pork barrel” legislation.[5]  There are some politicians who speak out against earmarks, but their actions tell a different story. One of the most visible is Ron Paul. He ran for President on reducing government spending and fiscal responsibility, yet he still played the game of earmarks while denouncing them. Mr. Newman is right about needing to eliminate earmarks. Especially when they have nothing to do with the bill being proposed and voted upon. Attaching an earmark for improving dog catching equipment to a bill on funding the military should be as illegal as it is unethical.

 

7. Speeches to nobody

Hearing a Representative speak can be informative and energizing. It can also put one to sleep better than any insomnia medicine on the market. Many people see a clip of a representative on the new speaking to Congress about a subject they too are passionate about. The impression is the Congressman is working to sway the other representatives to see his or her side of the argument. However, as Mr. Newman points out, there are times when that representative is speaking to an almost empty, or entirely empty room but is shown on C-SPAN. Seems like a huge waste of time and energy. And in some cases it is. There are times though, when it can be advantageous to use the empty chamber to give an impassioned speech which will hopefully get picked up by a media outlet. By doing so a the issue is given a voice. What is the cost to us the taxpayers for these empty house speeches? Probably not much of any. The Congressman is already getting paid and money is already being spent on having the chamber open at the time. The only real cost is the time which the representative could be using doing something else. But sometimes having them bloviate to an empty room keeps them busy from doing other foolish things. That might be money well spent.

 

Coming up in part three are the final four on Mr. Newman’s list of 11 things wrong with congress. Two are a stretch but the last two clear problems which have been facing Congress decades.

 

References

  1. Only 11 Things Wrong with Congress? Part 1 – Clearly Wrong
  2. 11 Things Wrong With Congress – US News
  3. Lobbying – Wikipedia
  4. Earmark (politics) – Wikipedia
  5. How Congressional Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Undermine Stateand Local Decisionmaking – The Heritage Foundation