I realize that most of my readers really do not care about sports except for G and his Auburn Tigers obsession (who by the way, really should be in the Orange Bowl not Florida State, but that's another post).
No, this post isn't about sports as much as it is about the state of professional sports, in the era of the spoiled brats. You know the ones, the brats that get paid enormous amounts of money to play kids' games. It is about one example of one immature brat; and how his actions are consistent with a new generation of kids, coming into a lot of money at a very young age, and the overinflated sense of self-worth that comes with it. It is about the lost art of teamwork and the rise of the "me first" individual.
The Indianapolis Star is reporting that Ron Artest of the Indiana Pacers is wanting to be traded. In a 20-minute interview Saturday, Artest for the first time publicly said he wants to be traded. He calmly described the issues he has with his role on the team, his head coach and his past, and said the team would be better off without him.
Now, that in itself isn't an issue. Players ask for trades from time to time, when they are not happy. Management initiates trades at their pleasure, as well. It's a business, it happens. That is not the significant thing here.
As you may or may not recall, Ron Artest is an extremely talented player that started a huge melee, in a basketball game in Detroit last season; an action that got him suspended for almost an entire season, 73 games to be exact. What was to be a promising season last year, was a season derailed. It was Reggie Miller's last season and the team desperately wanted to win one for him. But due to the immature actions of Artest, that goal was never met.
But they stuck with him. They didn't deal him anywhere in the off season, when they clearly could/should have. They welcomed him back this year with open arms and forgave his transgressions. They wrote last season off as a bad dream and honestly believed that he would grow up enough to become an integral part of, a team that wanted to win a championship. But again, they were wrong. Again, Mr. Artest has failed them.
Three seasons ago, he led the league in flagrant fouls. Two seasons ago, he played like a pouting brat in the playoffs. That would have been the last straw, for me. He would have been on the next trading block, without fail, had I been asked about it. But, they opted to exercise more patience. Then came the debacle of last season. And they STILL gave him another chance, despite the embarassment of seeing themselves acting like a bunch of thugs on the national news, over and over again. But I am not the only one that feels this way.
Bob Kravitz, a sports columnist for the Indianapolis Star, has certainly made his feeings well-known in his latest column entitled, Tick Tock: Time's Up For Artest.
Ron Artest can't come back now, not after this, not after saying he wants to get away from coach Rick Carlisle and go someplace where he can get bigger numbers and a fresh start.
He must be traded.
Now.
Artest, an incorrigible bum who should have been set free long ago, should not be allowed to spend another night soiling the uniform of the Indiana Pacers.
You see, Ron Artest has been stinking up the team chemistry already this year, after selling everyone this cock and bull story about how he has changed, about how he has matured. But he hasn't. He has not fit into the mold of the team and apparently doesn't want to fit into the mold of any team. He wants someplace where he can be the king (while playing thug ball) and score a lot of points. This, he wants, only for the purpose of being able to secure a big money contract. By fitting into the mold of a team, he would have to sacrifice numbers; numbers that he feels he needs, to earn the respect of his peers and the league. He isn't taking into consideration that his behavior has been the one thing that has hurt him most. And yet, he now has the audacity to ask for a trade, because in essence he doesn't share the same team philosophy, as his coach. What Ron fails to realize is, if he wins a championship, his stock goes up instantly. And teams win them, every year. Not players, teams. Last year it was the Spurs, the year before the Pistons. Both played team ball. The league knows what this kid can do, they do not need to see (nor do they want to see) a lot of points from one guy. It doesn't win championships, and usually doesn't win many games. Ask Allen Iverson (and many others). The league is full of hotshots that play for teams that will never win a title. Why is this so? Why do these kids act selfish, in spite of the fact that they are being paid massive amounts of money to play on a ball TEAM?Immaturity. They've been given a lot of money, they get greedy, selfish, and they want more.
The lack of maturity displayed by kids that come into the league at 18 has been noticed by the league. They have a new rule that players cannot be eligible for the NBA draft until they have been out of high school, at least one year. I do not think it goes nearly far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
Why? Because I feel that a kid that comes out of high school is not mature enough to deal with suddenly being an adult, right away. It's a learning process that all of us had to go through in other areas, and by experience we know that you don't get good at it right away. ( I matured and learned the art of teamwork in the Army) And if you add millions of dollars to the mix, it could be the recipe for disaster, down the road. Not for all, mind you. But for the majority, yes.Even those that come out after a year or two of college aren't always the best at this, either. What little college Artest endured, didn't help him much at attaining a reasonable level of maturity nor did it help learn the concept of teamwork. And there are others it didn't help, as well. I am not so sure that four years would have done the job for him, or the others. But who knows?
But most of those that fared the best were the ones that went, all four years. Look at Larry Bird, he went all four years. He, with a supporting cast of mediocre players, led his team to within one game, of an NCAA championship. Then led the Boston Celtics to three titles. He took the Celtics from last to first in the first year. He did it by working hard and being a team player. He got his teammates involved and made them better by doing it. He was unselfish. He made good money, but he earned it because of his work ethic. He had very little ego, by NBA standards today. He learned leadership and gained valuable maturity as a player and a man, in college. Jordan only had two years of college, but he was clearly an exception. He was, after all, Michael Jordan. He had a deep understanding of the game and what it took to win it. Like Bird, he made everyone on his team a better player. When he scored a lot of points, the Bulls usually lost. He was mature enough to make the transition, but let's not forget, he didn't win titles right away.
In all professions today, the most successful operations are as a result of good team work. The military absolutely has to have it, as does law enforcement and rescue. Others need it too. But just let one spoiled immature brat come into any successful organization and play this lone wolf game, and you will watch success turn into failure, often. As I said, all professions, businesses, and organizations need team work to excel, to function, and sometimes just to survive. But it doesn't stop there. As a nation, we need teamwork. We need people that won't look at opportunities to further their political careers. We need people that will sacrifice their numbers a little bit and play some team ball, to better the United States of America. We do not not need a ball hog that cares nothing about winning, but only seeks fame and glory for him or herself. We need statemen and stateswomen, and we need them in the worst kind of way. We need them now, and forever. Or, we will fail as a civilization, culture, and as a champion of freedom and liberty. Will Americans keep giving chance after chance to their elected officials that do nothing but disrupt and derail, like the Pacers have done with Artest? Or will we trade the non-hackers, for team players that will sacrifice, for the welfare of Team America?If sports is a microcosm of that principle, I am worried.
G has it at In The Middle Of America, Let The Truth Be Known. Read it. It's hilarious, but there are many elements of truth woven into it.
AICS at The Logic Lifeline tells us how CNN is getting killed in the news network ratings war and provides a very good link to follow. And then he tells us why.Go check it out. And, dont be the last person on your block to do so.
Ironman at Political Calculations has posted some numbers with a brief, yet concise, analysis.The EU nations have almost 88 million more people than we do, yet we still outproduce them. What it all boils down to is, almost the entire European continent does not produce what we do. One can only wonder how much more they could produce, if they did not have such an affinity for socialism.Take a moment and and at least glance at it, if you don't believe it.
If the only people I ever listened to were leftists, miltitants, liberal elitists, and the MSM which gives them their mouth piece, I'd think that this country is totally in shambles and on the verge of reaching the point of utter collapse. Remember the election last year?
Everybody needed a job. The soup lines were full, famine was widespread. The whole national economy was in near, total ruin. And Americans were in a state of despair. Add to that, the American military was on the verge of collapse at the hands of the Iraqi "insurgents" (wink wink, nudge nudge), who were just too mighty and too strong for our forces that had been severely demoralized by a flawed foreign policy and a resilient people that were so very much misunderstood, by America.
But wait. Hasn't it been a year since the election? It has, but we are still hearing the same gloom and doom, about the times we live in.
Don't get me wrong. I do firmly believe that we indeed live in perilous times. But not for the same reasons that this current bunch of naysayers do. The very objects of their criticisms are misdirected and in some cases, there is no case for criticism at all. The things they should be criticizing, they don't; and they criticize the things that warrant very little (if none at all).
Just how bad today is, compared to times past, is the subject of this AP article about a survey recently conducted at Siena College. Keep in mind as you read this article, this data came from the academic wing of the liberal elite. Here is a short exerpt, but by all means read it all:
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Terrorist attacks, a war in Iraq and natural disasters aren't so bad compared to other tough times in America's past, from the Revolutionary War to the Cold War, history professors say.
Asked to compare eight difficult periods of the nation's history, 46 percent of the 354 professors who responded to a nationwide survey agreed the current era was the least trying. The Civil War, 55 percent said, was the toughest.
Putting today into perspective requires some knowledge of history, something that is lacking in today's world. The "it's all about me" and the "I want it and I want right now" crowd does not value the importance of history and how we can use it to make better lives for ourselves, today. So, many people that fit this description cannot understand the sacrifices and sufferings of many, in the past; therefore, they have nothing to compare with the challenges we face today.
Because if they did, every time they were tempted to claim that a 5% unemployment rate is why people everywhere, suffer so much; they would know that contrasted with the 25% rate seen in the Great Depression, this is a cakewalk. And if every time, they were tempted to claim that this war is a total and utter failure because the casualty rate is unacceptable, they could look up the numbers of all of the previous wars. They could note that we lost more men on D-Day than the whole Iraqi war, to date. They could note the meat grinder nature of WWI, WWII, and the Civil War, where dead littered the countrysides of both Europe and this country, by the thousands.
In spite of an islamofascist threat that is ever busy trying to find ways to wreak havoc by killing innocents and destroying western civilization, we do have it damned good compared to our forefathers. Cars, cell phones, information available 24 hours a day at your fingertips, microwave ovens, you name it. They had none of it. We do.
And yet today, very few people understand, just how fortunate they really are. They have known nothing of sacrifice or what it means to truly suffer, yet they want us all to believe that it's worse now, than ever before. But that's not the shocking part of it all. What amazes me, is the fact that these same spoiled elitist snerts and snobs do not think that a little fight now, could and would prevent the need for a bigger one later; a fight that would very definitely come much closer to the reality of what they want us to believe is happening now. Thousands of dead, in a day or week, mass funerals, widespread grief and sorrow are all just a moment away, if we do not defend that which we have so good, right now. And, do it right.In some ways it is a bad time, depending on how you look at it. But if we could all understand a little bit about the times that occurred before us, we would know that it could be a whole lot worse. On the other hand, it's good, but if those of us that sleep could/would wake up, it could and would be a lot better. If the left, could put aside politics for long enough to get Iraq up and running, instead of tearing it down at every opportunity, we could get the troops home sooner rather than later.And believe me when I tell you this. If I thought for one moment our troops had been there too long, with all of the reasonable objectives met, I'd be posting it. But until that day, let's just finish this up, without anymore distractions.
Unless Christmas miracles start early, I will be very busy for a couple of days. Therefore, I have to announce a light blog alert. But I still will be around and will have a little time to read your blogs, I won't be out of computer range. I will just be too tired to put anything too coherent together, unless of course something monumental happens in the news that warrants a quickie.As always, thanks so much for reading PYY.
Today is that day that FDR said was "a day that will live in infamy", 64 years later. Ask anyone that was old enough to remember that day in 1941 and they will tell you, it was a Sunday just like any other Sunday, before Christmas. My father said he was listening to a radio show called, Captain Midnight, when the news came through. There was no CNN, no Fox News, and no 24 hour news cycle complete with sound bites.
In the days leading up to that moment in time, Roosevelt had been arguing for assisting Britain in their time of need, as the Nazis relentlessly bombed the island. Many isolationists were in government and were very resistant to entering what was then perceived as, Europe's war. (They had their heads in the sand, just as Neville Chamberlain and company did before the Battle of Britain.) Many even formed a committee called the America First Committee, with the support and blessings of one famous name, Charles Lindbergh.
They were adamant. They were loud, they were vocal. They participated in the debate and made enough noise, up to that point in time, because FDR could not garner enough support to enter the war. So we didn't.
But when the bombs fell in an unprovoked attack by the Japanese Navy, Americans suddenly woke up. Those that opposed the war before the attack, suddenly were able to come to grips with the fact that they were wrong. There were a few that held out, they held out throughout the war and held out until they died. But the vast majority overcame the sin of human pride and began supporting the effort, after a provocative attack designed to both punish and weaken.
Let's read a short account of this by the former mayor of New York City Ed Koch, posted in an essay last July on the site Real Clear Politics. (I recommend reading the whole piece, because it ties in with the point I am trying to make.)
In 1941, when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the U.S. four days later, there were opponents of the Roosevelt policy of supporting the survival of a British government seeking to repel the pending Nazi invasion. Many of them were allied with the America First Committee led by Charles Lindbergh who sought to use anti-Semitism to coalesce the country, blaming the Jews for the world’s ills. Under that umbrella organization, there were Nazi supporters and others who sought to be neutral in what was then clearly becoming a war of civilizations, pitting European and American democracy against fascist totalitarianism.
Did you catch that? Did you catch the part about the war of civilizations? How familiar does that sound?
Let's read on:
The America First Committee dissolved after December 7, 1941, and most of its adherents stood shoulder-to-shoulder against the enemies of the U.S. and Western civilization.
Let's see, they argued against entering the war, in spite of the formidable threat that was openly apparent. They made their cases. FDR listened to them (for a season) and did not act on his intuitions. And then, when America was attacked, they dissolved the America First Committee and rallied around the cause, the cause of victory.
What a generation of Americans and what a generation of statesmen that must have been. To think that they could disagree, but when the chips were down and American men were going into combat, they could put their differences aside and support the cause of victory for the greatest nation that ever graced this planet.
Now, let's bring this up to more recent history. This generation has now seen its "day of infamy", Sept. 11, 2001. On that day, there was an unprovoked attack on the United States of America. Two planes took down the two towers, one hit the Pentagon, and one took out a field on their way to (probably) somewhere in Washington. But what happened, then?
The people and government united and sang kumbaya, for a little while.
The Administration got approval from Congress to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan and begin to disrupt and break up Al Qaeda. They were successful. During this time, the anthrax attacks were going on, people were definitely concerned. So with all of that in mind, you can see how the whole country was thinking at this time, immediately following this "day of infamy". But that wasn't all.
If that wasn't enough, the threat reports were showing Saddam stood a good chance of possessing WMDs. And that's not all, the previous Administration thought he had them too. So, then we faced a quandry that was debated and argued, the measure was put to a vote. What to do, what to do? On one hand do we vote aginst it and risk that he really does have them? Or, do we get rid the world of him, once and for all, removing all doubt? So, the Congress approved it and rolled the dice with the President. Saddam was to disarm/leave or be disarmed/removed. He refused. We kept our word.
Now, there are many who want to go back and change their vote just as we are getting to the point where we can look at a reasonable exit strategy. They do not want to stay the course. They are now screaming "Vietnam", when Vietnam was much more bloody, more dangerous, and without clearcut objectives. If you don't believe me, visit "In The Middle Of America", where the bloghost G, has done some research and posted some contrasts, between Iraq and Vietnam. They are not rallying around the cause of victory, they want to cut and run. That's what they want for their legacy and their contribution to this country, in this time of danger. For the life of me, I cannot imagine the "Greatest Generation" cutting and running from this fight. I just can't. I cannot imagine that any that opposed WWII before the attack on that "day of infamy" would want to go back and change their vote, either. They wanted to win. They knew that the best way to get their boys back home sooner, was to unite for victory.
So to all WWII veterans and those that stayed home and supported the war effort in the best way you could, I say, "thank all of you for the sacrifices you all made and thank you all for not cutting and running".Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes
The N.Y. Daily news is reporting that angry anti-war activists are now vowing to hound Sen. Hillary Clinton for her position on the war. She is about to learn the price for doing the right thing.
You may remember that PYY brought you this story back in October, about Cindy Sheehan threatening to hound Sen. Clinton, if she did not adopt her "bring the troops home now" stance. Well, Hillary did not bow, did not waver, and now must pay the price, according to Mother Sheehan and her group of seditious malcontents. It appears that they are making good on their threat.From the NY News:WASHINGTON - Anti-war activists furious with Sen. Hillary Clinton are vowing to bird-dog her everywhere she goes, starting with a swanky Manhattan fund-raiser tonight.
Clinton's letter last week clarifying her position on Iraq - which included rejecting a timetable for withdrawal - fanned the anger of some war opponents, who decided to launch a campaign against New York's junior senator.
"We're calling it Bird-Dog Hillary," said Medea Benjamin of the peace group Codepink.
"I'm so mad at her," said Nancy Kricorian, Codepink's New York City coordinator. "We will dog her wherever she goes."
Both Benjamin and Kricorian are members of Code Pink, a group that has exploited Cindy Sheehan's story at every turn, since August. I must say it will be amusing to see the Clintons being protested and to see their reaction. They are not used to it. But as you may guess, the MSM probably won't cover it or it will be buried next to the insignificant "filler" stories, that very few people read. Hopefully there will be a creative and industrious blogger that will get the scoop and some photos to go with it.
It's located at Up Pompeii and it is something that everyone needs to read, objectively. It is poignant and very thought-provoking. Everyone that has the capacity to ingest, analyze, and process data needs to understand, what we are up against. Gandalf, the blog host, tells us.
The AP is reporting some controversy over the way that New Orleans is planning to rebuild the city. NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- The proposal was controversial from the beginning: Focus resources on rebuilding New Orleans' less-damaged neighborhoods first and carefully study whether it makes sense to repopulate areas that were flooded the worst.
If all areas were treated the same - that is, if resources were spread thin across vast areas of devastation - planners at the Urban Land Institute said the city would be condemned to a slow, patchwork recovery. Isolated residents would live amid lingering swaths of blight.
Not scattering the work effort makes it easier for logistics purposes. And it keeps costs lower, in the long run. Sounds reasonable, right?
Well. As you might have guessed, not everyone is happy, despite the fact that the plan makes good sense.
But what the planners viewed as logic was dismissed as racism by some local leaders.
"Florida gets hit every year and we never hear the question raised whether or not we need to rebuild the coast of Florida," said Danatus King, president of the New Orleans chapter of the NAACP. "California gets hit with wildfires and mudslides.
"What's the difference between those areas and the areas of New Orleans we're talking about? It's a majority black population and poor population," he said.
Mr. King is definitely confused. That's not it, at all. In fact, he demonstrates the need for better education in basic economics. He is either incapable of processing logical data effectively or he is playing the usual race card for political purposes.
The plan does make sense for a variety of reasons, but the main two are:
1. Costs. It will cost less money to rebuild by concentrating in one or more areas, at a time. Not only that, you damn sure do not want to rebuild the dependent part of town that produces very little in the way of revenue (or labor), before you rebuild that part that does. That section sucked in the money without giving much back, before the flood. If they get rebuilt first, they will do the same thing again. You can't rebuild a city with parasites sucking the life out of your project, at the same time.2. Time. It will take less time overall. Have you ever tried to teach a toddler to pick up his/her toys? You go in and see the toys scattered all over, you make them pick it up. What do they do? They pick a toy here and then a toy over there. It takes longer than picking up one area at a time, from one end to another. And so it also goes with massive rebuilding efforts, on a large scale.To summarize:If the New Orleans chapter of the NAACP would use their heads, they would see the wisdom, logic, and value of this plan. But to them, it may affect the next election and many of their elected officials could lose power. So they feel, this has to be stopped. They have been successful in getting elections postponed once. But, it is becoming more and more apparent that it may not help their situation much, anyway. Much of their base lives in the areas in question. Therefore, they want them back only for voting purposes only, no matter how costly it may prove in the log run. They do not care about New Orleans, nor do they care about the people that they pretend to represent. They only care about their own selfish desires, staying in power is their priority. I mean, let's think about this. The people that are relocated can receive their federal government checks and other perks, in Dallas, in Atlanta, or anywhere for that matter. And they can do it, just as easy as they can in New Orleans. Many may not even want to come back, anyway.If they rebuild this right, the way the experts have recommended, they stand a much better chance of near complete recovery, much sooner than by catering to the noisemakers and race-card players, of the left. If they don't? It may be years, if ever.
