seriously, i know no one really keeps up with the government anymore. we all get so frustrated with it--the politics, the back-biting, the he said-she said--wait then why the hell do we have reality tv like "jerserylicious"? oh right, we're just tired of knowing where our money goes instead of where bimbos spend theirs. but i've been a little concerned about the O-budget. i mean i wasn't very happy about his new healthcare package that managed to increase my out of pocket costs. i was thrilled that we as a group voted out the morons that followed him down that little yellow brick road that might be gold for the unemployed but crap for those that actually are employed. so regardless of my normal apathy to the budget and my tax money, this time i'm worried. is he going to do away with my tax breaks? is he pushing for tax increases? how important is the damn deficit? ok...so here's the facts (ok, with a little of my opinion following):
the good news:
his budget proposes dropping the deficit to $1.01T in 2012. don't get impressed. the media is saying that's a 5% reduction of the deficit. the current deficit is $14.15T (by usdebtclock.org), it's actually closer to 7%, but the truth is that is an approximation based on the budget going through as it is with interest added back in.
the President's plan supposedly will reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio from 10.9% to 7% by the end of the year. (GDP for my laymen friends is gross national product--which is a fancy way of saying how much our economy produces.) this sounds like good news too.
or is it? the bad news:
1. to really payoff the deficit, taxes will have to rise. no way around it. conservative or liberal, all those politicians know it. we, as Americans, need to know it. the deficit is never getting paid off without an increase in taxes. when they say 10.9% it's actually a fancy dancy way of presenting it to confuse you if you want to compare to say other countries. economists will tell you that our debt is a percentage of our GDP. what our politicians mean is that our GDP is only 10.9% (2010) of our debt. (hahaha. don't you love it?!?! ok back to my point...) but unlike what our slanted media will tell you (always per their agenda), other countries debts are equally, if not more, shocking. yes, really--and not just 3rd world countries.
a. japan: 192% (these numbers are in economist way)
b. italy: 115%
c. greece: 108%
d. belgium: 99%
e. canada: 72%
f. uk: 68%
g. spain: 60%
h: brazil: 47%
i. mexico: 43%
j. USA: 40%
in fact, the countries with the lowest deficits are, drum roll please, some of the most impoverised countries in the world:
a. trinidad: 27%
b. mozambique: 26%
c. peru: 26%
d, honduras: 24%
e. uganda: 19%
f. china: 18%
g. nigeria: 18%
in fact, the most impoverished countries almost all fall down at the bottom of the deficit map. shouldn't be surprising that most of these countries are not known for taking care of their impoverished--we, us and the europeans, send millions of dollars in donations (private, organizational, and of course, our tax money) to help people in these countries, because many of them can't (or won't) help their own. (all data is available at www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html. i don't even want to venture why this would be important to the cia. we can only imagine, and i'll avoid speculating since i don't want to be put on a watch list of some sort.)
my point: yes, the debt is a problem. but compared to our counterparts--nominal at best--compared to our other woes. i mean seriously, wouldn't you hate to be japanese at this point?!?!
2. increase all (yes, ALL) of our taxes. no more mortgage interest write-offs. no more low income tax cuts or freebies for the below poverty level with credits like EIC (earned income credit)--yes, for all the "tax the rich" crap, EIC is for low income families and O-budget will eliminate it. for some people that are below poverty level, this will actually mean that they can collect more on welfare than they can by working and getting EIC. the obama plan includes raising all of our taxes to full state within 10 years. they're not telling you that part. it's all glossed over with the fact that we got a reprieve from congress at the end of the year. obama's plan takes all that away for 2011 taxes, and then takes the rest of the reductions over the next 9 years.
i know, i know, he probably won't be in office. he's pulling a billy boy here. bill clinton was told over and over and over that raising the minimum wage would increase the cost of living but not the overall compensation of the middle class. it was a ten year plan--raising minimum wage from $3.35 per hour to $7+ per hour. how many of us benefited? those of us that were making minimum wage perhaps got a little initially, but it was eaten up relatively quickly with the increases in prices. so anyone fooling themselves into thinking that this can be repealed later--congress never even flinched again about the subject. a ten year plan on taxes could be permanent.
worse yet, at this point, most of us really reigned in our spending over the last couple of years. fears of increased taxes and a continued drop in the economy scared all of us--from big business to investors to middle class to low income. we all started wondering how we could survive if the economy completely tanked. more taxes means a lot of us will continue to tighten our belts, keep our money close, and refrain from spending and/or investing. is that what our economy needs right now? ok, obama's agenda--the one he's been pitching since the giddy up--paying off debt for long term posterity--all sounds good. but if no one is working, the debt will be the least of our problems. companies are just starting to feel good about hiring again. if they think their tax bill is going up, they will act like the rest of us. that new tv can wait--and so can them re-hiring those standing in the unemployment lines (or worse yet, those no longer eligible for unemployment). the agenda aside--it won't help the economy right now.
3. after last year, obama's hit squad has realized that attacking social security or medicaid is OUT. but look where he wants to hit now--no more student grants for college and a reduction in student loans. in the scope of associates or better for 25 to 34 year olds:
a. russia: 54%
b. canada: 48%
c. israel: 44%
d. japan: 41%
e. new zealand: 41%
f. USA: 40%
ok, so education is possibly a place to cut...but, then consider that most pell grants and federal subsidized student loans are to people that couldn't finance a college education otherwise. the low income kid who wants a better life. the parents that can't afford to send their kids to school because they literally live paycheck to paycheck. military families. we perpetuate the lower class and their plight if we won't reward and assist those that want and can earn a better life. the irony, and hypocrisy, is that obama and his wife both went to school on student loans. seriously. so is it that he wants to cut out people like himself?!?! he himself is a shining example of the success of the Reaganomics plan to educate all Americans for the improvement of the whole. how can someone who benefited from those want to be the one to cut them out?
4. increase the age of social security for full social security benefits. according to current life insurance guidelines, the average live expectancy for men born in 1970 is 67 and women is 74. right now, our age bracket (generation x--approximately born between 1963 to 1983), will be allowed to retire at 67. good news. most of you men will be dead. not collecting any benefits. awesome, right? raise the social security age? really...well, obama's not worried because as a former President he gets to collect a paycheck for the rest of his life. secret service, money for his future presidential library, medical, yep. but for the rest of us working schlubs: work til you die, and for the other half of you, til you are damn close.
but that's not all folks:
5. increase insurance premiums for retired military. got news for you--those of us that joined right before desert storm were only entitled to 75% of base (base only) pay. the food money, cost of area living money, not included. so really that equates to around 50% of our actual pay. now for those brave enough to stay that joined in the early 90s after desert storm, they are only entitled to 50% of their base pay--which will really equate to 37% of their pay--and for those joining now, it can be as low as 25% when they, if they, retire. really?!?! increase insurance premiums on retired military? thank you for your service, but we're going to make more cuts to your retiree benefits--adding to the already drastic cuts from the clinton era.
6. cuts from federal retraining programs for older workers. fancy wording right? we all know this probably could be viable--except he specified "older" workers. so those of you that are unemployed right now and needing help to get training for a new job because yours went overseas or because you only have a high school diploma from 1980, forget it. you're going to be deemed completely unemployable.
7. reduction in the ability to claim mortgage taxes for the rich. well, ok he said rich--how many of us think $80K per year for a married couple is rich???? $40K for an individual??!?! hmmm....next...
8. oh, and a tax increase on the rich. again $80K is a married couple's line in the sand, $40K for an individual. do we really think people in those categories are rich?!?!? how many of us think making $21,660 for an individual is outside of poverty level?!?!? the federal guidelines do though. in fact, the average household income in the USA in 2009 was $61K according to the census bureau--based on income tax filings, of course. does $80K still sound rich?!?!
worse yet, his economic plan literally to be successful must exceed the highest estimates by up to 30%. most economists expect our recovery to be somewhere around 3 to 5% this year. excellent considering. o-budget needs a minimum of 7% this year alone. it needs our economy to grow at the rate it was growing in the early 2000s--never taking into account that the reason the economy was growing exponentially like that was because of poor lending practices, an exasperated real estate market, and ponsi-like investment practices of banks and wall street. we hope that doesn't happen again, and yet, o-budget is counting on it. nice.
9. most of his plan doesn't specify where the cuts are going to come from. he wants congress to take out that axe. i was impressed by a 5% cut to all of their offices' budgets. i'd be really thrilled if they did that for 3 years in a row. an overall 15% cut in the congressional budget would be awesome over 3 years--especially if they maintained it permanently. but that money, in fact any money that they cut right now, should be justification for keeping our tax cuts and reductions in place, shouldn't it?
so what do i think? after the research:
1. shut up about the damn deficit. we aren't as far in debt as it sounds. it sucks, but worrying about it today isn't going to change the fact that now it not a good time to worry about it.
2. if o-budget is worried about the poor and unemployed, why are a lot of the cuts being suggested custom made to keep them there?
3. if $80K a year is rich for a family of 4, well, perhaps if they have no debt, no house payment, and no taxes. a family of 4 at $80K, still pays an average of 38% taxes overall, with approximately 30% going to federal, medicaid and social security alone. the feds get plenty. it's not our taxes that need to increase; it's their spending that needs to decrease.
obama's book paid him millions in bonus--as a former (God i hope) President, he will be able to charge $100K or more per speaking engagement. he and his family are well taken care of now--and for the rest of their lives. he's got all kinds of things that the rest of us should give up, so how about he gives up his $400K salary this year and next toward the deficit? he wants us to pay more, but give up none. he wants random cuts, but no idea where. and he wants us to pour our money into failures like the healthcare bill, the debacle "cash for clunkers", and more and more extensions for unemployment.
my suggestion: cuts to budget go to the deficit. if they find fat cat, pork bellies (and we all know they can without even looking) in the current spending, cut those and use that money to the deficit. but NO more taxes. we can barely handle what we have now.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
newsflash: freedom is never free...
the news has been full of political unrest in multiple countries lately--the latest being egypt. the world is full of countries that don't allow the freedoms that european countries have--let alone the freedoms that we have as Americans. yet, i'm amazed at the amount of people that trivialize what that means. as the bleeding heart liberals are afraid (as are the staunch conservatives) of political unrest in the middle east, the reality is the world is changing. Americans assume that the freedom that we have is the same freedom that others have. yet, it is not. we need to remember that even our european cousins are not as free as we are. our, American, definition of freedom is uniquely our own and as good as it gets anywhere on this planet.
egypt wants freedom to choose. they want a man who, perhaps, has been a US ally and was an egyptian war hero, to step down as their president. he has held that position for over 30 years. we, Americans, forget that our first President, George Washington, voluntarily stepped down after two terms (8 years for those of you that forgot your American history). we forget that FDR served 4 terms, totally 16 years, and that our great-grandparents and grandparents, were so afraid of the amount of power that he accumulated over that long of a period--to the point of changing our laws to only allow a maximum of two terms for the President. it's a reality. we know the amount of power that people like edward kennedy and strom thurman had after decades in Congress. the power that they wielded decided our policies for decades and we may or may not be better for the wear. we often cry that our congressmen and senators do not hear us. why would they if we vote them into office like sheep to the slaughter? yet, our vote counts. we know it does. even when we imagine that our candidate was wronged by chaff or by uncounted absentee votes, we know that our system works better than almost all others. the right to vote, the concept of all people having a say--male, female, old, young, regardless of race and religion--that is our creation. we take it for granted, never realizing how many people in this world do not have that right. egyptians want that right. can we blame them?
china is having similar problems. there are parts of china that are off-limits to westerners, and we turn the blind eye because of the all mighty dollar. there's a power struggle going on there between the communist party (yes, people, they are still "commies"), their leadership and their military. they've maintained control over north korea for decades, and now north korea has become more and more emboldened. either china is losing control over north korea or they are pulling those strings. that is still an iron fist over there--regardless of whether it's getting rusty or has a more conniving hand now. we forget (or overlook) the death mobiles (mobile death sentence vans), the jailing or disappearances of anyone that speaks openly against the communist party or current leadership, the forced takeover of tibet, the lack of religious freedoms, the threats to the sea of japan and other territorial waters surrounding the area, and the tight control over the internet. for what? the almighty dollar perhaps. but, there will come a time that inequity there will rise up again. we like to say they've come a long way. no doubt. but they are not even close to the freedoms that we enjoy daily.
even some of our european cousins have limited freedoms. the british are monitored all over the UK with government cameras. they can't own a gun except for hunting. they pay even more outrageous taxes than we do at equivalent income levels. they even pay taxes on their vehicles by the rated horsepower. it's illegal to modify their engines on their own vehicles. while they have lead the way in abolishing slavery, equal rights for women, and child labor reform, even their police are unarmed. how safe would any of us feel if our police were unarmed? their society is different than ours, granted, but freedoms that we take for granted are freedoms that they don't have. it's debatable for the greater good or not, but many Americans cannot remember our Bill of Rights, let alone truly debate the Bill of RIghts to the freedoms (or lack thereof) of other NATO countries.
we forget that women can speak out, marry whom they choose, vote, serve in the military. we accept that as day to day norm. yet, we forget that women in the middle east in only few countries have the right to show their hair or even their faces. they are not allowed education in many countries there. their families can mutilate their genitals for religion. they are viewed as property in some forums there. the freedom of the women there is still so far behind us, let alone how many of the men there are often deprived of what we take for granted as general human freedoms. speaking out against the current regime, let alone females participating, is still a risk of life. do we here in the United States even understand that risk? nope. i don't care how bleeding heart we are; we have no concept.
i love the saying "all we are is all we know". i'll admit that i don't know what it's like to have no right to vote or be "property" or be facing life imprisonment or death because i have spoken my mind about my government. i don't know what it's like to be told where i can or cannot go. i have no concept of 50 foot walls that block me from my own land because the fears of what i might do in the middle of the night to my neighbor. i have no idea what it is like there. there is not anyone in our great country that can--unless they came from over there.
yes, some of our military has had a taste. some of us have traveled there or have friends that are from there that explain what it's like. we can talk about it. we can offer our support or not. we can debate the sides, but we cannot know what it's like to have the freedoms that we take for granted taken away--or worse yet, to have never had them at all. so, the next time the casted shadow of what freedoms we don't have comes over you...consider that this is the free-ist country in the world. next time that a debate gets started amongst friends, note that for all of our faults, we are free or that debate wouldn't even get started.
egypt wants freedom to choose. they want a man who, perhaps, has been a US ally and was an egyptian war hero, to step down as their president. he has held that position for over 30 years. we, Americans, forget that our first President, George Washington, voluntarily stepped down after two terms (8 years for those of you that forgot your American history). we forget that FDR served 4 terms, totally 16 years, and that our great-grandparents and grandparents, were so afraid of the amount of power that he accumulated over that long of a period--to the point of changing our laws to only allow a maximum of two terms for the President. it's a reality. we know the amount of power that people like edward kennedy and strom thurman had after decades in Congress. the power that they wielded decided our policies for decades and we may or may not be better for the wear. we often cry that our congressmen and senators do not hear us. why would they if we vote them into office like sheep to the slaughter? yet, our vote counts. we know it does. even when we imagine that our candidate was wronged by chaff or by uncounted absentee votes, we know that our system works better than almost all others. the right to vote, the concept of all people having a say--male, female, old, young, regardless of race and religion--that is our creation. we take it for granted, never realizing how many people in this world do not have that right. egyptians want that right. can we blame them?
china is having similar problems. there are parts of china that are off-limits to westerners, and we turn the blind eye because of the all mighty dollar. there's a power struggle going on there between the communist party (yes, people, they are still "commies"), their leadership and their military. they've maintained control over north korea for decades, and now north korea has become more and more emboldened. either china is losing control over north korea or they are pulling those strings. that is still an iron fist over there--regardless of whether it's getting rusty or has a more conniving hand now. we forget (or overlook) the death mobiles (mobile death sentence vans), the jailing or disappearances of anyone that speaks openly against the communist party or current leadership, the forced takeover of tibet, the lack of religious freedoms, the threats to the sea of japan and other territorial waters surrounding the area, and the tight control over the internet. for what? the almighty dollar perhaps. but, there will come a time that inequity there will rise up again. we like to say they've come a long way. no doubt. but they are not even close to the freedoms that we enjoy daily.
even some of our european cousins have limited freedoms. the british are monitored all over the UK with government cameras. they can't own a gun except for hunting. they pay even more outrageous taxes than we do at equivalent income levels. they even pay taxes on their vehicles by the rated horsepower. it's illegal to modify their engines on their own vehicles. while they have lead the way in abolishing slavery, equal rights for women, and child labor reform, even their police are unarmed. how safe would any of us feel if our police were unarmed? their society is different than ours, granted, but freedoms that we take for granted are freedoms that they don't have. it's debatable for the greater good or not, but many Americans cannot remember our Bill of Rights, let alone truly debate the Bill of RIghts to the freedoms (or lack thereof) of other NATO countries.
we forget that women can speak out, marry whom they choose, vote, serve in the military. we accept that as day to day norm. yet, we forget that women in the middle east in only few countries have the right to show their hair or even their faces. they are not allowed education in many countries there. their families can mutilate their genitals for religion. they are viewed as property in some forums there. the freedom of the women there is still so far behind us, let alone how many of the men there are often deprived of what we take for granted as general human freedoms. speaking out against the current regime, let alone females participating, is still a risk of life. do we here in the United States even understand that risk? nope. i don't care how bleeding heart we are; we have no concept.
i love the saying "all we are is all we know". i'll admit that i don't know what it's like to have no right to vote or be "property" or be facing life imprisonment or death because i have spoken my mind about my government. i don't know what it's like to be told where i can or cannot go. i have no concept of 50 foot walls that block me from my own land because the fears of what i might do in the middle of the night to my neighbor. i have no idea what it is like there. there is not anyone in our great country that can--unless they came from over there.
yes, some of our military has had a taste. some of us have traveled there or have friends that are from there that explain what it's like. we can talk about it. we can offer our support or not. we can debate the sides, but we cannot know what it's like to have the freedoms that we take for granted taken away--or worse yet, to have never had them at all. so, the next time the casted shadow of what freedoms we don't have comes over you...consider that this is the free-ist country in the world. next time that a debate gets started amongst friends, note that for all of our faults, we are free or that debate wouldn't even get started.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
go...pack!? go...steelers?!
people that know me well know that i am generally a football fanatic. it's the only sport that i follow college teams and pro. i have my wolverines; i'm partial to the gators. i'm clemson alum, so of course, i love my tigers. i'm a closet (ok, not so closet since i'm typing it here) lions fan. i'm a huge raiders fan that is still in boycott after the chucky thing. (al, that was our lombardi trophy you old coot and proof positive that you have no business running my team anymore!!) i'm still considering recinding my boycott because i'm completely convinced that al davis is some sort of cyborg now that will never die or sell my team. i've taken over the years to substitutions: the jaguars (although my loyalty to them left with tom coughlin), the giants (because of tom coughlin), the chiefs (because marcus allen is in my opinion one of the greatest running backs of all time--in spite of al davis), the dawg pound (mainly because it was crappy to take the team away to baltimore),...well, suffice to say, i love my football.
this year leaves me in a bit of quandary. i'm quite pleased overall to see the cheeseheads going to the super bowl. they have earned it, and it really is great icing on the cake of brett farve's baked petootie. :) the green bay packers are not only one of the oldest teams in the league, but they have a rich football history. vince lombardi--duh, lombardi trophy--one of the greatest coaches ever. the team was founded in lambeau field in 1919. they are one of the few teams that has NEVER moved. the cowboys can't say that--they were originally in kansas city and not even called the cowboys. the pack won the first 2 official super bowls: in '66 against the kansas city chiefs and in '67 against my precious raiders (who won in '68 with the youngest head coach to win until chucky won with the bucs--anyone? anyone? john "annoying voice from hell" madden)...brett farve, super bowl mvp desmond howard (wolverine heisman trophy recipient)...i mean come on!! who can't love this team?!?!
the packers are even fan owned (and up until recently--the dawg pound) were the only nfl team that could say that. they have an extraordinarily loyal fan base, because the fans own them!! they aren't the high dollar team that jerry jones or al davis could put together. but no matter what jerry jones says, or cowboy fans say, this is truly one of America's teams. fan owned, fan driven and players are generally fiercely loyal to this team (bar the idiot farve...). cheeseheads will don their green and yellow, their mouse attracting hats, and face winter storms that send the rest of us into hibernation just to be out there supporting their team!! again, come on!! who can't love this team!?!?! (ok, shut up if you're a vikings fan.)
other the other side of the fence this year: the pittsburgh steelers. pittsburgh is the epitome of hard-working blue collar town. this is a steel mill town and when the steel industry took a big hit, the pittsburgh steelers gave this town--hell, the entire steel community of pennsylvania-- something to believe in. pittsburgh isn't the easiest place to be. fierce winters with the raging lake effect off the great lakes plummeting the city even when other great lakes towns are having mild weather. three rivers stadium--one of the most recognized historical sports sites, became their home in 1970. it is also, like lambeau field, one of the nfl's few stadiums that remains an outdoor location. the fan base must equally brave the cold to root for their home team. the steeler nation spawls the country. you can't get away from going into a sports bar on a sunday anywhere in the country and not see someone wearing the trademark black, gold and white. they're a very loyal crowd--win or lose.
the steelers have earned that loyalty. the steelers were founded in 1933 (not quite as old as the pack). they were originally the pirates...(hahaha, no, they played football). i'm pretty sure they're the only nfl team that can claim a former player went on to become a supreme court justice. (don't let the blue collar roots fool you; there is a lot of smarts in those roots!!) they've got a roster of great players: terry bradshaw, mean joe greene, jack lambert, jerome bettis, mel blount, hines ward, lynn swann--just to name a few. it's a hard-core team, known for it's hard playing tempo. big ben (roethlisberger) is their 3rd offensive rookie of the year. he was a gamble, but he fits the steeler mould--big, fast, hard hitting, and underestimated..at first. i'm a big ben fan in spite of his apparent off-field antics that may sooner or later prove that he's a chauvinistic pig that needs to have his *ss kicked. (i'm saving my opinion for more data...)
ok, so i can't make up my mind. there's not really an underdog this year (everyone knows i love an underdog). the bookies initially gave it to the steelers--until all the pack fans ran out there betting on their team. but reality: it should be a damn good game. close, down to the wire, knock down, drag out, kicking *ss and taking numbers on both sides!! i like both the quarterbacks. i don't think rodgers is as strong-willed as big ben, but he's straight-forward, direct, and exhibits good leadership qualities. not really a fan of either of the coaches, and the teams are pretty much equally matched. no real favorites for me to side with. honestly, i may just have to go by colors this year. not big on green--makes me look putrid and pale. black, on the other hand, is always flattering on anyone and everyone (even me). yes, i know it's a ridiculous way to choose who to root for. but even after writing this blog, it's all i've got to go on. maybe i'll just break my boycott, go buy a raiders jersey (they should be cheap now), and wear it...
this year leaves me in a bit of quandary. i'm quite pleased overall to see the cheeseheads going to the super bowl. they have earned it, and it really is great icing on the cake of brett farve's baked petootie. :) the green bay packers are not only one of the oldest teams in the league, but they have a rich football history. vince lombardi--duh, lombardi trophy--one of the greatest coaches ever. the team was founded in lambeau field in 1919. they are one of the few teams that has NEVER moved. the cowboys can't say that--they were originally in kansas city and not even called the cowboys. the pack won the first 2 official super bowls: in '66 against the kansas city chiefs and in '67 against my precious raiders (who won in '68 with the youngest head coach to win until chucky won with the bucs--anyone? anyone? john "annoying voice from hell" madden)...brett farve, super bowl mvp desmond howard (wolverine heisman trophy recipient)...i mean come on!! who can't love this team?!?!
the packers are even fan owned (and up until recently--the dawg pound) were the only nfl team that could say that. they have an extraordinarily loyal fan base, because the fans own them!! they aren't the high dollar team that jerry jones or al davis could put together. but no matter what jerry jones says, or cowboy fans say, this is truly one of America's teams. fan owned, fan driven and players are generally fiercely loyal to this team (bar the idiot farve...). cheeseheads will don their green and yellow, their mouse attracting hats, and face winter storms that send the rest of us into hibernation just to be out there supporting their team!! again, come on!! who can't love this team!?!?! (ok, shut up if you're a vikings fan.)
other the other side of the fence this year: the pittsburgh steelers. pittsburgh is the epitome of hard-working blue collar town. this is a steel mill town and when the steel industry took a big hit, the pittsburgh steelers gave this town--hell, the entire steel community of pennsylvania-- something to believe in. pittsburgh isn't the easiest place to be. fierce winters with the raging lake effect off the great lakes plummeting the city even when other great lakes towns are having mild weather. three rivers stadium--one of the most recognized historical sports sites, became their home in 1970. it is also, like lambeau field, one of the nfl's few stadiums that remains an outdoor location. the fan base must equally brave the cold to root for their home team. the steeler nation spawls the country. you can't get away from going into a sports bar on a sunday anywhere in the country and not see someone wearing the trademark black, gold and white. they're a very loyal crowd--win or lose.
the steelers have earned that loyalty. the steelers were founded in 1933 (not quite as old as the pack). they were originally the pirates...(hahaha, no, they played football). i'm pretty sure they're the only nfl team that can claim a former player went on to become a supreme court justice. (don't let the blue collar roots fool you; there is a lot of smarts in those roots!!) they've got a roster of great players: terry bradshaw, mean joe greene, jack lambert, jerome bettis, mel blount, hines ward, lynn swann--just to name a few. it's a hard-core team, known for it's hard playing tempo. big ben (roethlisberger) is their 3rd offensive rookie of the year. he was a gamble, but he fits the steeler mould--big, fast, hard hitting, and underestimated..at first. i'm a big ben fan in spite of his apparent off-field antics that may sooner or later prove that he's a chauvinistic pig that needs to have his *ss kicked. (i'm saving my opinion for more data...)
ok, so i can't make up my mind. there's not really an underdog this year (everyone knows i love an underdog). the bookies initially gave it to the steelers--until all the pack fans ran out there betting on their team. but reality: it should be a damn good game. close, down to the wire, knock down, drag out, kicking *ss and taking numbers on both sides!! i like both the quarterbacks. i don't think rodgers is as strong-willed as big ben, but he's straight-forward, direct, and exhibits good leadership qualities. not really a fan of either of the coaches, and the teams are pretty much equally matched. no real favorites for me to side with. honestly, i may just have to go by colors this year. not big on green--makes me look putrid and pale. black, on the other hand, is always flattering on anyone and everyone (even me). yes, i know it's a ridiculous way to choose who to root for. but even after writing this blog, it's all i've got to go on. maybe i'll just break my boycott, go buy a raiders jersey (they should be cheap now), and wear it...
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
if you don't like it, don't ask
There are two things about me that people either love about me or that completely pisses them off. One is that I’m honest, almost to a fault. I call it like I see it. I genuinely make an effort to be fair and form an opinion on facts and actual observations; if someone sleeps with 50 people in 90 days, well, a spade is a spade (or in this case a slut is a slut). I truly believe honesty is the best policy in almost all circumstances. The other is that I have an opinion—on just about everything. I grew up differently from some people--ok, perhaps most. In my family, if you didn’t have an opinion, well, you’d better go out, research, read, watch the news, listen to others, and form one. Family has a lot to do with how you view the world, particularly when you are younger. They formulate who you are with actions, reactions and often, for the better (or worse). I don’t feel any worse the wear. I have other friends that became interested in the world at a younger age--that are well read, pay attention to the world around them, and are some of the most fascinating people I know. So I consider myself blessed to be included in such a group. Besides, honest and opinionated, is, well, better than dishonest and no opinion. Perhaps it's the “no opinion” that makes it ok to be dishonest to some. Like the saying goes, “you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”
While some people are ok with a fib, white lie, a flat-out whopper, I just generally can’t reconcile with anything more than a fib. I’d rather hear the truth, even though it will hurt, than listen to a lie, be perfectly content, then find out it was a lie. The hurt that follows the truth never adds up to finding out someone lied and the truth on top of it. There’s a country song that goes “wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then”, but the truth is when something hurts us we’d all like to wind the clock back. Period. Facing that someone abused your trust on top of it—well, forget it. I’ve known people that would rather not know. Of course, sometimes the worst lies that we tell are the lies we tell ourselves. They say (and I agree) that you cannot love someone else until you love yourself. But honestly, honesty is one of those things that kind of works in reverse of love. Honesty—well, you can’t be honest with yourself if you can’t be honest with others.
The second thing that either you love about me (or not) is the fact that I have an opinion--on a lot of things, ideas, concepts, politics, tv shows, advice columns... On the rare occasions that I don't have an opinion, I’ll simply say that I don't have an opinion. But, like I stated earlier, we have to stand for something or we'll fall for anything. I stand up for what I believe in. I don't have to like someone to agree with them, and I don't have to dislike someone to disagree with them. We should be open-minded enough to disagree with friends and agree with people that we don't like. I can't stand Sarah Palin--I've listened to her rhetoric, read her self-promoting trash, and evaluated her low level of honesty. She's an attention monger--a drama queen to the umpteenth degree--that happens to have that "girl next door" act down pat. I have a friend that loves her--not because she thinks she's smart enough to be President, but because she finds her amusing. Obviously, we disagree. On the other hand, there's a guy I know that I can't stand who shares my opinion of the attention vampiress. Doesn't mean I want to be his best buddy. This isn't high school, so we can think for ourselves and agree to disagree. I'll criticize another common saying here: Opinions aren't like *ssholes. They're our brains; we all have them and it's better when we use them.
In my family, we debated all kinds of things. Debate is a fine artform that few of us have an appreciation for. Sometimes, like in a real debate, I didn't get to argue for what I believed or agreed with. Sometimes, I had to argue the opposite point of view. That's how a real debate works. We have to learn enough about both sides of an issue to offer a sound argument for and against. I grew up debating issues, some past, some present, some that could occur in the future—what-ifs. A good debator already has a grasp on the argument being made by the opposing side, and therefore, can intelligibly respond with a counter-argument. Yet so many people simply think their "opinion" is the only one that counts and that’s it. That is not opinionated; it is ignorance. And in spite of the saying, ignorance is not bliss. Is a slave in bliss as long as they’ve never tasted freedom? It’s a stupid saying. (Ok, my opinion, take it for what it’s worth.) Debate is about seeing, understanding, contemplating the two sides of an argument, and then coming to a conclusion, recognizing your own opinion on the issue, and understanding not just why you like the side you’ve chosen—but why you don’t like the side you’ve settled against.
When I was younger, my family would debate issues at dinner, on holidays, for hours in the evening instead of turning on, what my grandmother called, the boob tube. We were expected to be able to debate both sides, have a thought on the table, bring something new to the table, contribute to the discussion. It wasn’t about “right” or “wrong”. Opinions aren’t actually about right or wrong. Life is not so easily black and white. It mattered not whether it was sitting around the dinner table, the fireplace toasting marshmallows, over yahtzee or a penny poker game. The debates ranged from the President—Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan—to much more controversial stuff like AIDS. When AIDS broke out in the early 80s, my one aunt became fixated on it. It became regular debate material for the better portion of a decade. I knew more about AIDS by the time I graduated high school than most people will ever know in their lifetime. Of course, most of the family did not take the side of my aunt who thought it would be an epidemic, a cancer, that needed immediate funding to stop the disaster that she saw coming. I avoided this debate like the plague (again, excuse any pun). Of course, honesty got me out of it—when questioned, I simply bowed out by saying since I had no experience whatsoever with how it was passed, I simply couldn’t argue the risk versus the reward. (See honesty in this case paid off big!!!) On the downside though, I knew everything from how it passed from person to person to the actual effectiveness of various forms of protection. Like I’ve already stated, debate in my family was the norm. All of my aunts and uncles would prep--read and study up in between family holidays--to be poised for this particular elephant when my aunt would tow it into the room. Even now when I see or hear something about it, I skim over it, let it settle in my mind, and then decide how I view the newest information that science, religion, philosophy or even sometimes the crackpots, have provided for my consumption as if I’m preparing 3 x 5 mental cards for the great debate over turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie.
So, I come by my opinions by method: Take in as much information as I can, verbal (tv, others, radio, etc.), visual (read, tv, newspapers, magazines, etc.) and then evaluate what I think...and then formulate my opinion. I know the pluses of my opinion (and even the minuses). I'll re-evaluate with new information. Weighing the new information for quality of information, amount of new information, source, and sometimes (shockingly) even change my opinion. If someone doesn't like me because of my honest opinions, well, I have an opinion on that too. My opinion: I know who I am and I'm ok with that. If you're not ok with who you are, well, to adlib a little on another saying, then you'll never be ok with who I am.
While some people are ok with a fib, white lie, a flat-out whopper, I just generally can’t reconcile with anything more than a fib. I’d rather hear the truth, even though it will hurt, than listen to a lie, be perfectly content, then find out it was a lie. The hurt that follows the truth never adds up to finding out someone lied and the truth on top of it. There’s a country song that goes “wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then”, but the truth is when something hurts us we’d all like to wind the clock back. Period. Facing that someone abused your trust on top of it—well, forget it. I’ve known people that would rather not know. Of course, sometimes the worst lies that we tell are the lies we tell ourselves. They say (and I agree) that you cannot love someone else until you love yourself. But honestly, honesty is one of those things that kind of works in reverse of love. Honesty—well, you can’t be honest with yourself if you can’t be honest with others.
The second thing that either you love about me (or not) is the fact that I have an opinion--on a lot of things, ideas, concepts, politics, tv shows, advice columns... On the rare occasions that I don't have an opinion, I’ll simply say that I don't have an opinion. But, like I stated earlier, we have to stand for something or we'll fall for anything. I stand up for what I believe in. I don't have to like someone to agree with them, and I don't have to dislike someone to disagree with them. We should be open-minded enough to disagree with friends and agree with people that we don't like. I can't stand Sarah Palin--I've listened to her rhetoric, read her self-promoting trash, and evaluated her low level of honesty. She's an attention monger--a drama queen to the umpteenth degree--that happens to have that "girl next door" act down pat. I have a friend that loves her--not because she thinks she's smart enough to be President, but because she finds her amusing. Obviously, we disagree. On the other hand, there's a guy I know that I can't stand who shares my opinion of the attention vampiress. Doesn't mean I want to be his best buddy. This isn't high school, so we can think for ourselves and agree to disagree. I'll criticize another common saying here: Opinions aren't like *ssholes. They're our brains; we all have them and it's better when we use them.
In my family, we debated all kinds of things. Debate is a fine artform that few of us have an appreciation for. Sometimes, like in a real debate, I didn't get to argue for what I believed or agreed with. Sometimes, I had to argue the opposite point of view. That's how a real debate works. We have to learn enough about both sides of an issue to offer a sound argument for and against. I grew up debating issues, some past, some present, some that could occur in the future—what-ifs. A good debator already has a grasp on the argument being made by the opposing side, and therefore, can intelligibly respond with a counter-argument. Yet so many people simply think their "opinion" is the only one that counts and that’s it. That is not opinionated; it is ignorance. And in spite of the saying, ignorance is not bliss. Is a slave in bliss as long as they’ve never tasted freedom? It’s a stupid saying. (Ok, my opinion, take it for what it’s worth.) Debate is about seeing, understanding, contemplating the two sides of an argument, and then coming to a conclusion, recognizing your own opinion on the issue, and understanding not just why you like the side you’ve chosen—but why you don’t like the side you’ve settled against.
When I was younger, my family would debate issues at dinner, on holidays, for hours in the evening instead of turning on, what my grandmother called, the boob tube. We were expected to be able to debate both sides, have a thought on the table, bring something new to the table, contribute to the discussion. It wasn’t about “right” or “wrong”. Opinions aren’t actually about right or wrong. Life is not so easily black and white. It mattered not whether it was sitting around the dinner table, the fireplace toasting marshmallows, over yahtzee or a penny poker game. The debates ranged from the President—Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan—to much more controversial stuff like AIDS. When AIDS broke out in the early 80s, my one aunt became fixated on it. It became regular debate material for the better portion of a decade. I knew more about AIDS by the time I graduated high school than most people will ever know in their lifetime. Of course, most of the family did not take the side of my aunt who thought it would be an epidemic, a cancer, that needed immediate funding to stop the disaster that she saw coming. I avoided this debate like the plague (again, excuse any pun). Of course, honesty got me out of it—when questioned, I simply bowed out by saying since I had no experience whatsoever with how it was passed, I simply couldn’t argue the risk versus the reward. (See honesty in this case paid off big!!!) On the downside though, I knew everything from how it passed from person to person to the actual effectiveness of various forms of protection. Like I’ve already stated, debate in my family was the norm. All of my aunts and uncles would prep--read and study up in between family holidays--to be poised for this particular elephant when my aunt would tow it into the room. Even now when I see or hear something about it, I skim over it, let it settle in my mind, and then decide how I view the newest information that science, religion, philosophy or even sometimes the crackpots, have provided for my consumption as if I’m preparing 3 x 5 mental cards for the great debate over turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie.
So, I come by my opinions by method: Take in as much information as I can, verbal (tv, others, radio, etc.), visual (read, tv, newspapers, magazines, etc.) and then evaluate what I think...and then formulate my opinion. I know the pluses of my opinion (and even the minuses). I'll re-evaluate with new information. Weighing the new information for quality of information, amount of new information, source, and sometimes (shockingly) even change my opinion. If someone doesn't like me because of my honest opinions, well, I have an opinion on that too. My opinion: I know who I am and I'm ok with that. If you're not ok with who you are, well, to adlib a little on another saying, then you'll never be ok with who I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)