The irony of modern day superheros

It has been said that the closest thing to a superhero in today's world are professional athletes. I find it ironic, especially when looking at the NFL. The NFL is a league filled with some of the richest, most athletic men in the USA. Additionally, some of these "superheros" have criminal records - not DUI, petty theft incidents but more severe.

I tried using google to find the actual number of NFL players who have spent time in prison, the most relevant result was found on yahoo answers from two years ago and reads:

Rae Carruth: Carolina Panthers, conspiracy to commit murder, 24 years

Cecil Collins: Miami Dolphins, burglary, 15 years

Dwayne Goodrich: Dallas Cowboys, criminally negligent homicide (hit and run accident), 7 1/2 years

Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson: retired from Dallas Cowboys, sexual assault, bribery, 4 years, eight months (was released after 28 months)

Terry "Tank" Johnson: Chicago Bears, probation violation relating to weapons possession, 120 days

Jamal Lewis: Baltimore Ravens, using a cell phone to facilitate a drug deal, four months

Dexter Manley: Washington Redskins, drug possession, evidence tampering, 4 years (1996) 2 years (2002)

Byron "Bam" Morrism: Kansas City Chiefs, drug trafficking, 30 months

Eugene "Mercury" Morris: retired from Miami Dolphins, drug trafficking, 20 years (conviction overturned - reached plea bargain and released after serving 3 years)

Nate Newton: retired from Dallas Cowboys, drug trafficking, 7 1/2 years (two separate convictions), released after serving about two and a half years

Robert Rozier (a.k.a. Robert Rameses): retired from Arizona Cardinals, multiple murders, convicted of four murders, served 10 years and placed in witness protection after testifying against Yahweh Ben Yahweh, later sentenced to 25 to life on check kiting charge under three strikes rule

Art Schlichter: Indianapolis Colts, forgery, theft, others, 16 years

Alonzo Spellman: retired/cut from Chicago Bears, interference with a flight crew, simple assault, 18 months

Stanley Wilson Sr.: retired from Cincinnati Bengals, burglary, 22 years

Michael Vick: Atlanta Falcons, dog fighting, 23 months

Mercury Morris, Wide receiver for Miami Dolphins, 1970's, Cocaine charges

Plaxico Burress, Wide reciever for the giants, 2008, had gun without permit

We look at the league today and see two very famous examples - Michael Vick and Plaxico Burress. One man drowned, and electricuted dogs for sport (oh and had a bit of a gambling ring based on these dogs ripping each other to shreds) - the other shot himself with his own gun.

I mean besides the cruelty of Vick's sport and the idiocracy of Plaxico's - imagine they were Joe Shmoe. The same two men wouldn't be able to get a job bagging groceries at your local supermarket.

Criminals in the everyday world can't even get blue collor, non-degreed jobs, yet put them in a colorful jersey and they are adored by their fans who sport their jerseys, chant their names and pay upwards of $100+ to watch them play.

They drive luxury cars, get VIP tables, free meals, apparel sponsorships, millions of dollars to spend as they please and are worshipped by sports announcers on any given channel.

Ironic, right? Our kids read comics about people with supernatural powers and spend weekends intently posted up in front of the TV with us watching these criminal "superheros" who have the life they only dream of.

Now I wonder why ADHD and youth gang memberships are on the rise - let's face it - these "superheros" aren't doctors or scholars; why pay attention in school? These "superheros" torture animals and tout guns - could it be that criminality and professional athletes are interchangeable in the eyes of the naive, adolescense?

Who knows...either way, there is something seriously wrong with a country that idolizes someone like Mike Vick - and we can only blame ourselves for our own competitiveness and entertainment-seeking lifestyles that we are willing to ignore how absurd the actions of these criminal players are for a good team and a superbowl title.

Media influences presidential election

Though I wrote about this 2 years ago on my other blog (the posting will be shared below), I can't help but feel deja-vu; sadly.

In last night's Fox News debate, candidates were given the following opportunities to speak:
Romney– 16
Perry– 11
Bachmann– 9
Huntsman– 9
... Santorum– 9
Gingritch– 7
Cain– 7
Paul– 6
Johnson– 5

For Ron Paul, this was a whole seven minutes

Well that's a bit of an improvement from 2008's MSNBC debate, where Paul spoke only 6 minutes and 31 seconds

Here's my posting from January 24, 2008 from my previous blog:

Proof the Media has picked your President

I can barely express how truly disappointed I am in the ignorance of the American people and the huge corruption of the news in this presidential election. Call me naive, but I also wasn't old enough to vote until Bush's second term.

First- I watched the MSNBC debates tonight. Censorship is brutal- I won't deny my acclaim for Dr. Ron Paul. But when his total time speaking is 6 minutes and 31 seconds, by far the least- the second least amount belonging to Mike Huckabee at 12 minutes, how can you justify feeding the Romneybot 21 minutes of face time? Sure I can bitch and moan till the cows come home about the blatant censorship of Dr. Paul and things probably won't change...

But, seriously Mitt Romney is the winner? He had the most time talking tonight and from the looks of it he also had a prompter. When asked if he would respond the same way Reagan did... a whisper is loud and clear "he raised taxes" and Romney starts "What by raising taxes?". Sure give me the bullshit answer to this like a good media pawn.

Who said it? Cameras don't have mics. In fact only the moderators and the candidates had mics. MSNBC is going to blame Russert, but did he need to whisper that in order to get a relevant answer from Mitt? If Mitt is a great economic candidate he would know that raising taxes is what Reagan did right? Since he name drops RR frequently enough would he in fact need Russert to add "he raised taxes" to the question? Doubt it. What's more disturbing is that along with his "help" and his 20% of the show air-time, the debate winner er I mean owner is...

Oh that's right- Mitt Romney. He purchased the media empire "Clear Channel Communications" in November of 2006. Those that say he is a good businessman are certainly correct. Clear Channel is an umbrella company consisting of 1200 radio stations, various billboard sites, newspapers and local cable channels like Fox and ABC.

So the news we are getting is from a station that's owned by presidential candidate Mitt Romney- I guess we have our very own explanation for censorship. So if you want to welcome today's soft Republicans in to change the ways of President Bush- with the exception of Ron Paul you are welcoming full control of your lives, even what you watch on TV.

*Another link to Romney's first-hand connection to Clear Channel has been posted, and as of January 11th Bain Capital, Mitt's company, has gotten FCC approval for the buyout- from the Huffington Post.

Conspiracies aside, I am just not certain I understand why the media whose sole purpose is to inform the public of the news instead tries to influence the outcome of an election - in term creating "news."

Oh and for you "journalists" out there, news is defined as follows:

1)a report of recent events
- previously unknown information
- something having a specified influence or effect
2) material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
- matter that is newsworthy


Same gripe, different year.

Commercial product fail of the week: GARMIN GPS

Though I am certain we all have our complaints about GPS systems, nothing can be worse than the "bitch" I have in charge of my car, or Serena.

Serena is a GARMIN GPS I recieved for Christmas a year or so back. Often I curse at her for various reasons, however, my problem goes deeper than that. These car GPS systems have changed the way we navigate. The evolution of navigation went from recieving directions from a friend (and writing down) to printing directions from Mapquest to being heavily reliant upon our digital GPS systems (whether embedded or detached).

My issue is about the purpose of the GPS. On Mapquest we could choose between fastest route, shortest distance, avoid tolls, etc. Supposedly, our GPS finds a combo of the first two - this is it's purpose. Serena FAILS at this.

I have tested this theory - I have printed directions from Mapquest that show the approximate distance/time and I have plugged the same address into the GPS. Without fail, Serena always takes me a route that is both longer distance-wise, and more time-consuming. I know this because when I have ignored her "take the exit in ___ miles" prompts, the ETA adjusts to a shorter TIME than with her calculated route.

This new route is the same route I have printed out from Mapquest, the same route that is less mileage.

I just don't understand. Does Garmin have some kind of stock sharing with STS or JiffyLube? Why does she continously intend to take me on a longer route with higher mileage?

Also, why does she have me U-Turn through toll booths? I won't elaborate - I could guess there is some partnership with EZ-Pass or something. Either way, I hope to investigate these things sooner as I am a heartbeat away from going Office Space on her.

As we get poorer, our government gets richer?

Somehow I found myself reading through an article titled, "The Richest Member of the Congress," today and was struck by something very odd.

The richest member of congress, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas) has a net worth of $294 million - to be specific, the CNBC.com article reads, "annual survey of The 50 Richest Members of Congress in 2005, he reported a minimum net worth of about $12 million. His financial disclosure report now depicts a fortune worth almost 25 times that amount."

So, let me get this straight, making the list in 2005, required 12 million bucks. A lot of money either way. But, doesn't it seem that comparitively, the 294 million he makes now is quite a big leap in 5 years.

I mean the bar has definitely been raised to make the list since 2005. Lots of red flags (as per usual, with these beyond wealthy politicians) - for me at least. I mean in 2005, the average household median income was 46k. Looking at today, that number isn't much higher at roughly 49k, no 25 times larger or 280 million more.

I mean there are 245 millionaires in Congress, that's a lot of competition I suppose. It's no wonder you need to multiply by 25 in order to make the list. In fact according to the CBS News article, "Based on 2009 data, there are currently 66 in the Senate and 179 in the House (among current voting members). So while just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members."

So let me get this straight, Americans earn a meger 3k more now than they did 5 years ago, not even 1 times the amount - and congress/senate who need to earn 100s of millions more to be a part of this "richest congress member" list sit around and determine how to bail us out financially?

Each year they get richer, while we barely improve...I wonder how they fix their own problems? My guess: throw money at them. So instead of sitting around and playing Barbies with the poor folks' money (and yes, that's us), throw your own money at it because clearly what you are doing with ours isn't working.

Oh debate season...

Prior to our previous election, I did a similar thing on my old blog - I gave my initial reactions to the GOP candidates...removing thought, previous biases, etc - only listening/watching and relying on previous knowledge (yes, knowledge not a media-watered-down assumption). Awhile back I read the book "Blink" and while I won't go into detail about what it entails, let's just say, it references "gut reaction" to things, proving that usually what first comes to mind about any given thing, is generally correct.

Seeing as how I have now watched two GOP debates, I will simply go over what my initial reaction was to each candidate - though I can't really do it for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney as I have obviously seen them debate before and know of them.

Because both debates seemed to focus a lot of attention on Romney and Rick Perry, I will start with Rick Perry.

Perry - first stating the obvious, he evoked another coming of Bush. Being a Texan and even having the look of one, I felt oddly as though I was listening to President Bush. Don't get me wrong, I preferred this country under Bush than under Obama, but Bush wasn't exactly the pick of the litter. Another thing about Perry is his air of smugness. The smirks and giggles while others rebuttle him, is pretty annoying. The state of this country is no joke. Additionally, when listening to him I didn't feel like there was an actual answer. Kind of like Captain Hindsight from South Park he stated the obvious and what went wrong but I didn't hear a solution or plan from him. I also don't trust him. He has a sense of evangelical idealism mixed with neo-conservative BS. Not to mention, he reportedly lied about his "$5,000 donation" from Merck, which turned out to be $28,000.

And next, sadly, yet another woman who seemingly adds to the impossibility of women being elected to president...Bachmann

Bachmann - where to begin...I get the same anxious feeling looking at her that I get from Pelosi. Anyone who finds time/money for plastic surgery while in a position of power, has some egotistical sense of self. I am not against women keeping up their looks - but come on, the blatently obvious pinched skin is frightening and WASP-like. Also, this isn't a school yard. We don't need every little remark to be an attack on another candidate. Again, our country is in dire need of help - rather than attack Perry for your own political gain, TELL US WHAT YOU WILL DO! Smoke and mirrors and plastic surgery. I would rather Palin.

Rick Santorum - not sure what else there is to say. Googling his name says it all (though to be fair I wasn't aware of the santorum search result thing until after). My first reaction was oh look at the smug, overly confident career politician. He didn't speak much but when he did, he and Bachmann did the whole resume thing. I cannot stand hearing, "Well when I..." as though some political-bureacrat accomplishment means anything to me. I am a middle class American, I pay more taxes than the rich and here I sit listening to how wonderful he was when he was some BS appointment...really, anyone with a deep wallet can be a politician and anyone can claim to have done something - what will you do. Suffice to say, I am not a fan, though I find his internet presence hilarious.

Bill Huntsman - thankfully he was part of the debate otherwise I don't know when else I would have gotten up to eat/go to the bathroom/etc. What does he stand for? Who is he? Why is he even part of this? I would rather listen to alien-abducted Dennis Kucinich. But seriously, the stern, insignificance he brought to the table screamed "boring version of Huckabee" - some uber religious idiot.

Okay time for some good...

Herman Cain - I like him - his personality anyway. Though liking a potential candidate's personality is no reason to elect them president. But, I will say I really like that he is not a politician. Our founding fathers and historical philosophers never intended our country to be run by career politicians. Well, Plato referred to them (though in different terms) as bankers - as we know half of them are. How can people with so much money understand how to run a country filled with people so different then themselves? Sorry for the tangent, but that is my Pro for Cain - his non-politician, won't-bail-out-the-banks attitude.

Newt Gingrich - He was the most intelligent person on the stage for both debates. I don't know how I feel about him as a policy-maker and a president, but I feel as though he should have a place in the economic side of things. Is he the man I want to hear address the country in a time of crisis? Probably not, he is almost too logical to be sincere. I like his ideas and think he is a smart man, but not a president.

Okay, so I will briefly talk Mitt and Ron Paul...

My biggest issue with Mitt is my fear of putting a Paulson-type in charge. Also, his salt and pepper hair reminds me of Nixon. But, I do think he is a smart businessman - unfortunately, hearing about his multi-million dollar upgrades on his mansions makes me like him less. I want a working man's president.

Ron Paul - I was almost embarassed for the state of Florida during the CNN debate. He spoke the truth, particularly when saying that the entire Muslim population isn't to blame for 9/11 - BOOing that? Really? Well, Tampa is the same city that the jurors for Casey Anthony came from (sorry, Clearwater - a whole 10 minutes away from Tampa) so I think it's safe to say that the intelligence level is a little lower.

I am a Ron Paul fan - I know many doubt him but that's because even after all the financial tragedy in the USA, we still seek to hear what we want to hear rather than the truth. The truth hurts, Paul gives it. I also like that he gave 100k back to the treasury of unspent money.

Alright...back to work, just wanted to share my own impressions.