The fact that 2012 represents the end of the Mayan calendar—and presumably the end of the world—is perhaps fitting for the next presidential election. Next year may well be the last chance conservatives have to avert economic catastrophe from befalling the United States of America.
A brief period in the nineteen nineties withstanding, the U.S. federal government—along with many state and local governments across the country—has been spend-thrift since the Great Depression.
America has borrowed money beyond her ability to repay. She has reached her debt ceiling. Both her debt and her trade deficit are into the trillions of dollars. That’s a thousand times a billion, or a hundred thousand times a million.
Foreign countries such as China, Japan, the United Kingdom and OPEC nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia) own about 47 percent, or a little less than half of the total public debt owed by the United States. The American public owns the rest.
The value of the American dollar continues to fall as it’s routinely borrowed against other foreign currencies. Pretty soon, our dollar will be worth less than the Chinese yuan, the Japanese yen or perhaps even the Euro. When that happens, who will want to buy any more of our debt from us?
Rather, those interests will begin demanding payback.
The more we continue to spend in the manner that we have for the past several decades, the faster we will get to the point where our creditors will no longer accept any more debt. They will want to be paid back for what we owe them.
The question is when.
When should the U.S. Congress and the President stop the current pattern of spending that has not only become chronic, but habitual? When should our elected officials start thinking more about their nation’s indebtedness and less about the next election?
I submit that the time is now. Actually, it was yesterday, but that’s water under the bridge now. All we have left are today and tomorrow.
The current presidential administration has demonstrated about the same commitment to fiscal responsibility and discipline as the last one. Can America last much beyond 2012 if the same people with the same fiscal mentality continue to make economic decisions for the rest of us?
I feign to think not…and I perish the thought.
Something has to give in this next year or so, because if nothing changes toward better fiscal discipline in the next two years, then I am left to wonder what America may look like in another decade. Will she exist at all the way we know her today?
These are questions I hope everyone of us—left, right or center—has the courage to ask in the upcoming general election.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
The forgotten child
In America’s current zeal to bring attention to autism spectrum disorders, other childhood disabilities have consequently become overshadowed and virtually ignored.
A national and regional media blitz on behalf of autism related disorders has helped bring the topic to the fore; but at the cost of other equally severe disabilities, the awareness of which has consequently suffered.
I see the public service announcements all the time on television. The television news reports on autism frequently—almost to an exhausting degree. There is a designated autism awareness month now. And some of the loudest voices in government lobbies are autism advocates and activists.
Here in Nevada there is as great a push for autism awareness, diagnostic and treatment services as there is nationwide. There has been coverage ad nauseum of emotional testimony of parents of autistic children in the wake of statewide budget cuts.
Please do not take this the wrong way: I am not against autism awareness campaigns, fundraisers, or research, diagnostic or treatment services. Certainly the prevalence of autism, as well as its pervasive impact on the lives of children and families afflicted with the disorder, is cause for concern.
But there are other serious and severe childhood disabilities that are being conveniently ignored by the public zeal over autism.
Specifically, I speak on behalf of thousands of children born nationwide each year, and hundreds here in Nevada, with fetal alcohol or fetal drug spectrum disorders. The rate of children born with at least fetal drug or fetal alcohol exposure is as alarming as the 1:110 to 1:150 rate of children born with an autism spectrum disorder.
The prevalence of autism among live births represents a little less than one percent of the total number of children born nationwide each year.
FASD and FDSD birth rates are comparatively smaller at about two to five cases per one thousand births on average. That’s only about half of one percent. However, prevalence of FASD and FDSD can vary significantly according to population and demographics.
Among American Indian tribes, for instance, the prevalence of full-blown Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or FAS, jumps exponentially to just under six cases per thousand births.
FASD and FDSD include the full-blown diagnoses of FAS and FDS, as well as fetal alcohol and/or drug effects, and fetal alcohol and/or drug exposure; the latter two of which are statistically more common than the former.
Still, children born with any form of FASD or FDSD can face myriad developmental challenges, which are lifelong. From cognitive, to behavioral and social limitations, children born with alcohol and/or drug-related disabilities have an organic deficiency to their brains that will never get better and never improve. There will always be a part of the brain which remains damaged or missing.
Unlike autism, which studies have shown to actually improve in some cases with treatment and age, FASD and FDSD disabilities are with a child for life. Limitations are permanent. Much like mental retardation, there is hope neither for improvement nor a cure.
In fact, FASD and FDSD are more difficult to diagnose early on than even autism, because most limitations that FASD or FDSD cause aren’t evident until a child becomes school-aged.
While many children afflicted with FASD and/or FDSD are born with developmental delays, they can often overcome these deficiencies with appropriate early intervention. In many cases, they can appear developmentally normal by the time they have reached toddler age, and this can be both misleading and dangerous.
That’s why early diagnosis is critical to the treatment of FASD and FDSD. By establishing developmental criteria of infants, FASD and FDSD can be detected early. Unfortunately, this only braces parents and treatment providers for what is to come. There is little anyone can do until those signs and symptoms of cognitive, behavioral and/or social limitations become manifest.
That is what makes living with these disabilities so difficult for parents. There exist feelings of helplessness and anxiety, which are difficult to deal with when one knows that one’s child will one day be significantly impaired.
The only consolation that advocates of FASD and FDSD have is knowing that these disabilities can easily and clearly be prevented. All it takes is for expecting mothers to abstain from using substances while pregnant. Abstinence is the only method of prevention. There is no safe consumption during pregnancy.
But, alarmingly, drug and/or alcohol use among pregnant women is significant. For instance, approximately 12 percent of pregnant women nationwide continue to drink alcohol during pregnancy, and that means 1:8 unborn children nationally are thus exposed and placed at risk for FASDs. Likewise, about five percent of women nationally use illicit drugs while pregnant, making fetal drug exposure about 1:20.
In Nevada, roughly 26 percent of children are born exposed to alcohol and four percent of mothers continue using alcohol even after they learn they are pregnant.
Approximately one percent of children are born affected by alcohol each year, including 40,000 in the United States and 200 in Nevada.
In fact, it is estimated that an alcohol or drug exposed infant is born every 90 seconds. This represents a growing problem both here in Nevada and nationwide.
Founding father Benjamin Franklin is credited to have said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Nothing could be more true about FASD and FDSD.
Prevention—and, therefore, awareness—is the key to curing these afflictions. Without it, there is no cure, and the problem will remain a chronic epidemic.
The state of Nevada funds diagnostic clinics for FASD and FDSD. But there appear to be woefully inadequate funds for the treatment of these disabilities. Unlike autism, FASD and FDSD get grossly and routinely overlooked when it comes to funding treatment programs.
While there is no cure or much hope for improvement, treatment for FASD and FDSD is focused on helping individuals afflicted with these disorders maintain some level of function and productivity. As with MR, that is about all we can do to treat FASD and FDSD effectively.
Without funds for treatment, the only practical solution is to increase community education, which, in turn, spreads awareness and, hopefully, consciousness.
But these children, left in the dust of an autism blitz and forgotten by a frenzy of media campaigns, need the help of those charged with responsibility for bringing the issue and its awareness to the fore; just as the advocates and activists promoting autism awareness have succeeded in doing.
This means that parents and family members, medical and other treatment professionals, social service advocates, journalists and lawmakers all have a fiduciary responsibility to speak for the children who cannot speak for themselves. We have a duty to be proactive in the fight to end a disability that is not only highly preventable, but that ought not even reasonably exist.
The spread of this disability, caused by the negligence of others, should be prevented at all costs. The fact that there are children born to mothers who exposed them to dangerous substances is unreasonable and unacceptable.
In contrast to autism, the cause and prevention of FASD and FDSD are crystal clear. We know what causes these disorders and we know how to prevent them. But we seem too busy studying autism to care that an ounce of simple education and awareness can produce a pound of prevention.
I make this public appeal in the hopes of bringing this topic back to the surface where it belongs; alongside, and not below, autism.
Please, let us not forget the other children.
A national and regional media blitz on behalf of autism related disorders has helped bring the topic to the fore; but at the cost of other equally severe disabilities, the awareness of which has consequently suffered.
I see the public service announcements all the time on television. The television news reports on autism frequently—almost to an exhausting degree. There is a designated autism awareness month now. And some of the loudest voices in government lobbies are autism advocates and activists.
Here in Nevada there is as great a push for autism awareness, diagnostic and treatment services as there is nationwide. There has been coverage ad nauseum of emotional testimony of parents of autistic children in the wake of statewide budget cuts.
Please do not take this the wrong way: I am not against autism awareness campaigns, fundraisers, or research, diagnostic or treatment services. Certainly the prevalence of autism, as well as its pervasive impact on the lives of children and families afflicted with the disorder, is cause for concern.
But there are other serious and severe childhood disabilities that are being conveniently ignored by the public zeal over autism.
Specifically, I speak on behalf of thousands of children born nationwide each year, and hundreds here in Nevada, with fetal alcohol or fetal drug spectrum disorders. The rate of children born with at least fetal drug or fetal alcohol exposure is as alarming as the 1:110 to 1:150 rate of children born with an autism spectrum disorder.
The prevalence of autism among live births represents a little less than one percent of the total number of children born nationwide each year.
FASD and FDSD birth rates are comparatively smaller at about two to five cases per one thousand births on average. That’s only about half of one percent. However, prevalence of FASD and FDSD can vary significantly according to population and demographics.
Among American Indian tribes, for instance, the prevalence of full-blown Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or FAS, jumps exponentially to just under six cases per thousand births.
FASD and FDSD include the full-blown diagnoses of FAS and FDS, as well as fetal alcohol and/or drug effects, and fetal alcohol and/or drug exposure; the latter two of which are statistically more common than the former.
Still, children born with any form of FASD or FDSD can face myriad developmental challenges, which are lifelong. From cognitive, to behavioral and social limitations, children born with alcohol and/or drug-related disabilities have an organic deficiency to their brains that will never get better and never improve. There will always be a part of the brain which remains damaged or missing.
Unlike autism, which studies have shown to actually improve in some cases with treatment and age, FASD and FDSD disabilities are with a child for life. Limitations are permanent. Much like mental retardation, there is hope neither for improvement nor a cure.
In fact, FASD and FDSD are more difficult to diagnose early on than even autism, because most limitations that FASD or FDSD cause aren’t evident until a child becomes school-aged.
While many children afflicted with FASD and/or FDSD are born with developmental delays, they can often overcome these deficiencies with appropriate early intervention. In many cases, they can appear developmentally normal by the time they have reached toddler age, and this can be both misleading and dangerous.
That’s why early diagnosis is critical to the treatment of FASD and FDSD. By establishing developmental criteria of infants, FASD and FDSD can be detected early. Unfortunately, this only braces parents and treatment providers for what is to come. There is little anyone can do until those signs and symptoms of cognitive, behavioral and/or social limitations become manifest.
That is what makes living with these disabilities so difficult for parents. There exist feelings of helplessness and anxiety, which are difficult to deal with when one knows that one’s child will one day be significantly impaired.
The only consolation that advocates of FASD and FDSD have is knowing that these disabilities can easily and clearly be prevented. All it takes is for expecting mothers to abstain from using substances while pregnant. Abstinence is the only method of prevention. There is no safe consumption during pregnancy.
But, alarmingly, drug and/or alcohol use among pregnant women is significant. For instance, approximately 12 percent of pregnant women nationwide continue to drink alcohol during pregnancy, and that means 1:8 unborn children nationally are thus exposed and placed at risk for FASDs. Likewise, about five percent of women nationally use illicit drugs while pregnant, making fetal drug exposure about 1:20.
In Nevada, roughly 26 percent of children are born exposed to alcohol and four percent of mothers continue using alcohol even after they learn they are pregnant.
Approximately one percent of children are born affected by alcohol each year, including 40,000 in the United States and 200 in Nevada.
In fact, it is estimated that an alcohol or drug exposed infant is born every 90 seconds. This represents a growing problem both here in Nevada and nationwide.
Founding father Benjamin Franklin is credited to have said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Nothing could be more true about FASD and FDSD.
Prevention—and, therefore, awareness—is the key to curing these afflictions. Without it, there is no cure, and the problem will remain a chronic epidemic.
The state of Nevada funds diagnostic clinics for FASD and FDSD. But there appear to be woefully inadequate funds for the treatment of these disabilities. Unlike autism, FASD and FDSD get grossly and routinely overlooked when it comes to funding treatment programs.
While there is no cure or much hope for improvement, treatment for FASD and FDSD is focused on helping individuals afflicted with these disorders maintain some level of function and productivity. As with MR, that is about all we can do to treat FASD and FDSD effectively.
Without funds for treatment, the only practical solution is to increase community education, which, in turn, spreads awareness and, hopefully, consciousness.
But these children, left in the dust of an autism blitz and forgotten by a frenzy of media campaigns, need the help of those charged with responsibility for bringing the issue and its awareness to the fore; just as the advocates and activists promoting autism awareness have succeeded in doing.
This means that parents and family members, medical and other treatment professionals, social service advocates, journalists and lawmakers all have a fiduciary responsibility to speak for the children who cannot speak for themselves. We have a duty to be proactive in the fight to end a disability that is not only highly preventable, but that ought not even reasonably exist.
The spread of this disability, caused by the negligence of others, should be prevented at all costs. The fact that there are children born to mothers who exposed them to dangerous substances is unreasonable and unacceptable.
In contrast to autism, the cause and prevention of FASD and FDSD are crystal clear. We know what causes these disorders and we know how to prevent them. But we seem too busy studying autism to care that an ounce of simple education and awareness can produce a pound of prevention.
I make this public appeal in the hopes of bringing this topic back to the surface where it belongs; alongside, and not below, autism.
Please, let us not forget the other children.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Oscar proof that success doesn’t equal class
For the first time in years, I actually watched some of the Motion Picture Academy Award program the other night. My wife was watching it, so I obliged to sit with her for a little while before retreating to the rest of the Sunday newspaper.
That didn’t take very long, unfortunately.
As soon as actress Melissa Leo dropped the f-bomb on live broadcast television, I decided that I had had enough. Ms. Leo reminded me just exactly why I stopped watching and caring about the Oscar Awards so many years ago.
Foremost, I don’t like the cultural elitism or the stench of hypocrisy that are so much a part of Hollywood, America’s cesspool of degenerate counterculture. Why Americans tend to put gold rings in the snouts of swine and place them up on pedestals to be worshipped is beyond me. But we do this routinely with movie stars and entertainment celebrities.
No doubt Ms. Leo has a loyal fan base. Her every word, her every action is watched, listened to and scrutinized. She can and does have a profound impact on impressionable youths and young people who perhaps idolize her or will put her up on a pedestal now that she has an Oscar.
What sort of lesson is she providing a youth or a young person when she blurts out offensive language on national television for millions of viewers to hear?
Perhaps the lesson is, don’t give a s--- about what may offend someone else. Just say or do whatever you feel like saying or doing; regardless of how it affects others around you.
Great lesson, Ms. Leo.
You ought to be profoundly thankful that ABC TV caught your guffaw before it could be clearly and unmistakably heard; although I imagine that viewers who read lips had little doubt about what you said.
It is nice that Ms. Leo apologized afterward for her foul-mouthed gaffe. However, what she said and how she said it is so indicative to me of the degeneracy that permeates the media and entertainment industries. She spoke the profanity so casually as if it was just natural for her to say.
Yet, she had this to say afterward: “There’s a great deal of the English language that is in my vernacular. I really don’t mean to offend, and probably a very inappropriate place to use that particular word.”
Ms. Leo has a shaky grasp of the obvious.
Prime-time, national broadcast television an inappropriate place? You think?
An event where the pinnacle of achievement in the motion picture industry is recognized an inappropriate place? Double think.
Oscar night is like the Super Bowl for Hollywood. It is the big stage, the big show, the big dance. Ms. Leo’s profanity slip is the equivalent of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction several years ago during a Super Bowl halftime show.
Sure, it was a mistake, but the choreography with Justin Timberlake was not. He did not unintentionally grasp Jackson’s chest as he had awkwardly claimed afterward. Footage of the incident shows quite clearly that the grab was an intentional part of the act. The only thing that went wrong was that Jackson’s breast wasn’t actually supposed to be exposed.
Otherwise, the show was a highly sexual performance from the lyrics to the choreography, and completely inappropriate even without the wardrobe malfunction. The performance of both entertainers was rather indicative of the degenerate entertainment culture of which they are both products.
Likewise, Ms. Leo’s profane gaffe may have been a mistake, but it is also indicative of the degenerate counterculture from which she has risen to stardom and in which she is so deeply entrenched.
The fact that she has a much broader repertoire of vernacular than the f-bomb, but she let it slip out so casually tells me that there were few words that she would have rather used at that time and at that moment. She just didn’t care who would hear it or how it might offend others. She evidently lacks the self-control incumbent upon a professional to exhibit and exercise in public; if not for herself to save face, then for the sake of saving face for her colleagues and her profession. She has a duty to represent herself to her fans with a certain amount of dignity that is respectful of them. She has a duty to represent her profession with a certain amount of dignity that reflects well on her colleagues and on her trade.
I am just sick and tired of hearing celebrities step up on their soap boxes and preach about how we all ought to live, what we ought to say, or how we ought to be tolerant and embrace the differences among us when their lives are often contrary to those things for which they advocate. Whether it’s going green for the sake of saving the environment, or being tolerant and accepting, or not offending others, entertainment celebrities have an uncanny propensity for not practicing what they preach.
I wonder just how much “diversity” exists in Beverly Hills or Malibu, where so many of the pretty people live in sheltered affluence conveniently away from the harsh realities that the rest of us have to live in. Is there much income disparity between celebrity neighbors? How many of them have been foreclosed on? How many homeless or low income people do they come in contact with each and every day between leaving their beachfront houses or private estates for the club, health spa, studios and ritzy restaurants? How much social ambiguity are they exposed to in their daily lives? How the heck can they rightfully preach tolerance, acceptance and understanding when their very lives are so mundanely uniformed, structured and scheduled?
They don’t have to worry about paying bills or taxes. They hire people to manage their finances for them. They don’t have to worry about child-rearing. They hire people to do that for them, too. They don’t have to worry about running a household. They hire more people to do that for them. They take everyday expenses for granted, because they don’t generally have to worry about staying on a household budget.
The very least that Ms. Leo or any other star or starlet can do to be respectful of the rest of us who will never experience the kind of luxurious lifestyle they are privileged to live is to use a little decorum around us and our children. Appropriate speech is not that hard to master. It really is a matter of having presence of mind and cognizance of one’s surroundings.
As a father of three, the very last thing I should have to worry about is what somebody says on primetime broadcast television. With everything else that I must attend to in my daily life, it is an added burden to me that I must explain to my children that saying the “f” word isn’t appropriate even if celebrities use it so casually all of the time.
That didn’t take very long, unfortunately.
As soon as actress Melissa Leo dropped the f-bomb on live broadcast television, I decided that I had had enough. Ms. Leo reminded me just exactly why I stopped watching and caring about the Oscar Awards so many years ago.
Foremost, I don’t like the cultural elitism or the stench of hypocrisy that are so much a part of Hollywood, America’s cesspool of degenerate counterculture. Why Americans tend to put gold rings in the snouts of swine and place them up on pedestals to be worshipped is beyond me. But we do this routinely with movie stars and entertainment celebrities.
No doubt Ms. Leo has a loyal fan base. Her every word, her every action is watched, listened to and scrutinized. She can and does have a profound impact on impressionable youths and young people who perhaps idolize her or will put her up on a pedestal now that she has an Oscar.
What sort of lesson is she providing a youth or a young person when she blurts out offensive language on national television for millions of viewers to hear?
Perhaps the lesson is, don’t give a s--- about what may offend someone else. Just say or do whatever you feel like saying or doing; regardless of how it affects others around you.
Great lesson, Ms. Leo.
You ought to be profoundly thankful that ABC TV caught your guffaw before it could be clearly and unmistakably heard; although I imagine that viewers who read lips had little doubt about what you said.
It is nice that Ms. Leo apologized afterward for her foul-mouthed gaffe. However, what she said and how she said it is so indicative to me of the degeneracy that permeates the media and entertainment industries. She spoke the profanity so casually as if it was just natural for her to say.
Yet, she had this to say afterward: “There’s a great deal of the English language that is in my vernacular. I really don’t mean to offend, and probably a very inappropriate place to use that particular word.”
Ms. Leo has a shaky grasp of the obvious.
Prime-time, national broadcast television an inappropriate place? You think?
An event where the pinnacle of achievement in the motion picture industry is recognized an inappropriate place? Double think.
Oscar night is like the Super Bowl for Hollywood. It is the big stage, the big show, the big dance. Ms. Leo’s profanity slip is the equivalent of Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction several years ago during a Super Bowl halftime show.
Sure, it was a mistake, but the choreography with Justin Timberlake was not. He did not unintentionally grasp Jackson’s chest as he had awkwardly claimed afterward. Footage of the incident shows quite clearly that the grab was an intentional part of the act. The only thing that went wrong was that Jackson’s breast wasn’t actually supposed to be exposed.
Otherwise, the show was a highly sexual performance from the lyrics to the choreography, and completely inappropriate even without the wardrobe malfunction. The performance of both entertainers was rather indicative of the degenerate entertainment culture of which they are both products.
Likewise, Ms. Leo’s profane gaffe may have been a mistake, but it is also indicative of the degenerate counterculture from which she has risen to stardom and in which she is so deeply entrenched.
The fact that she has a much broader repertoire of vernacular than the f-bomb, but she let it slip out so casually tells me that there were few words that she would have rather used at that time and at that moment. She just didn’t care who would hear it or how it might offend others. She evidently lacks the self-control incumbent upon a professional to exhibit and exercise in public; if not for herself to save face, then for the sake of saving face for her colleagues and her profession. She has a duty to represent herself to her fans with a certain amount of dignity that is respectful of them. She has a duty to represent her profession with a certain amount of dignity that reflects well on her colleagues and on her trade.
I am just sick and tired of hearing celebrities step up on their soap boxes and preach about how we all ought to live, what we ought to say, or how we ought to be tolerant and embrace the differences among us when their lives are often contrary to those things for which they advocate. Whether it’s going green for the sake of saving the environment, or being tolerant and accepting, or not offending others, entertainment celebrities have an uncanny propensity for not practicing what they preach.
I wonder just how much “diversity” exists in Beverly Hills or Malibu, where so many of the pretty people live in sheltered affluence conveniently away from the harsh realities that the rest of us have to live in. Is there much income disparity between celebrity neighbors? How many of them have been foreclosed on? How many homeless or low income people do they come in contact with each and every day between leaving their beachfront houses or private estates for the club, health spa, studios and ritzy restaurants? How much social ambiguity are they exposed to in their daily lives? How the heck can they rightfully preach tolerance, acceptance and understanding when their very lives are so mundanely uniformed, structured and scheduled?
They don’t have to worry about paying bills or taxes. They hire people to manage their finances for them. They don’t have to worry about child-rearing. They hire people to do that for them, too. They don’t have to worry about running a household. They hire more people to do that for them. They take everyday expenses for granted, because they don’t generally have to worry about staying on a household budget.
The very least that Ms. Leo or any other star or starlet can do to be respectful of the rest of us who will never experience the kind of luxurious lifestyle they are privileged to live is to use a little decorum around us and our children. Appropriate speech is not that hard to master. It really is a matter of having presence of mind and cognizance of one’s surroundings.
As a father of three, the very last thing I should have to worry about is what somebody says on primetime broadcast television. With everything else that I must attend to in my daily life, it is an added burden to me that I must explain to my children that saying the “f” word isn’t appropriate even if celebrities use it so casually all of the time.
Hollywood cesspool no place for role models
For decades, the culture of Hollywood has always been of somewhat questionable quality and character, going back even as far as its “Golden Age” of motion picture making in the nineteen thirties and forties.
To preface my narrative, I use the term “Hollywood” loosely to represent the entertainment industry and its popular culture in general: From motion picture film to television to music.
This said, something that has bothered me for years is why the American public insists on idolizing Hollywood in spite of its insipid popular culture and degenerate subcultures.
No matter how many times a celebrity like actor Charlie Sheen unapologetically spits in the face of all that is decent and right with mainstream America and her establishment of traditional values, Hollywood remains fixed on a pedestal of glamour to which many Americans still aspire.
No matter how low the public’s perception of entertainers may reach with every incident of misconduct, Americans are forgiving to a fault just because these cultural degenerates are glamorous, glorious, rich and famous “pretty people.” They are awarded the special treatment simply by virtue of who they are; not what they are.
No matter how debased the personal lives of celebrities become and permeate through their professional and public lives, Americans still idolize and want to be like them.
Americans seem all too willing to tolerate what amounts to a hall pass or a slap on the wrist when a celebrity breaks the law or commits a crime. They are rarely sentenced to the maximum penalty, simply because they are “pretty people” and we don’t want to tarnish the convoluted, ideal image of them that we have somehow deluded ourselves into creating in our minds. As such, these people walk where the average Joe Six Pack or Jane Q. Public would, in all likelihood, get the book thrown at them.
Consider actress Lindsay Lohan for example. How many times has she violated her terms of probation? How many times has she spit on mandates of the justice system by routinely violating court orders?
A bench warrant was sworn out for her arrest in May 2010 after she failed to appear for a review hearing following multiple DUI arrests. However, Lohan’s personal representatives posted her bail, so the judge rescinded the warrant. Money talks, in other words.
Furthermore, she was sentenced in July 2010 to 90 days in jail for her offenses, but she only ended up serving just 14 days due to “overcrowding” issues with non-violent offenders. Uh-huh. Sure. More than likely, Lohan was the recipient of the same special treatment that Paris Hilton received in 2007 after her arrest for a reckless driving DUI. Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail, but she only served half of that before being released.
Last year, Hilton was arrested in Las Vegas for felony possession of cocaine. But, she accepted a plea deal from the district attorney’s office and avoided any jail time.
Back to Lohan, her latest misconduct involves a charge of felony grand theft. She is accused of stealing a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store. She apparently has been offered a plea deal to avoid being sentenced to prison.
Despite her multiple probation violations, and the court’s revocation of her probation, Lohan has managed to avoid any serious consequences by posting bail.
What all of this tells me is that the money of a filthy rich celebrity routinely tips the scales of justice.
Sheen is no exception to this notion, either.
Despite being convicted of assault on his girlfriend in 1996, he walked with a probation sentence. He violated his probation for cocaine related charges in 1998.
On Christmas Day 2009 Sheen was arrested on another domestic violence charge; this time for assaulting his wife, holding a knife to her throat and threatening to kill her. He accepted a plea deal eight months later that dropped the more serious felony charges and he pled guilty to misdemeanor assault instead. His sentence: 30 days in rehab and 30 days probation.
In October 2010, Sheen was arrested for destruction of property to his room at New York’s Plaza Hotel following a drinking and drug binge.
And Charlie Sheen has the nerve to say to America that he is a “rock star from Mars” who deserves to be appreciated, and that he is worth a $3 million raise per television episode? I beg to differ.
Sheen, Hilton, Lohan et al all have one thing in common: They are spoiled, screwed up degenerates who have repeatedly violated the public trust. And yet, we continue to worship and admire them after they have all but spat in our faces. Our justice system remains tilted in their favor by virtue of their celebrity and their money.
When will Americans wake up from dreamland and realize that little good is produced in Hollywood except a cheap thrill? If we want people to look up to, perhaps we ought to start looking locally in our own communities for heroes and heroines who routinely give of themselves and not for themselves. Sure, many of these folks aren’t the “pretty people” we see on television or the big screen; but real beauty runs much deeper than the skin.
Real heroes and heroines aren’t glamorous. They aren’t materially wealthy. They don’t flash us million-dollar smiles and show off a million bucks worth of pearls. They don’t give us interviews, soundbites, or other kinds of titillating stimulation. Rather, they are real people with real lives doing real things that make a real, positive difference in the small part of the world that they live.
But average people aren’t the ones who get the deserved attention; the pretty people of Hollywood are.
And for what? Just for looking pretty?
If human beings were eggs, most of the Hollywood pretty people would look perfect on the outside, but be rotten to the core. Heroes ought to be determined by what is on the inside. If the American public looked more often at what lurks beneath the flawless skin and bodies of many celebrities, there might be a different and more accurate perception of entertainers rather than the false and flattering images that are usually conjured up.
We fought a revolution more than two centuries ago against royalty, nobility and a privileged birthright. But since then, America has been intent on establishing a new culture of royalty and nobility: That of the celebrity.
Celebrities receive special treatment and attention that the average American does not enjoy simply by virtue of who and what they are. They are pop stars—singers, entertainers, movie and television actors/actresses, media personalities, professional athletes and so on—and because of what they are, America awards them a certain amount of undue and unearned respect not for what they’ve done, but rather for their celebrity and for who they are.
I am sickened to think the American nation that the founding generation struggled so hard and sacrificed so much to establish—one based on individual merit, rather than birthright—is being replaced by a social and political oligarchy.
I fear society has resorted to placing greater value on the powerful and influential few, rather than on the hardworking majority that is sweating and bleeding to preserve communities and/or to make them better places in which to live.
If we as Americans are willing to tolerate the degeneracy of their celebrity social order—and continue giving them the royal treatment in spite of their disdain for us—then we don’t deserve a country that places greater value on deed than position.
The love affair with celebrity must end before America’s beau ditches her in the gutter.
To preface my narrative, I use the term “Hollywood” loosely to represent the entertainment industry and its popular culture in general: From motion picture film to television to music.
This said, something that has bothered me for years is why the American public insists on idolizing Hollywood in spite of its insipid popular culture and degenerate subcultures.
No matter how many times a celebrity like actor Charlie Sheen unapologetically spits in the face of all that is decent and right with mainstream America and her establishment of traditional values, Hollywood remains fixed on a pedestal of glamour to which many Americans still aspire.
No matter how low the public’s perception of entertainers may reach with every incident of misconduct, Americans are forgiving to a fault just because these cultural degenerates are glamorous, glorious, rich and famous “pretty people.” They are awarded the special treatment simply by virtue of who they are; not what they are.
No matter how debased the personal lives of celebrities become and permeate through their professional and public lives, Americans still idolize and want to be like them.
Americans seem all too willing to tolerate what amounts to a hall pass or a slap on the wrist when a celebrity breaks the law or commits a crime. They are rarely sentenced to the maximum penalty, simply because they are “pretty people” and we don’t want to tarnish the convoluted, ideal image of them that we have somehow deluded ourselves into creating in our minds. As such, these people walk where the average Joe Six Pack or Jane Q. Public would, in all likelihood, get the book thrown at them.
Consider actress Lindsay Lohan for example. How many times has she violated her terms of probation? How many times has she spit on mandates of the justice system by routinely violating court orders?
A bench warrant was sworn out for her arrest in May 2010 after she failed to appear for a review hearing following multiple DUI arrests. However, Lohan’s personal representatives posted her bail, so the judge rescinded the warrant. Money talks, in other words.
Furthermore, she was sentenced in July 2010 to 90 days in jail for her offenses, but she only ended up serving just 14 days due to “overcrowding” issues with non-violent offenders. Uh-huh. Sure. More than likely, Lohan was the recipient of the same special treatment that Paris Hilton received in 2007 after her arrest for a reckless driving DUI. Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail, but she only served half of that before being released.
Last year, Hilton was arrested in Las Vegas for felony possession of cocaine. But, she accepted a plea deal from the district attorney’s office and avoided any jail time.
Back to Lohan, her latest misconduct involves a charge of felony grand theft. She is accused of stealing a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store. She apparently has been offered a plea deal to avoid being sentenced to prison.
Despite her multiple probation violations, and the court’s revocation of her probation, Lohan has managed to avoid any serious consequences by posting bail.
What all of this tells me is that the money of a filthy rich celebrity routinely tips the scales of justice.
Sheen is no exception to this notion, either.
Despite being convicted of assault on his girlfriend in 1996, he walked with a probation sentence. He violated his probation for cocaine related charges in 1998.
On Christmas Day 2009 Sheen was arrested on another domestic violence charge; this time for assaulting his wife, holding a knife to her throat and threatening to kill her. He accepted a plea deal eight months later that dropped the more serious felony charges and he pled guilty to misdemeanor assault instead. His sentence: 30 days in rehab and 30 days probation.
In October 2010, Sheen was arrested for destruction of property to his room at New York’s Plaza Hotel following a drinking and drug binge.
And Charlie Sheen has the nerve to say to America that he is a “rock star from Mars” who deserves to be appreciated, and that he is worth a $3 million raise per television episode? I beg to differ.
Sheen, Hilton, Lohan et al all have one thing in common: They are spoiled, screwed up degenerates who have repeatedly violated the public trust. And yet, we continue to worship and admire them after they have all but spat in our faces. Our justice system remains tilted in their favor by virtue of their celebrity and their money.
When will Americans wake up from dreamland and realize that little good is produced in Hollywood except a cheap thrill? If we want people to look up to, perhaps we ought to start looking locally in our own communities for heroes and heroines who routinely give of themselves and not for themselves. Sure, many of these folks aren’t the “pretty people” we see on television or the big screen; but real beauty runs much deeper than the skin.
Real heroes and heroines aren’t glamorous. They aren’t materially wealthy. They don’t flash us million-dollar smiles and show off a million bucks worth of pearls. They don’t give us interviews, soundbites, or other kinds of titillating stimulation. Rather, they are real people with real lives doing real things that make a real, positive difference in the small part of the world that they live.
But average people aren’t the ones who get the deserved attention; the pretty people of Hollywood are.
And for what? Just for looking pretty?
If human beings were eggs, most of the Hollywood pretty people would look perfect on the outside, but be rotten to the core. Heroes ought to be determined by what is on the inside. If the American public looked more often at what lurks beneath the flawless skin and bodies of many celebrities, there might be a different and more accurate perception of entertainers rather than the false and flattering images that are usually conjured up.
We fought a revolution more than two centuries ago against royalty, nobility and a privileged birthright. But since then, America has been intent on establishing a new culture of royalty and nobility: That of the celebrity.
Celebrities receive special treatment and attention that the average American does not enjoy simply by virtue of who and what they are. They are pop stars—singers, entertainers, movie and television actors/actresses, media personalities, professional athletes and so on—and because of what they are, America awards them a certain amount of undue and unearned respect not for what they’ve done, but rather for their celebrity and for who they are.
I am sickened to think the American nation that the founding generation struggled so hard and sacrificed so much to establish—one based on individual merit, rather than birthright—is being replaced by a social and political oligarchy.
I fear society has resorted to placing greater value on the powerful and influential few, rather than on the hardworking majority that is sweating and bleeding to preserve communities and/or to make them better places in which to live.
If we as Americans are willing to tolerate the degeneracy of their celebrity social order—and continue giving them the royal treatment in spite of their disdain for us—then we don’t deserve a country that places greater value on deed than position.
The love affair with celebrity must end before America’s beau ditches her in the gutter.
The slippery slope of degeneracy
Whenever a television or film producer decides to push the envelope of public decency further, what I commonly hear from them is that there is market demand for racy material, and that they are only producing what the public wants. Pornography producers routinely say the same thing about the smut that they are pushing. They are only responding to what the market demands.
Bologne.
What these entertainment degenerates know is how debase and carnal human nature is. They know and understand how to appeal to that nature, so that when the average person sees it, he will naturally, impulsively want to see more. What this phenomenon creates, then, is a demand to see more out of initial exposure and its shock value.
So, degenerate producers are right that there is a demand. But what they don’t say is that they are influencing this demand by putting the material out there and waiting for the anticipated human response to it.
Make no mistake: Producers of visual and audio entertainment know well the profound effects of psychology on the average viewer or listener. The material they produce is deliberate, because they know that shock value works in their favor.
Twenty years ago, it was unheard of for television to utter most profane words on prime time broadcasts. There were “bedroom scenes,” but these showed the actors and actresses under the sheets afterward; not during. Today, showing a “sex scene” in prime time is not uncommon. Such scenes show copious amounts of skin, but they fall just short of pornography, because no genitals are exposed or shown. There are sound effects, movements, motions and positioning that are not merely racy or sexually suggestive anymore, but outright explicit.
Even sexual innuendos and humor, which have existed a lot longer than near-nudity has on television, have degenerated to a point where the script might as well belong in a porno movie than on primetime, broadcast TV.
Consider the hit television show “Two and a Half Men” as an example. The prevailing theme for this program is sex. It is centered not around the two brothers and their nephew, but rather the brothers’ adult escapades.
This is probably an exaggeration on my part, but it seems like every other scene in an episode of this show is either sexual, sexually suggestive or contains an explicit innuendo.
The program glorifies casual sex, including extramarital sex. Clearly, the show appeals to carnal nature. There is little to no intellectual value contained in the script. It has thrived on shock value, the very technique discussed earlier that has succeeded in pushing the envelope on decency a little further, and lowering the bar on moral standards. People like the show for its shock value, its racy material, and its edginess in relation to the envelope. Why? Because it appeals to their innate carnal natures, and they tend to want to feed that nature once it has been teased.
Other broadcast television shows similar with high sexual content include “How I Met Your Mother,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Cougar Town.” All of them focus on sex, because of its power and the effectiveness of its shock value.
It is no wonder that these shows are highly rated.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not blaming the entertainment industry entirely for cultural degeneracy. The public is equally to blame for consuming the material. However, the producers of debased programming are purposely, intentionally and willingly feeding the fire that they helped to start in the first place.
Moral degeneracy is invasive. It starts on the outside and infiltrates to the inside, where it then spreads, metastasizes and becomes pervasive until it permeates the very foundation of a culture, a value and, especially a person’s character.
In order for there to be a plant, there must first be a seed. The debased culture of Hollywood—used loosely to represent the entertainment industry as a whole—has been a seed for planting degeneracy in the popular culture, which, in turn, dictates and drives market demand.
The entertainment industry is thus producing what it ultimately wants to produce, because it has created that demand through the psychological seed of degeneracy.
Don’t let the Hollywood degenerates fool you into thinking that they are merely responding innocently to popular demand.
Balderdash.
They are eager, more than willing to produce debased material, and what they will never tell you is that it has been their desire to do so all along.
Bologne.
What these entertainment degenerates know is how debase and carnal human nature is. They know and understand how to appeal to that nature, so that when the average person sees it, he will naturally, impulsively want to see more. What this phenomenon creates, then, is a demand to see more out of initial exposure and its shock value.
So, degenerate producers are right that there is a demand. But what they don’t say is that they are influencing this demand by putting the material out there and waiting for the anticipated human response to it.
Make no mistake: Producers of visual and audio entertainment know well the profound effects of psychology on the average viewer or listener. The material they produce is deliberate, because they know that shock value works in their favor.
Twenty years ago, it was unheard of for television to utter most profane words on prime time broadcasts. There were “bedroom scenes,” but these showed the actors and actresses under the sheets afterward; not during. Today, showing a “sex scene” in prime time is not uncommon. Such scenes show copious amounts of skin, but they fall just short of pornography, because no genitals are exposed or shown. There are sound effects, movements, motions and positioning that are not merely racy or sexually suggestive anymore, but outright explicit.
Even sexual innuendos and humor, which have existed a lot longer than near-nudity has on television, have degenerated to a point where the script might as well belong in a porno movie than on primetime, broadcast TV.
Consider the hit television show “Two and a Half Men” as an example. The prevailing theme for this program is sex. It is centered not around the two brothers and their nephew, but rather the brothers’ adult escapades.
This is probably an exaggeration on my part, but it seems like every other scene in an episode of this show is either sexual, sexually suggestive or contains an explicit innuendo.
The program glorifies casual sex, including extramarital sex. Clearly, the show appeals to carnal nature. There is little to no intellectual value contained in the script. It has thrived on shock value, the very technique discussed earlier that has succeeded in pushing the envelope on decency a little further, and lowering the bar on moral standards. People like the show for its shock value, its racy material, and its edginess in relation to the envelope. Why? Because it appeals to their innate carnal natures, and they tend to want to feed that nature once it has been teased.
Other broadcast television shows similar with high sexual content include “How I Met Your Mother,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Cougar Town.” All of them focus on sex, because of its power and the effectiveness of its shock value.
It is no wonder that these shows are highly rated.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not blaming the entertainment industry entirely for cultural degeneracy. The public is equally to blame for consuming the material. However, the producers of debased programming are purposely, intentionally and willingly feeding the fire that they helped to start in the first place.
Moral degeneracy is invasive. It starts on the outside and infiltrates to the inside, where it then spreads, metastasizes and becomes pervasive until it permeates the very foundation of a culture, a value and, especially a person’s character.
In order for there to be a plant, there must first be a seed. The debased culture of Hollywood—used loosely to represent the entertainment industry as a whole—has been a seed for planting degeneracy in the popular culture, which, in turn, dictates and drives market demand.
The entertainment industry is thus producing what it ultimately wants to produce, because it has created that demand through the psychological seed of degeneracy.
Don’t let the Hollywood degenerates fool you into thinking that they are merely responding innocently to popular demand.
Balderdash.
They are eager, more than willing to produce debased material, and what they will never tell you is that it has been their desire to do so all along.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Too much estrogen
Once upon a time, women’s rights groups cried foul about cultural and institutional sexism. In other words, society had too much testosterone and not enough estrogen for balance. True enough.
However, one truth I’ve learned about politics is that it tends to swing on a perpetual pendulum. Instead of simply trying to stop the pendulum from swinging, we just change its direction so that it swings the other way.
This has been as true in gender politics as it has with any other form of inequality. We just don’t seem to be able to find that balance. Our solution to inequality repeatedly seems to be reverse inequality.
Consequently, we no longer live in a man’s world. Popular culture, along with the current sociopolitical climate, increasingly awards the power to women.
One of the alphabet networks recently aired a nightly news story about the growing trend of single women choosing motherhood. The underlying message being sent to all of us men, of course, is that we aren’t necessary anymore. Women don’t need or even want us to be part of a family unit. They can do it all themselves without our help or our influence.
While the story did stress the importance of “male influences”—neighbors, teachers, coaches and relatives—the role of a full-time father figure was notably absent.
One message I received from the story is that a man is needed only as a sperm donor, a checkbook (child support and/or alimony) and an occasional “influence,” but not as a parent. Fatherhood is reduced to a specimen in a Petrie dish.
Needless to say, as a man, I found the story disturbing.
My gender is also the butt of jokes around a female-dominant office in which I work. A few of my co-workers take jabs at the male gender by disparagingly referring to us as the “Y Chromosome.”
Fundamentally, this could be considered sexual harassment; but I could never get away with alleging it because I’m a man. Besides, I try to consider the sources of these comments. Every woman in the office who jokes about the “Y Chromosome” has a history of failed relationships; so I figure that the disparaging gender comments are born out of resentment and their own poor choices in life. It isn’t worth making a big stink over, especially since I would have to continue working with these ladies and deal with the interpersonal repercussions of filing a formal complaint.
But that’s really neither here nor there. It isn’t germaine to the issue, so I digress.
The negative messages against men are everywhere these days: At work, around the community, and diffusely in the media, the last of which permeates the very sanctity of a man’s home.
There are no more destructive messages against masculinity than that which exists in the media—be it news, entertainment, popular culture, or advertising.
The next time you guys sit down to watch a football game on television, take note of the number of ads that show men in a disparaging way or in a negative light. Whenever an advertisement includes competing gender roles, the man is overwhelmingly shown as either the weaker of the two, the least intelligent, the most impulsive, and the least civilized. Beer, soda and car commercials are among the worst offenders when it comes to making men look bad, especially in the presence of women.
What these messages do is reinforce some modern idea that women aren’t merely on equal footing with men these days, but are, in fact, superior to them.
Worse yet, a lot of men seem to have bought into the notion that women are superior to them, because that’s what the media tells them on a daily basis; or it’s the message they hear at the office or even at home each and every day.
The idea of female superiority is evident in the language used by some of society’s notable female leaders.
Nancy Lieberman, current coach of a men’s NBA D-League professional developmental basketball team, the Texas Legends, and a former player who broke a gender barrier by playing on a men’s basketball team herself, has been quoted as saying that men are used to having women tell them what to do.
“We’ve told men what to do since the beginning of time,” she has said. “They’re used to getting information from us.”
Lieberman has also been paraphrased as saying that every man in a locker room has taken instruction from a woman since they were a baby: whether it’s from a mom, a wife or a girlfriend. “They need women in every aspect—why not as coach?” she said.
I don’t mean to knock Lieberman specifically for her comments, but what she said is indicative of the notion of gender superiority that exists among a lot of American women today. Political and cultural feminism has done much to push propaganda that men need women, but women don’t need men.
Well, I take exception to this notion. I don’t need my wife; I want her. I don’t need my mother anymore, either, but I want her to remain a part of my life.
I certainly don’t need anybody to tell me what to do or show me how to do things, either. I may want or seek advice from women, but that doesn’t mean I need them to tell or show me what or how to do something. I don’t need direction from either gender, thank you very much. I’m perfectly capable of being directed on my own. I am my own motivator.
Having said that, I concede that women are superior to men in some ways: They are generally better at multi-tasking and parenting than men are. They tend to have a higher pain tolerance than men. They seem better coordinated, which is probably linked to multi-tasking. They tend to possess a natural, innate ability to bond with children, and they are better at nurturing than men are.
Other than that, I fail to see where they are generally superior to men. In fact, I don’t see where either gender has an advantage over the other when it comes to using the gray matter between the ears.
But this isn’t the message that men are hearing these days. They hear the exact opposite. Comments from women like Nancy Lieberman aren’t helping to change this climate, but rather to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Would it not be more constructive and beneficial to tell men that they don’t need women, but they do need to “man up” and take responsibility for themselves and those who depend upon them—their families, most notably? To say that men need women to direct them is akin to saying that women need men to lead them and make decisions for them. We all know how much feminists appreciate male chauvinism, don’t we?
Well, most men don’t appreciate reverse female chauvinism, either.
The whole "battle of the sexes" mantra is old and cliched.
Sure, there are differences between the two. Always have been, and always will be.
But let's stop the antagonism, shall we?
The one-upmanship (or, in this case, one-upwomanship) of the so-called "battle of the sexes" is really a farce that helps no one get over or beyond discrimination and inequality.
Today's culture is overly feminized, overcharged with an overdose of estrogen. The messages being sent to men today rubs their noses in discrimination and inequality. Nothing constructive is said or done to overcome these pitfalls of a free society.
As such, I am growing more skeptical and have become more suspicious that, to militant feminists who control the national women's rights agenda, the cause isn't really about equality at all, but rather revenge.
Retribution is perhaps the strongest, most pungent motivator for people who feel slighted, cheated, used and patronized. Unfortunately, the pendulum of equality suffers most, because it can never achieve true balance in the center when those forces changing its course are intent on using it as a weapon instead of a tool for justice.
Consequently, I can only expect our society and our culture to navigate in a circle of perpetual inequality that masquerades, ironically, as equality.
The burning question remaining in my mind: Will men just lay down and let all of the estrogen suffocate them? Or, will we put our feet down and start demanding some balance? Can there be room left for comparative levels of testosterone?
I'm afraid only you ladies can answer that question.
However, one truth I’ve learned about politics is that it tends to swing on a perpetual pendulum. Instead of simply trying to stop the pendulum from swinging, we just change its direction so that it swings the other way.
This has been as true in gender politics as it has with any other form of inequality. We just don’t seem to be able to find that balance. Our solution to inequality repeatedly seems to be reverse inequality.
Consequently, we no longer live in a man’s world. Popular culture, along with the current sociopolitical climate, increasingly awards the power to women.
One of the alphabet networks recently aired a nightly news story about the growing trend of single women choosing motherhood. The underlying message being sent to all of us men, of course, is that we aren’t necessary anymore. Women don’t need or even want us to be part of a family unit. They can do it all themselves without our help or our influence.
While the story did stress the importance of “male influences”—neighbors, teachers, coaches and relatives—the role of a full-time father figure was notably absent.
One message I received from the story is that a man is needed only as a sperm donor, a checkbook (child support and/or alimony) and an occasional “influence,” but not as a parent. Fatherhood is reduced to a specimen in a Petrie dish.
Needless to say, as a man, I found the story disturbing.
My gender is also the butt of jokes around a female-dominant office in which I work. A few of my co-workers take jabs at the male gender by disparagingly referring to us as the “Y Chromosome.”
Fundamentally, this could be considered sexual harassment; but I could never get away with alleging it because I’m a man. Besides, I try to consider the sources of these comments. Every woman in the office who jokes about the “Y Chromosome” has a history of failed relationships; so I figure that the disparaging gender comments are born out of resentment and their own poor choices in life. It isn’t worth making a big stink over, especially since I would have to continue working with these ladies and deal with the interpersonal repercussions of filing a formal complaint.
But that’s really neither here nor there. It isn’t germaine to the issue, so I digress.
The negative messages against men are everywhere these days: At work, around the community, and diffusely in the media, the last of which permeates the very sanctity of a man’s home.
There are no more destructive messages against masculinity than that which exists in the media—be it news, entertainment, popular culture, or advertising.
The next time you guys sit down to watch a football game on television, take note of the number of ads that show men in a disparaging way or in a negative light. Whenever an advertisement includes competing gender roles, the man is overwhelmingly shown as either the weaker of the two, the least intelligent, the most impulsive, and the least civilized. Beer, soda and car commercials are among the worst offenders when it comes to making men look bad, especially in the presence of women.
What these messages do is reinforce some modern idea that women aren’t merely on equal footing with men these days, but are, in fact, superior to them.
Worse yet, a lot of men seem to have bought into the notion that women are superior to them, because that’s what the media tells them on a daily basis; or it’s the message they hear at the office or even at home each and every day.
The idea of female superiority is evident in the language used by some of society’s notable female leaders.
Nancy Lieberman, current coach of a men’s NBA D-League professional developmental basketball team, the Texas Legends, and a former player who broke a gender barrier by playing on a men’s basketball team herself, has been quoted as saying that men are used to having women tell them what to do.
“We’ve told men what to do since the beginning of time,” she has said. “They’re used to getting information from us.”
Lieberman has also been paraphrased as saying that every man in a locker room has taken instruction from a woman since they were a baby: whether it’s from a mom, a wife or a girlfriend. “They need women in every aspect—why not as coach?” she said.
I don’t mean to knock Lieberman specifically for her comments, but what she said is indicative of the notion of gender superiority that exists among a lot of American women today. Political and cultural feminism has done much to push propaganda that men need women, but women don’t need men.
Well, I take exception to this notion. I don’t need my wife; I want her. I don’t need my mother anymore, either, but I want her to remain a part of my life.
I certainly don’t need anybody to tell me what to do or show me how to do things, either. I may want or seek advice from women, but that doesn’t mean I need them to tell or show me what or how to do something. I don’t need direction from either gender, thank you very much. I’m perfectly capable of being directed on my own. I am my own motivator.
Having said that, I concede that women are superior to men in some ways: They are generally better at multi-tasking and parenting than men are. They tend to have a higher pain tolerance than men. They seem better coordinated, which is probably linked to multi-tasking. They tend to possess a natural, innate ability to bond with children, and they are better at nurturing than men are.
Other than that, I fail to see where they are generally superior to men. In fact, I don’t see where either gender has an advantage over the other when it comes to using the gray matter between the ears.
But this isn’t the message that men are hearing these days. They hear the exact opposite. Comments from women like Nancy Lieberman aren’t helping to change this climate, but rather to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Would it not be more constructive and beneficial to tell men that they don’t need women, but they do need to “man up” and take responsibility for themselves and those who depend upon them—their families, most notably? To say that men need women to direct them is akin to saying that women need men to lead them and make decisions for them. We all know how much feminists appreciate male chauvinism, don’t we?
Well, most men don’t appreciate reverse female chauvinism, either.
The whole "battle of the sexes" mantra is old and cliched.
Sure, there are differences between the two. Always have been, and always will be.
But let's stop the antagonism, shall we?
The one-upmanship (or, in this case, one-upwomanship) of the so-called "battle of the sexes" is really a farce that helps no one get over or beyond discrimination and inequality.
Today's culture is overly feminized, overcharged with an overdose of estrogen. The messages being sent to men today rubs their noses in discrimination and inequality. Nothing constructive is said or done to overcome these pitfalls of a free society.
As such, I am growing more skeptical and have become more suspicious that, to militant feminists who control the national women's rights agenda, the cause isn't really about equality at all, but rather revenge.
Retribution is perhaps the strongest, most pungent motivator for people who feel slighted, cheated, used and patronized. Unfortunately, the pendulum of equality suffers most, because it can never achieve true balance in the center when those forces changing its course are intent on using it as a weapon instead of a tool for justice.
Consequently, I can only expect our society and our culture to navigate in a circle of perpetual inequality that masquerades, ironically, as equality.
The burning question remaining in my mind: Will men just lay down and let all of the estrogen suffocate them? Or, will we put our feet down and start demanding some balance? Can there be room left for comparative levels of testosterone?
I'm afraid only you ladies can answer that question.
Analysis: Cheese versus Steel
Steel is naturally stronger than cheese...except, perhaps, on the gridiron.
Super Bowl XLV will put this theory to the test on February 5, 2011 when the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers square off against the NFC Champion Green Bay Packers.
The Steelers may have their hands full with the Packers, who are poised to give the current "Steel Curtain" D all it can handle.
The Steelers, don't forget, blew a 24-0 lead to the NY Jets last weekend, having given up 19 unanswered points. Poor play calling in the Red Zone at the end of the game doomed the Jets; not the Steelers' D.
Pittsburgh was also in the hole 21-7 at halftime to the Baltimore Ravens two weeks ago before coming back and then holding on to win. The Steelers made some costly, glaring mistakes against the Ravens' defense early in the game. Had it not been for a complete 180 by the team in the second half, it could have turned into a blow-out in favor of Baltimore. Pittsburgh is inconsistent so far in the playoffs. It plays well at times, and at other times it doesn't.
Sure, the same could be said about Green Bay or any other team for that matter. But the Packers right now are gelling together. There's a hunger with this young team that I saw in the 1997 Broncos, 1999 Ravens, the 2000 Rams, 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers, the 2005 Steelers, the 2007 Giants, and the 2009 Saints.
I don't get the same sense of hunger from the Steelers, many of whom have been to the Big Show before, and this is just another day at the office for them. Remember the 2007 Patriots, the team that was undefeated going into the SB against the Giants? The game was supposed to be just another day at the office for New England, just another notch in the win column. But that team completely underestimated the NYG-men, dismissing them as the last speed bump in the road to perfection.
Granted, Pittsburgh doesn't appear to be as arrogant as the 2007 Patriots were; but it can easily overlook Green Bay as just another lucky 10-6 No. 6 seed...which Pittsburgh was in 2005 when it won it all. The teams that get hot at the end of the regular season and/or win when it matters most are the most dangerous teams entering the playoffs. Ergo, The Pack.
Having said all of that, Green Bay will certainly have its hands full with the Steelers. On offense, Pitt offers a dual RB threat, as well as lethal weapons on the flank and under center. Pitt has a well-balanced offense quite comparable, if not superior, to Green Bay's O. If the Steelers start eating up chunks of yardage running the football, then they can dominate time of possession and field position, even if the game turns out to be highly defensive with little scoring. Green Bay Linebackers Coach Kevin Greene and his D, led by Matthews and Raji et al, had better bring their A game against Pitt's RBs and Roethlisberger.
On defense, the Steelers are just plain frightening the way they aggressively attack the pocket. Rodgers' one "Achilles Heel" is that he is a much less effective pocket passer than he is an out-of-pocket passer. The Bears flustered him a little in the second half by attacking the pocket and forcing throws from Rodgers. The key for GB will be its O line. It has done a pretty good job so far giving Rodgers time to throw or time to move out of the pocket to find an open receiver. But it has made its share of mistakes, and Rodgers has taken his share of beatings this season, too. The Pack may be well advised to utilize Driver, Kuhn and even Starks as extra blockers on longer routes, which require more time for Rodgers to set up and throw. If anything, blockers should do everything they can to give Rodgers an opening so that he can escape the pocket, because I think the Packers' O line may have a difficult time keeping the Steelers' pass rush at bay for too long. If Pitt ends up flushing Rodgers out of the pocket more often than not, rather than containing him in there and collapsing it, then it risks getting picked apart by a guy who throws better and makes better passing decisions on the run.
My greatest concern about Green Bay's offense is the inconsistency of its receiving corps. I've seen these guys complete some difficult pass plays, but then drop some gimmies. Against Pittsburgh, the Packers will need to be sure to earn their money by catching the gimmie passes.
With an aggressive D line like Pitt's, I wonder if the Packers might do well to draw in a lot of short 5-10 yard pass plays to guys like Kuhn and Driver? As quickly as Pitt gets off the line, the shorter and quicker the passes, probably the better. Screens should work well against a D that zeroes in on the pocket. That's not to say that McCarthy shouldn't keep a few "aces" up his sleeve in the event that the run game finds some success early on. A couple of play action fakes on second and short; maybe a naked boot leg toward the sideline on third and two; and some quick slant routes over the middle to Jordy Nelson when Pitt is looking for a screen pass to Kuhn or a short out to Driver.
And, of course, always keep them guessing on special teams. You never know when GB will try an on-side kick at kick-off.
Most important of all...HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL. At all costs. In a defensive ball game, as I suspect this one to be, turnovers are killers. It has long been said that defenses win championships. I don't see this game being any different. Coach Greene's D Machine should attack the football as often as it does the ball carriers. Go after the strip whenever practical. Be aggressive, but not so much so that you show your hand before it’s called.
A level head will go a long way toward defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Too much adrenaline, too much emotion could spell trouble for the youthful and largely inexperienced Pack.
I have a gut feeling about Green Bay...not just because I'm a Packer Backer, either. History is often on the side of the hungriest team...And the Packers are starving for a championship right now.
Super Bowl XLV will put this theory to the test on February 5, 2011 when the AFC Champion Pittsburgh Steelers square off against the NFC Champion Green Bay Packers.
The Steelers may have their hands full with the Packers, who are poised to give the current "Steel Curtain" D all it can handle.
The Steelers, don't forget, blew a 24-0 lead to the NY Jets last weekend, having given up 19 unanswered points. Poor play calling in the Red Zone at the end of the game doomed the Jets; not the Steelers' D.
Pittsburgh was also in the hole 21-7 at halftime to the Baltimore Ravens two weeks ago before coming back and then holding on to win. The Steelers made some costly, glaring mistakes against the Ravens' defense early in the game. Had it not been for a complete 180 by the team in the second half, it could have turned into a blow-out in favor of Baltimore. Pittsburgh is inconsistent so far in the playoffs. It plays well at times, and at other times it doesn't.
Sure, the same could be said about Green Bay or any other team for that matter. But the Packers right now are gelling together. There's a hunger with this young team that I saw in the 1997 Broncos, 1999 Ravens, the 2000 Rams, 2001 Patriots, the 2002 Buccaneers, the 2005 Steelers, the 2007 Giants, and the 2009 Saints.
I don't get the same sense of hunger from the Steelers, many of whom have been to the Big Show before, and this is just another day at the office for them. Remember the 2007 Patriots, the team that was undefeated going into the SB against the Giants? The game was supposed to be just another day at the office for New England, just another notch in the win column. But that team completely underestimated the NYG-men, dismissing them as the last speed bump in the road to perfection.
Granted, Pittsburgh doesn't appear to be as arrogant as the 2007 Patriots were; but it can easily overlook Green Bay as just another lucky 10-6 No. 6 seed...which Pittsburgh was in 2005 when it won it all. The teams that get hot at the end of the regular season and/or win when it matters most are the most dangerous teams entering the playoffs. Ergo, The Pack.
Having said all of that, Green Bay will certainly have its hands full with the Steelers. On offense, Pitt offers a dual RB threat, as well as lethal weapons on the flank and under center. Pitt has a well-balanced offense quite comparable, if not superior, to Green Bay's O. If the Steelers start eating up chunks of yardage running the football, then they can dominate time of possession and field position, even if the game turns out to be highly defensive with little scoring. Green Bay Linebackers Coach Kevin Greene and his D, led by Matthews and Raji et al, had better bring their A game against Pitt's RBs and Roethlisberger.
On defense, the Steelers are just plain frightening the way they aggressively attack the pocket. Rodgers' one "Achilles Heel" is that he is a much less effective pocket passer than he is an out-of-pocket passer. The Bears flustered him a little in the second half by attacking the pocket and forcing throws from Rodgers. The key for GB will be its O line. It has done a pretty good job so far giving Rodgers time to throw or time to move out of the pocket to find an open receiver. But it has made its share of mistakes, and Rodgers has taken his share of beatings this season, too. The Pack may be well advised to utilize Driver, Kuhn and even Starks as extra blockers on longer routes, which require more time for Rodgers to set up and throw. If anything, blockers should do everything they can to give Rodgers an opening so that he can escape the pocket, because I think the Packers' O line may have a difficult time keeping the Steelers' pass rush at bay for too long. If Pitt ends up flushing Rodgers out of the pocket more often than not, rather than containing him in there and collapsing it, then it risks getting picked apart by a guy who throws better and makes better passing decisions on the run.
My greatest concern about Green Bay's offense is the inconsistency of its receiving corps. I've seen these guys complete some difficult pass plays, but then drop some gimmies. Against Pittsburgh, the Packers will need to be sure to earn their money by catching the gimmie passes.
With an aggressive D line like Pitt's, I wonder if the Packers might do well to draw in a lot of short 5-10 yard pass plays to guys like Kuhn and Driver? As quickly as Pitt gets off the line, the shorter and quicker the passes, probably the better. Screens should work well against a D that zeroes in on the pocket. That's not to say that McCarthy shouldn't keep a few "aces" up his sleeve in the event that the run game finds some success early on. A couple of play action fakes on second and short; maybe a naked boot leg toward the sideline on third and two; and some quick slant routes over the middle to Jordy Nelson when Pitt is looking for a screen pass to Kuhn or a short out to Driver.
And, of course, always keep them guessing on special teams. You never know when GB will try an on-side kick at kick-off.
Most important of all...HOLD ON TO THE FOOTBALL. At all costs. In a defensive ball game, as I suspect this one to be, turnovers are killers. It has long been said that defenses win championships. I don't see this game being any different. Coach Greene's D Machine should attack the football as often as it does the ball carriers. Go after the strip whenever practical. Be aggressive, but not so much so that you show your hand before it’s called.
A level head will go a long way toward defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Too much adrenaline, too much emotion could spell trouble for the youthful and largely inexperienced Pack.
I have a gut feeling about Green Bay...not just because I'm a Packer Backer, either. History is often on the side of the hungriest team...And the Packers are starving for a championship right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
