Friday, December 8, 2017

Nonsense from a Diva

The injured diva receiver for the hapless Giants posted a video which he claims demonstrates a double standard for the way he is treated after a sideline rant versus how Tom Brady is treated. For those dimwits who don't understand (i.e. everyone on ESPN's SportsNation yesterday, one of who subtlety threw the race card while the other three nodded knowingly), this is why they are treated differently:

  • In general, the quarterback is the leader and the voice of the offense. It is in his job description to tell the other players what to do, emphatically if necessary. A large percentage of wide receivers are selfish divas who usually open their mouths just to complain about their individual stats. For them to inject their selfish complaints into the in-game process is just unnecessary, distracting noise.
  • Specific to these two players: Brady has 18 years of experience and is the winningest quarterback of all time, including five championships. It is impossible to deny that the team wins because of Brady. Yes, he yells at teammates and coaches once in a while, then 78% of the time they win the game. The diva receiver's team has won 44% of the games in which he has played.

Last year, the only season the Giants have been any good during the diva's four years, he was widely criticized for his actions leading up to the team's playoff game. Then after he came up small during that game, a 38-13 loss, the New York Post described him as a sobbing mess. In that article, the diva's own teammate threw him under the bus: "Giants linebacker Jonathan Casillas, a team captain who is close with Beckham, actually said the moment on Sunday 'might have been too much’ for Beckham." Astounding.

The diva receiver's biggest accomplishment was in a game three years ago that the Giants lost, a one-handed catch. Look at South Dakota State highlights and you'll see tight end Dallas Goedert doing that every week.

Piling on with a few more numbers: In the playoffs, Brady has 9,094 yards passing for 63 touchdowns, another 6 touchdowns rushing, team record 25-9 with five Super Bowl championships. The diva's playoff record is four catches for 28 yards, three dropped passes, and an 0-1 team record. This year, Brady has 3,632 yards passing (leads league) with 26 touchdowns and a team record of 10-2 (leads league). Diva has 25 catches for 302 yards and three touchdowns with a team record of 0-4 with him and 2-6 since he got injured. Is this video just a narcissistic cry for attention as he languishes unnoticed on the injured list?

On one hand we have the most accomplished on-field leader in NFL history. On the other we have a selfish diva on a team that loses most of the time, and the one time he had a chance to shine in a playoff game he fell flat on his face. Apparently that meets L.Z. Granderson's definition of a race-based double standard.

Monday, October 30, 2017

Not going to happen

The Patriots are down to one (great) quarterback after trading Jimmy G to the 49ers. Here come the tweets saying the Patriots should sign Colin Kaepernick, who according to some sources used to be a quarterback. (Who knew?) The "reasoning" in a tweet from someone named Ron Clements is that no one would second guess Belichick or Kraft if they did such a thing.

So Bill Belichick, whose father was in the Navy during WWII, who grew up on the campus of the Naval Academy playing catch with Roger "Captain America" Staubach, who recently narrated a WWII documentary, is going to be the guy who steps forward to sign a Castro-loving, America-hating SJW to be the backup quarterback? And Bob Kraft would be OK with that? Bill has made a lot of surprising personnel moves over the years, but that one would Trump all of them by 1,000,000x. Capitalization intentional.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Conspiracy Theory

Bob McNair, owner of the NFL's Houston Texans, managed to piss off all of his players and plenty of other players from around the league by butchering the cliche about inmates running the asylum in relation to the silly national anthem controversy. I actually understand why players might be feeling disrespected, especially when you substitute "prison" for "asylum," as McNair did.

But wait, said McNair, the prisoners I was referring to were not the players, but staffers in the league office who he apparently believes have been too out in front on this issue to the detriment of the owners. From their reactions, it is apparent the players did not believe this explanation.

No matter, everyone involved looks bad. The owners are disorganized idiots, the league office panders to the players as if it is running a Clinton campaign, and the players are petulant brats living in a perpetual state of outrage in reaction to every slight, real or imagined.

But wait, I have a conspiracy theory. The protests were sort of dying down until The Donald stirred things up about six weeks ago. Since then Trump had been goading the owners into taking stronger action and the league has been in turmoil. Why would Donald do this to the owners, who presumably are his buddies in the old white billionaire fraternity?

Consider Trump's history with pro football. After failing in an attempt to buy the Baltimore Colts, Trump bought a team in the USFL in 1983 with the goal of competing with and perhaps forcing a merger with the NFL. After the USFL hit the rocks, he led a monopoly lawsuit against the NFL. The USFL won the lawsuit but was awarded only $3 in damages. He failed in attempts to buy the New England Patriots in the late 80's and the Buffalo Bills in 2014. A quote attributed to Burt Reynolds, a minority owner in another USFL team, said Trump's "dream was to be in the National Football League. And they didn't want him."

So was this recent kerfuffle stoked to an inferno by Trump to stick it to the guys who wouldn't let him in their club? His core white trash supporters get to be mad both at pampered black athletes for disrespecting the flag, the military and the country, and at rich CEOs for not "putting them in their place." Isn't such scheming beneath the dignity of the office of President of the United States of America? Of course it is, but we're talking about Donald Trump here.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

1st Amendment

The national anthem thing involving NFL players was in the process of dying down until the Tweeter In Chief injected life into it. I watch the NFL because I like the strategy and the action and don't give a damn about who sits, who kneels, and who stays in the locker room. As long as my two favorite quarterbacks Brady and Rodgers are slinging it, I don't care about peripheral issues.

I do think one thing needs to be mentioned about this: The First Amendment to the Constitution does NOT say, "Your employer can't can your ass if you say something they don't like." Have 99% of the people who cry "First Amendment" ever read these words?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment guarantees that you can't be thrown in jail for expressing your opinions. It doesn't say anything about other consequences. Colin Kaepernick has not been jailed for his sitting and kneeling (or for supporting the murderous dictators Castro), but no one is required to give him a job. Yes I despise him, but that is because he made the Packers look foolish in a playoff game, not because of his political views.

I admit I don't want him on my team, but I'm going to claim (you can choose whether or not to believe me) it is because the job of being an NFL quarterback requires extreme attention to detail, and he doesn't have time in his busy Social Justice Warrior schedule to be an NFL quarterback. Brady has done everything he can to avoid being drawn into the political arena after the fourth estate pounced on his indiscretion of displaying a hat from a golfing buddy who happened to be running for President. Since then everyone has assumed Brady is a Trump supporter, but will someone please point me to any statement by Brady supporting any of Trump's policy agenda. Brady's roles in life are father, husband, philanthropist, NFL quarterback, and TB12 pitchman (hopefully in that order), and he doesn't have the time or inclination to be controversial.

Maybe a player at another position could pull off being a part-time player and part-time SJW, but not a quarterback. I don't think the skepticism surrounding Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett regarding his fictionalized account of a confrontation with Vegas police has affected his performance on the field. Maybe Kaepernick should switch positions. Punters and kickers have plenty of free time.

Oct. 26 update: Receiver Anquan Bolin retired from the Bills in August to devote his life to social activism. A return to football was out of the question, he said at the time. Last week the Bills gave Boldin's agent permission to negotiate a trade so Boldin can start drawing a paycheck again. Turns out that being a SJW doesn't pay very well.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Kneel, stay in the locker room, whatever...

Sometimes I imagine myself as a time traveler, viewing the moment as an outsider and trying to put it in some greater context. What would someone from another time and place think about the uproar over The Donald's NFL comments and subsequent actions by the players?

As a time traveler from elsewhere, I don't feel obligated to take sides. I'll just observe that far too many people feel they have the right and obligation to tell others how to behave. This country is supposed to be about freedom and liberty. Instead we have politicians (not just Donald) who pay lip service to such ideals while working furiously to gain power and wield it over others. Well screw you Donald (and Nancy and Chuck), you don't tell me how to live or what to watch.

In fact, having spent more than 60 years on this earth, I am sort of a time traveler. Back in the '60's, I became aware of the NFL at the height of the Packer dynasty. Just after the turn of the century, I was living two exits down from Foxborough where a young backup was called on to hold the Patriot fort until Drew Bledsoe could return. At the end of Sunday's games, I was happy because my two favorite teams (who coincidentally have the two best quarterbacks) had dramatic comeback victories. Meanwhile, most of the deplorables got humiliated, namely the Giants, Seachickens, Raiders and Ravens.

I understand why some people got upset with Donald's speech and subsequent tweets. I refuse to take the bait. Every epoch has its demagogues and heroes. It's hard to ignore someone when they are the President, but demagogues don't deserve our attention. Let's find some heroes of freedom and liberty on whom to lavish our attention.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Another boycott

I am boycotting United Airlines. Not because they pummeled a passenger for being unwilling to be "re-accommodated," but because flying in general is a miserable experience and United is the worst of the worst. Denver is 650 miles away. You can say I have no choice but United when flying from FSD to DEN, which is true, but I have a choice besides flying. I would rather spend all day driving across scenic Nebraska than subject myself to being stuck in a tube and flung across the sky.

Fortunately, as of yesterday, I am unemployed and won't have to fly to one of the coasts anytime soon.

I've always had two rules about investing. Never buy auto companies, and never buy airlines. United's stock got pummeled like an elderly doctor after the incident. It probably will recover in the short term, but in the long term an airline stock is just too volatile for anyone but speculators.

Final takeaway: In my 30 years of business travel, I noticed that hotels got a lot better and airlines got a lot worse. Why is that? Hotels started feeding customers and airlines stopped, but that's just a small part of it. I usually enjoy staying in hotels, the Embassy Suites in San Diego being a rare exception, but flying is a descent into hell. I haven't even mentioned the power-mad pervs at TSA. I don't know what the global solution is, but for me the solution is to avoid airports as much as possible.

Sunday, February 26, 2017


Some conservative types say the Oscars should be boycotted because dimwitted Hollywood types will spend all night attacking Trump. But in my case, is it really a boycott if I never intended to watch? I watch movies, but I don't watch movie award shows. Let's put it in terms of sports. I watch sports, but I think the Espys awards show is the stupidest thing ever. Brady is great, not because he got voted as MVP or All-Pro or Espy winner X number of times, but because he has won more games and Super Bowls than any quarterback ever. No one got to vote on that. An actor isn't great because they won an Oscar, they are great because of their work. I mean, William Shatner has never won an Oscar. C'mon!

Monday, February 20, 2017

What were they thinking?

One of the great things about living in flyover country is most of the left-wing nuts live on the coasts, and the right-wing nuts who live here are mostly harmless. But every once in a while, Progressives discover a cause that brings them in contact with the middle of America.

Such was the case with the Dakota Access pipeline. Despite the fact that it isn't much different than hundreds of pipelines that already exist, its construction in North Dakota became a cause celebre. Leo flew in on his private jet that apparently runs on sunbeams, not the oil that is the reason the pipeline is being built. The Green Party presidential candidate got in the act by publicly committing vandalism. Up to 4,000 people camped at the remote site for six months.

Now as we approach spring, the Corps of Engineers, the county, and the Standing Rock tribe are frantically trying to clean up the site before spring floods wash months of excrement and garbage into the Missouri River, polluting the very water supply that the protesters claimed they wanted to protect.

What were these activists thinking when they encouraged thousands of people to join them in a desolate area miles from the nearest toilet and stay there for months? The answer is, they weren't thinking. They were just going around protesting and being outraged and never once considering that they are ridiculous hypocrites causing the type of environmental disaster they claimed to be against.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

The Art of Being Scientific

The movie 1984 was on TV last night, which got me thinking about groupthink. According to Psychology Today, "Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus." The book on which the movie is based came out in 1949, but George Orwell's message seems unheeded 68 years later. It is disconcerting to see many college campuses become bastions of intolerant Progressive groupthink. One example of Progressive groupthink is:

"The science is settled."

Any time you hear those words, check to see if your wallet is missing.

The words are used to justify an aggressive agenda regarding climate change. The chain of reasoning is:

  • (a) there is climate change,
  • (b) it is caused by humans,
  • (c) there are actions humans can take to slow or reverse climate change,
  • (d) therefore the United States should discourage or ban use of all types of fossil fuels.

Dispute any link in that chain of statements and one can get labeled as a "denier," an intentional use of disparaging language by Progressives to link their opponents with lunatics who deny the Holocaust. According to this line of reasoning, "science" dictates that item (d) must happen, therefore anyone who disagrees is anti-science.

Science is a method of inquiry. It is never settled. There is always more to be discovered. To claim otherwise, to claim that you are in possession of the only truth, is unscientific. My personal view on the above statements, if anyone cares, is:

  • (a) has been true for billions of years,
  • (b) is true but we don't know to what extent,
  • (c) if true are probably unachievable, and
  • (d) would be a futile gesture in a world where billions of Chinese, Indians and Africans aspire to a higher standard of living and are going to keep burning coal and oil.

What happens when Progressives line up on the other side of the science debate? An example is the fight against GMOs (genetically modified organisms). See this link about golden rice, which could help cure many diseases linked to vitamin A deficiency. Groups such as Greenpeace would deny this benefit to millions of people in the underdeveloped world due to unproven suppositions that GMOs are inherently bad. I found the following quote in this interesting link about former anti-GMO activist Mark Lynas:

"One of the case studies that really changed my mind about this was the saga of golden rice, which was developed to be vitamin A-enhanced, because something like a quarter million children per year die from a vitamin A deficiencies in developing countries, particularly in South Asia ... Greenpeace has been waging a campaign to stop this rice from ever being developed ... You can make a pretty strong case that tens of thousands of children have died because they were denied access to this purely because it's GM, and there is a ideological bias against that."

The problem, not just with Progressives but with adherents of many beliefs, is they tend to look for information confirming their biases rather than being truly skeptical. Society today has too many believers and not enough skeptics. In that way, have we really advanced much since the religious inquisitions of Medieval Europe? Now, instead of religious zealots, we have environmental zealots. But only 2,000 deaths were attributed to the Spanish Inquisition, so it can be argued that the social justice warriors at Greenpeace have killed far more people than those reviled monsters from history. Warriors indeed.

Maybe we rely on belief and groupthink because the universe is so complicated that it is impossible for one person to understand more than a small fraction of what the human race has discovered, and so much remains undiscovered. When it comes to science and the man on the street, a certain amount of faith is necessary. I have no way to prove that the sun is 93 million miles away, but there don't seem to be any sun distance deniers out there so I feel safe in accepting that someone has proven that the sun is 93 million miles away. But as the questions become more complicated, skepticism is necessary for scientists and even for the man on the street.

About 90 years ago Edwin Hubble discovered that there are other galaxies and the universe is expanding. After getting over that shock, the scientific community then presumed that the expansion was slowing because, well, it just made sense that it had to be because everything in the universe has gravity. In 1998, two groups tried to measure how much the expansion was slowing and instead both came up with the startling conclusion the expansion is accelerating for some reason no one yet understands. It is said that dark energy is causing the acceleration, but that term was invented to represent something that is completely unknown. It seems to be dark, and it seems to be energy, but other than that we are clueless.

Is it possible for me to truly believe that the universe is expanding? "Believe" is too strong a word. For now, based on everything I've read and subject to future discoveries about the nature of dark energy, I accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There, is that nuanced enough? But that simply says beliefs should be challenged and acknowledges that we have so much more to learn. In attempting to answer one question, rather than settling the issue the unexpected answer raised many more questions, and that's how science works.

The true deniers are those who deny skepticism for they would condemn us to groupthink and stagnation. Orwell warned us, and we should heed.