Thursday, October 30, 2014

Reason #7,462 why most women don't vote Republican

Following the debacles that were the previous couple of elections for Republicans with regard to women voters and issues, one would think they'd have learned by now, but apparently that's not the case.

Remember these lovely comments?

Todd Akin: "It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

Richard Mourdock: "I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that's something God intended to happen."

Well, at a get-out-the-vote rally in Sarasota, Florida on Tuesday, conservative radio show host Dennis Prager felt the need to continue the trend by sharing his thoughts on the wave of sexual assault and rape reports on college campuses:

"It's a gargantuan lie to get votes. It's as big a lie as the culture of rape on your campuses. What nonsense. There is a culture of rape on campuses run by the feminist left."

He added:

"One in five women are sexually assaulted on campuses. Do you know what sexual assault means? Did you ever look at what counts? An unwanted kiss is considered sexual assault. I'm stunned it's only one in five. Four out of five women have not gotten an unwanted kiss? My wife gets unwanted kisses every so often."

To his credit, the head of the Sarasota Republican Party - Joe Gruters - responded to Prager's comments by making the following statement to the Herald-Tribune: "It should never have been part of a political discussion at the rally."

People like Akin, Mourdock, and Prager show just how out-of-touch the GOP is with women's issues. Most women's lacking-equality claims don't get taken seriously by the party and get pushed to the side like they're nothing.

Women: "We make only $0.78 to the $1.00 that men make for the same job!"

GOP: "That's a gargantuan lie!"

Women: "We use birth control for many other things besides pregnancy prevention, to, you know, actually improve our health."

GOP: "That's a gargantuan lie!"

Women: "Sexual assaults and rapes occur far more frequently than they get reported, often times on college campuses."

GOP: "That's a gargantuan lie!"

If the GOP ever wants the majority of women to take them seriously, they better start taking women seriously.

Sorry college football talking heads, but there is an SEC bias

While I don't agree 100% with the playoff committee's first poll, which was released on Tuesday, I have to give them props for not falling directly in line with the media and coaches polls, which have been lazy to be nice, as well as biased toward the SEC. Yes, I said it; for as much as the media and coaches want to deny it, there is a definite bias toward the SEC.

Looking at the following numbers, here's how the top 17 teams should be ranked in my opinion (all unbeaten or 1-loss teams, excluding Marshall, East Carolina, and Duke, and no, I won't be listing the actual team names just yet):

1. Record: 7-0 (1.000)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 12-11 (.522)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 23-9 (.719)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 35-20 (.636)
Average margin of victory: +20.7

2. Record: 7-0 (1.000)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 13-10 (.565)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 15-17 (.469)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 28-27 (.509)
Average margin of victory: +14.8

3. Record: 7-1 (.875)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 14-8 (.636)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 17-15 (.531)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 31-23 (.574)
Average margin of victory: +21.4
Loss: to 7-2 team by 3 on road

4. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 14-8 (.636)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 15-10 (.600)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 29-18 (.617)
Average margin of victory: +18.6
Loss: to 7-0 team by 15 on road

5. Record: 7-1 (.875)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 12-12 (.500)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 17-15 (.531)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 29-27 (.518)
Average margin of victory: +15.4
Loss: to 6-1 team by 7 at home

6. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 10-12 (.455)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 13-10 (.565)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 23-22 (.511)
Average margin of victory: +28.0
Loss: to 6-1 team by 3 on road

7. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 10-5 (.667)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 13-17 (.433)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 23-22 (.511)
Average margin of victory: +14.0
Loss: to 6-1 team by 6 at home

8. Record: 7-1 (.875)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 12-12 (.500)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 15-15 (.500)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 27-27 (.500)
Average margin of victory: +22.5
Loss: to 7-1 team by 6 on road

9. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 22-25 (.468)
Average margin of victory: +14.3
Loss: to 7-0 team by 4 on road

10. Record: 7-1 (.875)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 8-7 (.533)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 16-15 (.516)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 24-22 (.522)
Average margin of victory: +23.4
Loss: to 7-1 team by 19 on road

11. Record: 7-1 (.875)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 16-15 (.516)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 12-11 (.522)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 28-26 (.519)
Average margin of victory: +22.7
Loss: to 7-1 team by 5 on road

12. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 9-15 (.375)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 13-11 (.542)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 22-26 (.458)
Average margin of victory: +12.3
Loss: to 5-3 team by 2 at home

13. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 7-9 (.438)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 15-17 (.469)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 22-26 (.458)
Average margin of victory: +23.4
Loss: to 4-4 team by 3 on road

14. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 9-14 (.391)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 14-9 (.609)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 23-23 (.500)
Average margin of victory: +23.6
Loss: to 4-4 team by 14 at home

15. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 7-16 (.304)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 11-12 (.478)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 18-28 (.391)
Average margin of victory: +19.7
Loss: to 6-2 team by 14 on road

16. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 2-13 (.133)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 17-15 (.531)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 19-28 (.404)
Average margin of victory: +8.0
Loss: to 6-2 team by 35 at home

17. Record: 6-1 (.857)
Non-conference opponents record they've beaten: 11-13 (.458)
Conference opponents record they've beaten: 15-8 (.652)
Overall opponents record they've beaten: 26-21 (.553)
Average margin of victory: +9.7
Loss: to 2-6 team by 1 at home

If, like me, you think those rankings are reasonable based on the teams' resumes, here are the actual team names next to those rankings, in comparison with the AP, coaches, and playoff committee polls)

1) Mississippi State (7-0) (#1 in AP, #1 in USA Today, #1 in playoff)

2) Florida State (7-0) (#2 in AP, #2 in USA Today, #2 in playoff)

3) Mississippi (7-1) (#7 in AP, #9 in USA Today, #4 in playoff)

4) Auburn (6-1) (#4 in AP, #4 in USA Today, #3 in playoff)

5) Oregon (7-1) (#5 in AP, #6 in USA Today, #5 in playoff)

6) TCU (6-1) (#10 in AP, #10 in USA Today, #7 in playoff)

7) Kansas State (6-1) (#11 in AP, #11 in USA Today, #9 in playoff)

8) Alabama (7-1) (#3 in AP, #3 in USA Today, #6 in playoff)

9) Notre Dame (6-1) (#6 in AP, #7 in USA Today, #10 in playoff)

10) Michigan State (7-1) (#8 in AP, #5 in USA Today, #8 in playoff)

11) Nebraska (7-1) (#17 in AP, #16 in USA Today, #15 in playoff)

12) Arizona (6-1) (#14 in AP, #15 in USA Today, #12 in playoff)

13) Georgia (6-1) (#9 in AP, #8 in USA Today, #11 in playoff)

14) Ohio State (6-1) (#13 in AP, #13 in USA Today, #16 in playoff)

15) Baylor (6-1) (#12 in AP, #12 in USA Today, #13 in playoff)

16) Arizona State (6-1) (#15 in AP, #15 in USA Today, #14 in playoff)

17) Utah (6-1) (#18 in AP, #18 in USA Today, #17 in playoff)

The media and coaches polls don't yet depict much bias as far as Mississippi State, Auburn, or especially Mississippi go. Mississippi State is one of two major conference teams, along with Florida State, who has yet to lose a game, and to this point in the season, their resume is more impressive than the defending champion Seminoles. Auburn and Mississippi's only losses are road games against unbeaten Mississippi State and 7-2 LSU, by 15 and 3 points, respectively. They also played fairly decent non-conference schedules, with Auburn beating Kansas State in Manhattan, and Mississippi defeating the always pesky Boise State Broncos. However, where the real bias comes in is with regard to Alabama and Georgia. While the playoff committee has the Crimson Tide ranked 6th and Bulldogs ranked 11th, the AP and Coaches polls have Alabama ranked 3rd and Georgia ranked 9th and 8th. To this point in the season, Alabama's most impressive win was their season's opening victory against the now 6-2 West Virginia Mountaineers by 10. Outside of that, they've only beaten one team over .500, and that was a reeling Texas A&M team, which went from a top 5 team to being out of the top 25 in a matter of no time it seemed. Outside of those two wins, they beat 4-4 Arkansas by a single point, defeated the .500 Florida Gators at home, beat 3-5 Tennessee by a couple of touchdowns, as well as sub-par Florida Atlantic and Southern Mississippi out-of-conference. To this point in the season, the teams they've beaten have gone a combined 27-27. Georgia's resume is even less impressive. Their most impressive win, like Alabama's, was an opening week victory out-of-conference, this time against Clemson. The Bulldogs took care of the inconsistent Missouri Tigers on the road, struggled against Arkansas and Tennessee (the latter two are a combined 7-9 on the season). They also defeated 2-6 Vanderbilt, and their only other non-conference opponent outside of Clemson to this point, was Troy. The non-conference opponents they've beaten to this point are 7-9 and the conference opponents they've beaten are 15-17. Are Alabama and Georgia good football teams? Yes, but to this point in the season, they're not deserving of the 3rd and 8th spots in the polls. To this point, teams like: Oregon, TCU, and Kansas State have more impressive resumes than Alabama, and those three along with the likes of Notre Dame, Michigan State, Nebraska, and Arizona have more impressive resumes than Georgia.

After seeing the polls this week, all I can say is thank the football gods the members of the playoff committee appear to have some sense to them and don't appear to be following the laziness and biases of the AP and Coaches polls. Let's hope that continues.

Inconsistency in the sports media when it comes to quarterbacks

After getting picked off three times in the first quarter against Buffalo last week, New York Jets starting quarterback Geno Smith got benched in favor of veteran Michael Vick. In his 3+ quarters of work, Vick, whom hadn't started a game in about a year, looked electric at times, yet quite rusty at others. He wound up leading the Jets to 23 points in his three quarters of work, yet also lost two fumbles and was intercepted once. In his defense, he hadn't gotten any reps with the first-team for quite some time, and the lack of reps showed on a number of plays where Vick either ran the wrong direction, bumped into a tailback on a hand-off, etc. Also, when a quarterback gets put in a game already down 14-0, the odds increase of him feeling pressure to succeed early and often, which can lead to some rather careless plays. Unsurprisingly, not long after the game ended, head coach Rex Ryan named Vick the starter for this coming week's game against the Kansas City Chiefs. Leading up to Sunday's game, while I've read many reports that it was "about time" for Ryan to make the switch, these same columnists have basically stated that Vick's middle name should be "turnover-prone." However, when looking at his career stats compared to some rather highly regarded quarterbacks, either that label doesn't seem to be appropriate or the sports media is simply inconsistent on the matter. Let's look at a comparison of these very quarterbacks when it comes to turnovers:

Tom Brady: 201 games played, 136 interceptions + 40 lost fumbles = 176 turnovers, or 0.88 per game

Peyton Manning: 247 games played, 222 interceptions + 26 lost fumbles = 248 turnovers, or 1.00 per game

Drew Brees: 193 games played, 184 interceptions + 30 lost fumbles = 214 turnovers, or 1.11 per game

Eli Manning: 160 games played, 176 interceptions + 34 lost fumbles = 210 turnovers, or 1.31 per game

Ben Roethlisbereger: 151 games played, 125 interceptions + 38 lost fumbles = 163 turnovers, or 1.08 per game

Aaron Rodgers: 102 games played, 55 interceptions + 16 lost fumbles = 71 turnovers, or 0.70 per game

Philip Rivers: 140 games played, 109 interceptions + 33 lost fumbles = 142 turnovers, or 1.01 per game

Tony Romo: 144 games played, 107 interceptions + 24 lost fumbles = 131 turnovers, or 0.91 per game

Jay Cutler: 112 games played, 120 interceptions + 29 lost fumbles = 149 turnovers, or 1.33 per game

Matt Ryan: 102 games played, 85 interceptions + 16 lost fumbles = 101 turnovers, or 0.99 per game

Joe Flacco: 104 games played, 85 interceptions + 20 lost fumbles = 105 turnovers, or 1.01 per game

Kurt Warner: 124 games played, 128 interceptions + 46 lost fumbles = 174 turnovers, or 1.40 per game

Brett Favre: 302 games played, 336 interceptions + 73 lost fumbles = 409 turnovers, or 1.35 per game

Dan Marino: 242 games played, 252 interceptions + 19 lost fumbles = 271 turnovers, or 1.12 per game

John Elway: 234 games played, 226 interceptions + 34 lost fumbles = 260 turnovers, or 1.07 per game

Troy Aikman: 165 games played, 141 interceptions + 22 lost fumbles = 163 turnovers, or 0.99 per game

Joe Montana: 192 games played, 139 interceptions + 5 lost fumbles = 144 turnovers, or 0.75 per game

Steve Young: 169 games played, 107 interceptions + 23 lost fumbles = 130 turnovers, or 0.77 per game

Jim Kelly: 160 games played, 175 interceptions + 21 lost fumbles = 196 turnovers, or 1.23 per game

Michael Vick: 134 games played, 86 interceptions + 43 lost fumbles = 129 turnovers, or 0.96 per game

So, when it comes to average turnovers per game, here's how the before-mentioned highly regarded modern-day quarterbacks and former Super Bowl champion/Hall of Fame quarterbacks rank:

1) Aaron Rodgers: 0.70

2) Joe Montana: 0.75

3) Steve Young: 0.77

4) Tom Brady: 0.88

5) Tony Romo: 0.91

6) Michael Vick: 0.96

7) Troy Aikman: 0.99

7) Matt Ryan: 0.99

9) Peyton Manning: 1.00

10) Joe Flacco: 1.01

10) Philip Rivers: 1.01

12) John Elway: 1.07

13) Ben Roethlisberger: 1.08

14) Drew Brees: 1.11

15) Dan Marino: 1.12

16) Jim Kelly: 1.23

17) Eli Manning: 1.31

18) Jay Cutler: 1.33

19) Brett Favre: 1.35

20) Kurt Warner: 1.40

So, while I can certainly understand members of the sports media criticizing Michael Vick for his seeming unwillingness to slide and leaving himself more prone to fumbles and injuries due to this, looking at the broader scope of things, I have a difficult time understanding how they can keep a straight face while labeling the quarterback as being turnover-prone throughout his entire career, when he's turned it over less per game than the likes of: Troy Aikman, Matt Ryan, Peyton Manning, Joe Flacco, Philip Rivers, John Elway, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Eli Manning, Jay Cutler, Brett Favre, and Kurt Warner.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

A Bush criticizes Obama for a "poor" response. Oh, the irony...

So, former Florida Governor and brother of former President Dubya, Jeb Bush, has decided to go on the attack with regard to President Obama's response to Ebola.

When speaking to Vanderbilt University, Bush said:

"It looked very incompetent to begin with, and that fueled fears that may not be justified. And now you have states that are legitimately acting on their concerns, creating a lot more confusion than is necessary."

I find it funny that a politician with the last name of Bush would have it in him to criticize President Obama about "incompetence" and a "poor response."

Deaths via a poor response to Hurricane Katrina from President Bush: 1,833 deaths

Deaths via poor listening, research, and preparation to 9/11 under President Bush: 2,752 deaths

Deaths via a "poor" response to Ebola from President Obama: 1 death

Sorry to lump you in with Dubya, Jeb, but given your family background, it's probably not the wisest of decisions to criticize President Obama over "incompetence" and a "poor response." Blame your brother for that one. Also, as far as fueling fears and creating more confusion goes, go have a talk with your buddies at Fox News about that...

Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch sitting in a tree, B-S-i-n-g

Wisconsin enacted a law in 2009 which gave employees, especially women, more power to challenge pay discrimination to the state courts. With the law in place, gender pay gap in the state improved from 36th to 24th in the country (approximately $0.78 to the $1.00 that men made).

In 2012, however, Republican Governor Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled state legislature decided to repeal this law.

Now with Governor Walker in a tight race with Democratic challenger Mary Burke, whom has been attacking him on this very repeal, Walker has decided to respond via Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, where she says the following in an ad:

"That's why I find it so insulting that Mary Burke would say that we're trying to make it harder for women to earn equal pay. Under Scott Walker, workplace discrimination will always be illegal, for any reason. Mary Burke wants to create more opportunities to sue. We want to create more opportunities for women to succeed."

What dumb and dumber are missing here is the fact that employment gender discrimination is illegal nationwide, yet women are still only making about $0.78 to the $1.00 that men are making for the same work. So, while gender discrimination in the workplace isn't "legal," it's still taking place with the pay gap as it is, and unless women are permitted to sue against these unfair pay practices, the non-discrimination laws aren't very helpful.

It's rather ironic what Lieutenant Governor Kleefisch stated in the ad. She claimed that Mary Burke just wants to give women more opportunities to sue, while she and Scott Walker want to give women more opportunities to succeed. However, as the state rankings showcased, women were given more opportunities to succeed when they were given more opportunities to sue, so it sounds to me that by she and Governor Walker not wanting to give women more opportunities to sue, they don't want to give them more opportunities to succeed.

Kleefisch's ad should have really gone like this:

"That's why I find it so insulting that Mary Burke would say we're trying to make it harder for women to earn equal pay, even though we repealed a bill which was making it easier for them to do so. Under Scott Walker, workplace discrimination will always be illegal, just like everywhere else, except when it comes to equal pay. Mary Burke wants to create more opportunities to sue, which, studies show, creates more opportunities for women to succeed. We want to create more opportunities for women to succeed by giving them fewer opportunities to sue, which has been shown to create more opportunities for them to succeed. Yeah, something like that."

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson gets an "F" in math

When talking to the uber-conservative NewsMax TV on Wednesday, Wisconsin Senator and man voted creepiest potential Boy Scout leader - Ron Johnson - said the following with regard to Affordable Care Act premium increases in the state:

"I'm driving around Wisconsin, I'm talking to business owners and I'm talking to health care providers and insurance agents as well and they're seeing that same kind of range [of premium increases for 2015], anywhere from 16 to 60 percent. Kind of with an average of around 30 percent here just anecdotally in Wisconsin."

Bob Uecker, would you care to give your two cents regarding Senator Johnson's numbers?

"Just a bit outside."


The fact of the matter is, according to the numbers reported by the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) last month, healthcare premiums will increase by an average of 3% in 2015, and two insurers are actually reporting decreases for the coming year. Medica Health Plans and Molina Healthcare will be decreasing their premiums by 17% and 11%, respectively.

Given these reports, I have a feeling Senator Johnson didn't fare too well in math class, for 30% is ten times that of 3%. With that in mind, Johnson would probably think the following things as well:

- "What are you talking about, with you and your 50 states? There are 500 states in this country!"

- "After his second term, President Obama will have been in the Oval Office for 80 years!"

- "Bowling is a very tiring sport. There are some games where I can't get to frame 50, let alone frame 100."

- "It's kind of funny when you think about it; even at 280 days in duration, February is still the shortest month of the year."

- "I always loved math. I think my favorite equation was 2 + 2 = 40."

Ohio Republicans' refusal to debate is disrespectful to the voters

What do Ohio Governor John Kasich, State Treasurer Josh Mandel, Attorney General Mike DeWine, and Secretary of State Jon Husted all have in common, besides being Republican? They've been ducking debates leading up to election day.

In Governor Kasich's case, his campaign feels that, with such a large lead over Democratic challenger Ed Fitzgerald, it could only potentially do the governor harm to participate in debates. Given many Republicans' issues in such settings leading up to the 2012 elections, perhaps many have opted to go the silent route, thinking it's less potentially damaging than actually attempting to answer moderators' questions by opening their mouths.

Regardless of the reason or excuse, however, I think this strategy is very disrespectful to voters. What are independents, moderates, and undecideds supposed to weigh their decisions on? Misleading ads and fliers? Newspaper endorsements? Biased radio shows and cable news networks? Good luck with that...

What this strategy says to me is the following:

1) These politicians don't feel confident enough with what they've done in office to comfortably answer questions about their record.

2) They don't feel that they need to be held accountable for any mistakes they may have made during their tenures.

3) They feel that it's not important to showcase to voters that they're the better option by debating with their opponents and proving they truly want to represent their constituents and fight to move the state forward.

4) They feel that regardless of how little effort they put into their campaigns, voters will be stupid enough to vote for them.

If I ever ran for office, I wouldn't care how much I led or trailed by in the polls, I'd feel it's my obligation to participate in debates, to clearly illustrate the contrasts between my opponents and I, and attempt to prove to voters that I'd do everything in my power to better people's lives and move the state forward. What Kasich, Mandel, DeWine, and Husted's actions (or lack there of) shows me is that they don't feel similarly on the matter, believe they can cruise to victories without any effort whatsoever, and to me, that's rather reflective of how they have and will continue to handle their time in office.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Isn't "common sense conservative" an oxymoron?

I can't tell you how many times I've seen or heard someone refer to themselves as a "common sense conservative." This typically makes me chuckle, because what is a "common sense conservative" exactly? Based on what hard-core conservatives typically believe, I envision such a person defining "common sense conservative" in one (or all) of the following manners: 

- "Even though guns kill over 30,000 people a year in this country, guns don't kill; people kill. I'm a common sense conservative and I approve this message."

- "No woman should be able to have an abortion at any time because abortion is murder. Also, we shouldn't provide kids with comprehensive sex education or women with contraception coverage even though these would result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I'm a common sense conservative and I approve this message."

- "The Bible may list several different kinds of marriages as acceptable, including polygamy and rape-based marriages, but gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. I'm a common sense conservative and I approve this message."

- "Ice caps may be melting, temperatures and water levels may be rising, and these trends have been especially prevalent since the industrial revolution, but I'm telling you, science doesn't show global-warming to be real. I'm a common sense conservative and I approve this message."

- "If we give all the money and tax-breaks to the wealthiest of people, they'll let that money trickle down to the rest of us. This is why the pay gap today is at its widest since the Great Depression. I'm a common sense conservative and I approve this message."

- "While we're trying to make it more difficult for some people to vote on election day, we're the true freedom-loving party, because we sport such slogans on our cars via bumper stickers more often than Democrats do. I'm a common sense conservative and I approve this message."

'Tis the season for attack ads

It's that time of year again, where you have to sit through multitudes of don't-vote-for-that-guy commercials while watching your favorite shows. Yes, I often times mute the television during these lovely commercials as well.

On the flip-side of that, however, I do find some of the commercials oddly amusing. This is especially the case when the attack ads go the political-personal hybrid route. While I can completely understand going after someone's voting record (if what's being claimed in the ad is actually true), I often times have to scratch my head with regard to the personal commentary. What I think would be really sad yet humorous is if an attack ad bypassed all of the political mumbo-jumbo and was 100% personal, like this:

"Before casting your vote on election day, ask yourself, 'Who can I trust?' If history is any guide, it's not Nina Burner. Nina Burner claims to be pro-environment, but an anonymous neighbor said that one time, a raccoon got into Burner's garbage, a great deal of litter resulted, and she didn't pick any of it up. When she was 16-years-old, Burner got a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 55. She also regularly takes Claritin-D, which can be used to make meth. Lastly, in her diary, Ms. Burner admits to saying the 'f' word a lot in college and losing her virginity before marriage. Can you really trust someone with a lack of integrity, character, and consistency like Nina Burner? With Jon Pusted, however, you will have no such fears. Jon lets his wife take out the garbage because he claims she's stronger than him. He's also never sped, even while honking at cars in front of him in the fast-lane on the interstate. Jon has never swore, even while quoting Tarantino movies. Lastly, even though he's on his second marriage and has kids, Jon is still a virgin. Come on, go with your gut, and trust Jon Pusted! 'I'm Jon Pusted and I approve this message.'"

When a toddler shoots a man in the face, what does the NRA say?

In Houston, Texas on Monday, 20-year-old Patrick Sanders' gun fell out of his pants while he was sleeping on the couch. A 3-year-old boy picked up the pistol and shot Sanders in the face with it. While Sanders is in critical condition, the boy wasn't injured.

In light of this bit of news, the NRA will most likely respond with one of the following lines:

- "A baby with a gun has more fun!"

- "Crawl and fight!"

- "Gun control means using both hands - one on the gun and one on the milk bottle!"

- "Guns don't kill people; toddlers with guns kill people!"

- "The only way to stop a bad toddler with a gun is a good toddler with a gun!"

"A good Christian man..."

Why is it, at least in this country, whenever someone describes another as a "Christian man," it's typically preceded by the word, "good"?

"Oh, that Mr. Buster Jaw is such a good Christian man."

I don't think I've ever heard this kind of statement made about a person of a different religious persuasion.

"Oh, Mohammad Allah is such a fine Muslim man."

"Jesus Knot is such a wonderful Atheist man."

"You know what? Moses Dunno is a great agnostic man!"

"Tom Cruise is such a sweet Scientology man-person or whatever."

"I adore her! Lucy Fur is truly a good Satanic woman."

So, according to some, can a person not be good if he or she isn't a Christian? What if a person claims to be Christian but acts otherwise? What if a person misinterprets the Bible, believes they're acting Christian, when in fact they're not?

Here's a thought - how about we leave religion out of the equation completely, and when commenting about another, simply say, "He's/She's a good person"?


I may not be religious, but it still cracks me up sometimes to hear people describe themselves as "God-fearing." The reason for this is because, regardless of what a former druggie says he witnesses during a flashback, I've personally never seen nor heard "God," so when someone says they're "God-fearing," my first thought is, "Okay then. So, what you're saying is you fear someone you've never seen nor heard? An invisible man so to speak? Interesting..."

When thinking about it, this thought-process isn't so far removed from many kids whom fear a boogeyman - a monster in their closet or under their bed. No, they may not be able to see or hear this beast, yet they're so frightened by this figment of their imagination, they swear they can hear it. In fact, let's further compare the two beliefs, shall we?

Setting: A little boy screams while in bed late at night

Joseph Pansyazz (the father): "What's wrong? Are you okay?"

Joey Pansyazz, Jr. (yes, the son): "I'm scared..."

Father Pansyazz: "How come?"

Little Pansyazz: "I heard something scary over there..." :: points toward his closet ::

Father Pansyazz: "In your closet?"

Little Pansyazz: :: nods :: "I think a big monster is in there."

Father Pansyazz: "Oh, Joey, I promise you - there's nothing to worry about. Here, let me turn the light on, open the closet door for you, and you'll see there's no monster in there, okay?"

Little Pansyazz: "No! He'll eat you and then he'll eat me! Don't do it, dad!"

Father Pansyazz: "Trust me." :: turns the light on, opens the closet door :: "Ahhhh! Just kidding. You see there, Joey? There's nothing in there, well, besides some clothes and stuff. Okay? Think you can go to sleep now?"

Little Pansyazz: "You scared him away! Thanks, dad! You're the greatest!"

Father Pansyazz: "Anytime. Now, please get some sleep. Your mom and I were in the middle of trying to get you a brother or sister."

Little Pansyazz: "What?!?"

Father Pansyazz: "Oh, nothing. Just try and get some sleep." :: he and his wife start going at it ::

Little Pansyazz: "Ahh! There's that scary sound again!"

Setting: A man talking to his shrink

Dr. Hezekiah Lipshitz: "So, what seems to be the problem?"

Joseph Pansyazz, Sr.: "I'm scared, doctor."

Dr. Lipshitz: "Scared of what exactly?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "God"

Dr. Lipshitz: "Hmm... Interesting... So, what about 'God' frightens you so much?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "Oh, I'm sure you know why. You know the story..."

Dr. Lipshitz: "Pretend I don't. Why don't you tell me this story and we can get at the root of the problem here."

Mr. Pansyazz: "Okay, well, I'm a Christian. I go to church every Sunday, I pray every day, I listen to gospel music, the Catholic radio station, and even watch re-runs of Touched By an Angel."

Dr. Lipshitz: "A woman by the name of Angel touched me once."

Mr. Pansyazz: "What?"

Dr. Lipshitz: "Oh, nothing. Let's get on with the story. I'm not asking for an autobiography, though. Tell me the story of God as you see it and hopefully we can figure out why you fear him so much."

Mr. Pansyazz: "Okay, well, a virgin woman named Mary birthed a perfect baby by the name of Jesus. He then took upon all of our sins by sacrificing himself on a cross so that we can one day live with him in heaven for all eternity. He then rose from the dead three days later. However, if we don't follow his lead, we don't believe in and worship him, then we're doomed to a fiery dungeon known as hell for all eternity."

Dr. Lipshitz: "So, if you believe this story and do believe in and worship this entity, why are you so scared?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "What if, after I die, God doesn't approve of me? What if he solely focuses on that one time I peeked in the girl's bathroom back in high school with the rest of the guys and teachers, or the time I said the lord's name in vain while watching Survivor, or that one time I messed up the lyrics to the hymn 'He Is Lord' while being hungover on Apple Pucker's, or that one time I had a sexual fantasy about Ricky Martin while with my wife on our honeymoon? I don't want to burn for all eternity! ...and what if Jesus comes back for his second-coming and I'm not saved then?"

Dr. Lipshitz: "They're there now, Mr. Pansyazz. Tell me, have you ever seen God?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "Just in some pictures, I guess"

Dr. Lipshitz: "Have you ever heard his voice?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "In movies and shows and stuff"

Dr. Lipshitz: "Well then, don't you think it's a little silly to be so frightened of a person you've never seen nor spoke to before?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "I don't know..."

Dr. Lipshitz: "Tell me, Mr. Pansyazz, do you have any kids?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "Yes, Joey, Jr."

Dr. Lipshitz: "Has he ever gotten scared about a monster under his bed or anything of the sort?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "Yes, actually"

Dr. Lipshitz: "And what did you tell him?"

Mr. Pansyazz: "That there wasn't a monster, I then turned on the light, opened the closet, and showed him there wasn't anything to be scared of."

Dr. Lipshitz: "There you have it. Perhaps you should take your own advice here, Mr. Pansyazz."

Mr. Pansyazz: "Turn on the light and open the closet door? But, the light's already on..."

Dr. Lipshitz: "No... Nevermind. You'll be alright, Mr. Pansyazz. Trust me. Well, that's all the time we have for today. That'll be $200."

Mr. Pansyazz: "Thanks, Dr. Lipshitz. I think I feel a little better."

Dr. Lipshitz: "And thank you, Mr. Pansyazz, for being just like your kid and giving me some easy money. If you ever hear a monster in your closet, don't hesitate to come back."

Info on my Facebook business, Twitter, and Tumblr pages

Here's the URL to my Facebook business page. I update it fairly regularly, but still haven't put forth a great deal of effort yet in researching matters and attempting to make the most out of it. In any case, it can be perused here:

Up next is my Twitter page. I'm still not 100% certain what I'm doing on there yet, but feel I'm gradually getting the hang of it and am up to 13.2 K followers. I update it daily with many of my own tweets, but also by retweeting some others'. It can be found here:

Lastly, here's my Tumblr page, which I've neglected quite a bit recently, but if you're at all curious, you can find it at the following link:

Weekly update of my book information

For new readers (and regular ones, I suppose), here's some information pertaining to my books.

All twelve of my books can be purchased in paperback form at the following site (and others):

The ten books I've written and released in the past 3 years (yes, I've been on a roll) can be purchased for much cheaper in Kindle form at the following link:

Week 9 NFL Predictions

Game: New Orleans at Carolina

Pick: New Orleans - I was leaning toward Carolina before last night when the Saints beat the red-hot Packers by three touchdowns. It's by far and away the best the Saints have looked all year, and even though this game is on the road and the Saints haven't fared well on the road over the past year, I think they're about to go on a roll and should be able to finally get over the hump on the road against a struggling Carolina team. I'll take the Saints by a touchdown.



Game: Tampa Bay at Cleveland

Pick: Cleveland - This is pretty much a toss-up game for me. I'm not overly-impressed with either team. I think Tampa is a bit better than their 1-6 record would indicate and that Cleveland isn't quite as good as their 4-3 record would suggest. With the game at home, though, I'll give the Browns the slight edge in this one. Cleveland by 6.



Game: Arizona at Dallas

Pick: Arizona - Dallas has had arguably the best rushing attack in the NFL this year and Arizona has had arguably the best rush defense. In such match-ups, I tend to go with the defense. Also, while Dallas has allowed fewer points per game this season, the main reason for that is the fact they've held onto the ball longer on offense. They're actually near the bottom of the league again in yards allowed per play. So, while I love how Dallas has been playing, I give Arizona a slight edge in this one. I'll go with the Cardinals by a field goal.



Game: Philadelphia at Houston

Pick: Philadelphia - J.J. Watt and company could give Nick Foles problems when he drops back to pass. However, while the Texans pass rush has been solid, their run defense hasn't been so great, and with LeSean McCoy and likely Darren Sproles coming back for the Eagles, that's bad news for Houston. I'll take Philly in a bounce-back win by 10.



Game: NY Jets at Kansas City

Pick: Kansas City - The New York Jets are reeling at the moment. They're 1-7, uncertain of whether or not to stick with the turnover-prone Geno Smith or to turn to veteran Michael Vick and start thinking about a new quarterback in the off-season. Whichever direction they go, with their offensive line and secondary as bad (or beat up) as they are, it probably won't matter much. I'll take the Chiefs at home by 10.



Game: Jacksonville at Cincinnati

Pick: Cincinnati - Like with some other teams like New Orleans, Atlanta, and even Seattle, Cincinnati appears to be a different team at home than on the road, and with the one-win Jacksonville Jaguars coming to town, that trend should continue for at least another week. Jacksonville may keep things close for the first half, but Cincinnati should be able to pull away in the second and win by a couple of touchdowns (or so).



Game: San Diego at Miami

Pick: San Diego - Miami has been playing better of late, but then again, they've also been aided by a kind schedule, as they've played winless Oakland, struggling Chicago, and one-win Jacksonville in recent weeks. San Diego, meanwhile, is coming off a tough Thursday night loss at Denver. With the extra rest and determination of a bounce-back win to try and keep pace with the Broncos in the AFC West, I like the Chargers to win a tough road game by 4.



Game: Washington at Minnesota

Pick: Washington - For whatever reason, I'm just not confident about Minnesota's offense right now. Sure, Washington's quarterback situation is up in the air at the moment, but they have better skill-position players than Minnesota, their defense has improved from a year ago, and I think regardless of who plays quarterback for them, they should be able to win a tight one on the road against the Vikings. I'll take Washington by a field goal.



Game: St. Louis at San Francisco

Pick: San Francisco - St. Louis is tough to figure out. A week after upsetting Seattle at home, they got pummeled by Kansas City. Now they head to San Francisco to take on a well-rested and angry 49ers team. They're coming off a bye week, after getting embarrassed by Denver the previous Sunday night. Look for the Niners to get back to their winning ways with a 10-point win in this one.



Game: Denver at New England

Pick: New England - This pick could change if the forecast alters any. However, for the time being, meteorologists are calling for a drastic cool-down in Foxboro on Sunday (high of 39). Historically, Tom Brady and his Patriots have tended to get the best of Peyton Manning at home in such conditions. Both teams are as hot as can be at the moment, but even though I think the Broncos are better top to bottom than the Patriots, I'll give the home team the slight edge in this one. I'll take New England by a field goal.



Game: Oakland at Seattle

Pick: Seattle - Winless Oakland against the Seahawks in Seattle? Yeah, I think I'll take three scores.



Game; Baltimore at Pittsburgh

Pick: Pittsburgh - When both teams are health, I think Baltimore has the better team. However, given how in-sync the Steelers offense has been the past couple of games and how banged up the Ravens secondary is, I think I'll have to take the Steelers at home in this one. Pittsburgh by a touchdown.



Game: Indianapolis at NY Giants

Pick: Indianapolis - The Colts' defensive showing against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday has me a bit worried, but like to think that was an aberration than the start of a trend. In any case, I'd like to think Andrew Luck and the Colts offense will be able to put up enough points against the Giants defense even if their defense struggles again. I'll take Indianapolis by 6.



Week 9 Record:

Overall Record: 73-47-1 (.608)

What I learned in Week 8 of the NFL season...

In Week 8 of the NFL season, I learned that...

- ..., on Thanksgiving, Detroit Lions players and coaches will oddly say, "We're thankful for delay of game penalties."

-'s Tennessee Titans quarterback Zach Mettenberger's lifelong dream to take a selfie while standing in the pocket, and it's Houston Texans defensive lineman J.J. Watt's dream to sack Mettenberger while he's taking that selfie.

- ...Geno Smith has asked if there's any way he can get traded to West Virginia.

- ...Cris Carter is bound to say, "You shut out Cincinnati 27-0 and then give up 51 points to Pittsburgh?!? Indianapolis Colts defense - where you at?"

- ...Aaron Rodgers is currently telling his hamstring to relax.

- ...Atlanta is asking the league to condense games down to one half, especially if the game is in London.

- ...two of the surest bets are New Orleans to win at home and New Orleans to lose on the road. Two other such bets are for Oakland to lose at home and Oakland to lose on the road.

- ...the AFC North is less predictable than David Lynch films.

- ...Mike Ditka is going to have to give the entire Chicago Bears team a "Stop it!" speech before long.

- ...Players and coaches of every team in the NFC South are telling each other, "Hey, if we just win 6 or 7 games, we could win this division! That's like, awesome and stuff, or something!"

Monday, October 27, 2014

When someone says, "We're on the wrong track..."

I find it kind of funny that many Americans, Republican politicians in particular, seem to feel this country is on the "wrong track." While we certainly have our share of problems in this country (and overseas), do these people remember where we were 6 years ago? Remember how many jobs were being lost toward the end of Bush's presidency and at the start of President Obama's first term? How can these people look toward another with a straight face and say, "We're worse off today than when Obama took office"?

According to, here are the numbers from the time President Obama took office in late-January of 2009 to July of 2014:

- Affordable Care Act Exchange Sign-ups: +8 million

- Affordable Care Act New Medicaid Sign-ups: +6.1 million

- Jobs: +4.8 million

- Unemployment rate: down to 6.1%

- Corporate Profits: +184%

- Real Weekly Earnings: +0.3%

- U.S. Crude Oil Production: +67%

- New Car MPG: +21%

- Wind & Solar Power: +231%

I haven't agreed with every decision the president has made, however, I'm also not going to make the ridiculous statement, "Yeah, we're worse now than we were at the start of the Great Recession, because Rush Limbaugh said so and I just don't want to believe things have gotten better since Bush left office and Obama entered it."

Humorously enough, many of these harsh Obama critics were (still are) devout Reagan supporters. When comparing the two and their recovery efforts, Polaris Financial Partners CEO Bob Deitrick had this to say to Adam Hartung of Forbes:

"President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this 'Great Recession.'

As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama's job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today's number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration."

Deitrick added:

"What's now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable growth."

With regard to investing, Deitrick said the following:

"As this chart shows, over the first 67 months of their presidencies this is a clear 'winner' from an investor's viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership.

However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone."

So the next time a Republican politician says, "We're on the wrong track," someone should respond with, "From a job creation and investor's perspective, we're on a better track now than we were under Reagan. Oh, and what kind of track were we on under Dubya? That's right, the Great Recession..."

I'm going to pretend that GEICO stole my idea

Have you seen the new GEICO commercial, where it pokes fun of stupid characters in horror films? If not, it can be seen here:

Oddly enough, I wrote something rather similar to the commercial on July 17th of 2013, entitled, "Horror film characters are ridiculously stupid," which can be read at this link:

The story goes as follows:

Is it just me or is there a written requirement somewhere which says, "If you're a character in a horror film, you have to be stupid"?

My girlfriend and I went to see the film The Purge last night, and like with many contemporary horror films, we spent more time laughing and giving each other the why-in-the-hell-are-they-doing-this-are-they-stupid looks. Yes, I know the main intent of horror films is to frighten viewers. However, if the viewers find the script and plot so ridiculous, it's unbelievable to the point of being silly, then how will the film genuinely frighten said viewers?

Here's my slightly exaggerated version of a scene from a contemporary horror film:

Setting: A newly wed couple driving along the interstate, heading to Little Rock, Arkansas late at night 

Mr. Eugene Blockhead: "Oh, look honey. There's that man over there looking for a ride. What do you think? Should we pick him up?"

Mrs. Mikayla Blockhead: "I don't know, sweetie. He's wearing a mask and has a chainsaw. Also, I don't think he's covered with ketchup."

Eugene: "So, yes, then?"

Mikayla: "Yeah, sure, why not? What's the worst that could happen?"

Eugene: "Yeah, I know - right? Alright, I'm going to pull over here."

::Both Eugene and Mikayla get out of the car and start waving and smiling::

Mikayla: "Do you need a ride, sir?"

::the man nods::

Eugene: "What's your name? My name is Eugene Blockhead, and this is my lovely wife, Mikayla Blockhead. How do you do?"

Creepy guy: "My name's Imagonnakillyou!"

Mikayla: "That's an unusual name. Where are you from?"

Imagonnakillyou: ::roars, before starting up his chainsaw and walking toward the couple::

Eugene: "Whatcha doin'? We can give you a lift if you'd like. We're really in no hurry and love to help people such as yourself. Where are you headed?"

Imagonnakillyou: "For your head!"

Eugene: "He's so funny. He..." ::head gets chopped off::

Mikayla: "Is that a magic trick? Can you do me next? Please? I love magic! I just lo...." ::head gets chopped off::

Imagonnakillyou: "Idiots..."

Well, that was odd...

Have you ever gotten invited to a costume party, shown up wearing a costume, and quickly discovered no one else was? This happened to me on Friday night, and I have to say, while in hindsight I'm sure I'll find the experience funny, at the time it was happening, it was more surreal than anything.

So, there I was, after being told about a big costume party a week before Halloween, looking around at everyone else dressed "normally" and thinking, "Am I dreaming this or is it somehow April Fool's Day?" Apparently, the big group throwing the party decided at the last second to tone things down some this year with regard to the costumes, and didn't notify anyone else about it (include the bar owners, whom would have notified me). So, yeah, that was special. I ended up going back home, changing, and heading elsewhere for the night. I guess the only good news from the night was, based on the comments I received from some people, I should be able to turn a few heads and perhaps compete in a contest or two this coming weekend.

If anyone's curious, yes, this will be the costume I'll be wearing to parties this next weekend -

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Lorde's "Royals" song gets temporarily banned in San Francisco

The World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Kansas City Royals is officially underway. In light of this, apparently two San Francisco radio stations (KFOG Radio and 96.5 KOIT) have decided to ban Lorde's "Royals" song until the World Series is over. Personally, I think this is kind of a silly move, but, eh, whatever. Well, based on this story, here's a list of what the city of San Francisco would likely do if the Giants faced one of the other fourteen American League teams.

Baltimore Orioles - Oreos will not be sold because they sound too much like Orioles.

Boston Red Sox - Anyone wearing a red stocking on their head will be banned, including Santa Claus.

Chicago White Sox - No one will be allowed to wear socks. If they wear socks with flip-flops, they'll be permanently barred from the city.

Cleveland Indians - IDs will be checked at the gate and for anyone with the first name of Christopher or the last name of Columbus, they'll be asked to leave, get drunk, claim to discover a bar and call it a library. From that point forward, bartenders at the place will be called librarians.

Detroit Tigers - Anyone with a boombox playing the song "Eye of the Tiger" will be knocked out by a security guard wearing boxing gloves, and when this occurs, the guard will yell out, "Yo, Adrien! I did it!"

Houston Astros - If someone appears to be a member of the Jetsons, they will not be allowed in the stadium. This will especially be the case for anyone who hums the Jetsons' theme song.

Los Angeles (of Anaheim) Angels - Angels in the Outfield won't be aired anywhere in the city during the World Series. If the Angels win the series, it will never be aired in San Francisco again.

Minnesota Twins - Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger will not be allowed at any of the games.

New York Yankees - Any overweight men whom simultaneously smoke a stogie and drink a beer will be asked to leave. If their last name happens to be Ruth, they'll be asked to never return.

Oakland Athletics - Anyone sporting green and yellow and walking like they're cool will be told to leave and to do some shopping with their girlfriends or gay buddies.

Seattle Mariners - Sleepless in Seattle will be barred from the city indefinitely, regardless of whether the Giants win or lose the series.

Tampa Bay Rays - If anyone pokes fun at tuberculosis by wearing attire with the letters TB on it, they'll be asked to leave and to take some sensitivity classes.

Texas Rangers - Chuck Norris will be told he's not allowed in the stadium. Chances are he'll wind up in there anyway, however.

Toronto Blue Jays - People who seem so nice, you think, "Well, they have to be from Canada," will be asked to leave, and not to come back until they get some attitude.

Does the SEC really deserve 4 of the top 5 spots in the AP poll? Probably not...

I, like many college football fans, am quite excited about the 4-team playoff this season. However, when I hear talking heads in the media and see the latest AP top 25 poll, I notice a common theme: "Let's have at least 3 of the 4 teams be from the SEC, if not all 4!" This I'm not excited about.

The thing is this, the SEC may very well be the best conference in all of college football, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as most sports commentators think it is, and how will we know if any conferences compare if we don't give them a chance to beat the SEC in the 4-team playoff?

In the latest AP top 25 poll, four unbeatens are in the poll, along with 15 one-loss teams. Here's how those teams rank:

1) Mississippi State (6-0/SEC)

2) Florida State (7-0/ACC)

3) Mississippi (7-0/SEC)

4) Alabama (6-1/SEC)

5) Auburn (5-1/SEC)

6) Oregon (6-1/Pac-12)

7) Notre Dame (6-1/Independent)

8) Michigan State (6-1/Big Ten)

9) Georgia (6-1/SEC)

10) TCU (5-1/Big XII)

11) Kansas State (5-1/Big XII)

12) Baylor (6-1/Big XII)

13) Ohio State (5-1/Big Ten)

14) Arizona State (5-1/Pac-12)

15) Arizona (5-1/Pac-12)

16) Nebraska (6-1/Big Ten)

18) East Carolina (5-1/American Athletic)

19) Utah (5-1/Pac-12)

23) Marshall (7-0/Conference USA)

Yes, four of the top five teams in the country are from the SEC, and among the top six one-loss teams, three are from the SEC. So, what gives? Is the SEC THAT superior to all other conferences? After digging through some numbers, the answer to this point is actually no.

How are we to measure conferences' strength in any other way than how they fare against the top conferences? When it comes to the power 5 (ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC), here's how those very numbers break down to this point in the season:

Record (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)

1) SEC: 5-2 (.714)

2) Pac-12: 6-3 (.667)

3) ACC: 5-7 (.417)

4) Big XII: 4-6 (.400)

5) Big Ten: 5-11 (.313)

- So, yes, the SEC currently has the best record here, but have also played fewer such games than any other conference. The Pac-12 and Big-12, which only play three non-conference games as opposed to four, have played 2 and 3 more games against the other four power conferences than the SEC. The ACC has played 5 more games against the other four power conferences, and the Big Ten has played 9 more. To have played just 7 games against the other four power conferences among 14 teams isn't very impressive from a strength of schedule standpoint.

Opponents record in wins (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) ACC: 23-11 (.676)

2) Big XII: 18-9 (.667)

2) SEC: 22-11 (.667)

4) Pac-12: 22-20 (.524)

5) Big Ten: 16-17 (.485)

- Again, the SEC is fairly impressive here, but aren't any more impressive than the Big XII or ACC.

Point differential in wins (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) ACC: +13.6

2) Big XII: +13.2

3) Pac-12: +13.0

3) SEC: +13.0

5) Big Ten: +8.8

- Once again, the SEC is right in line with everyone else except for the Big Ten, who hasn't been very impressive in the breakdown to this point.

Opponents record in losses (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) ACC: 39-10 (.796)

2) Big XII: 32-9 (.780)

3) Pac-12: 15-6 (.714)

4) Big Ten: 54-22 (.711)

5) SEC: 8-6 (.571)

- The SEC hasn't had nearly as many losses as the ACC, Big XII, or Big Ten, however, they still rank dead last in this category.

Point differential in losses (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) Pac-12: -4.0

2) ACC: -11.8

3) Big XII: -14.0

3) SEC: -14.0

5) Big Ten: -14.6

- Once again, the SEC is right in line with everyone except for the Pac-12, which was just three plays away from being 9-0 against the other major conferences.

So, as you can see, to this point in the season, the SEC definitely hasn't proven itself as the far superior conference and worthy of four of the top five spots in the latest AP poll. While the conference has played very well to this point in the season, the sample size against quality competition is smaller than any of the other four power conferences and it appears as if they've been rewarded based on history and bias. By the end of the season, they may very well prove that they're the top conference in all of football, but they haven't done so yet, and while I wouldn't be against having two SEC teams in the 4-team playoff, I think having 3-4 teams from the same conference in that playoff would do a disservice to the playoff's intent. The SEC may have won the majority of national titles over the past decade, but how can any conference dethrone them if they're not given an opportunity to do so?

Flip-flopping with John Kasich

Ohio Governor John Kasich recently got himself into a bit of a pickle. When speaking with the Associated Press, Kasich said that the repeal of "Obamacare" is "never going to happen."

He also said that the "political or ideological" opposition to the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") - the Medicaid expansion in particular - doesn't "hold water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people's lives."

After likely receiving some backlash for his statements, Kasich went to the Washington Post to "clarify" his position, when he said:

"I don't back Obamacare. I never have. I want it to be repealed. If the House and the Senate [are Republican-controlled] and we have a Republican president, Obamacare will be repealed flat out. Flat out. And it will be replaced."

Okay, so Kasich went from saying the Affordable Care Act wasn't going to get repealed and that improving people's lives was of far greater importance than trying to repeal the healthcare law just for political reasons to he wants the ACA to be repealed and it will happen if the GOP has control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Interesting...

Sadly, Kasich's dancing about the issue didn't stop there.

The Ohio Governor then spoke to Politico, where he said this:

"I have favored expanding Medicaid, but I don't really see expanding Medicaid as really connected to Obamacare. [If Republicans take the Senate,] you better believe they're going to repeal Obamacare and I agree with that. {But], there's got to be an accommodation [for Medicaid expansion]."

So, let's try to make sense of this and go about Kasich's statements chronologically:

1) ACA won't get repealed and people's lives are more important than partisan politics

2) He wants to repeal the ACA and it will happen if the GOP gets its way

3) The GOP will repeal the ACA if it gets its way, which he's in favor of, but he's also in favor of expanding Medicaid, which is a component of the ACA, but claims isn't.

Okay then... John Kasich sounds confused. Based on all of his dancing about the issue of "Obamacare," I could see him engage in the following discussion at some point in the future:

Reporter Jan Udintjusaythat: "So, what's your stance on the Affordable Care Act?"

John Kasich: "I want Obamacare to be fully repealed!"

Udintjusaythat: "What about the part where it gives the option of expanding Medicaid?"

Kasich: "I'm in favor of expanding Medicaid."

Udintjusaythat: "Does that mean you don't want the Affordable Care Act fully repealed?"

Kasich: "Yes, yes I do."

Udintjusaythat: "But you just said you were in favor of expanding Medicaid..."

Kasich: "That's correct."

Udintjusaythat: "So, how can you be in favor of fully repealing the healthcare law while also being strongly in favor of a central component of it?"

Kasich: "What component is that?"

Udintjusaythat: "Expanding Medicaid..."

Kasich: "Yes, I'm in favor of that."

Udintjusaythat: "So then, you're not in favor of fully repealing the Affordable Care Act?"

Kasich: "Yes, yes I am."

Udintjusaythat: "But, expanding Medicaid is a part of the Affordable Care Act. If you fully repeal the healthcare law, the expansion of Medicaid will go along with it."

Kasich: "No it won't. Expanding Medicaid does, but doesn't have anything to do with Obamacare."

Udintjusaythat: "It does."

Kasich: "Not completely"

Udintjusaythat: "So then, you're in favor of partially repealing the healthcare law, so you can maintain the bit about expanding Medicaid?"

Kasich: "No, I want a full repeal of Obamacare!"

Udintjusaythat: "Including the part where you can expand Medicaid?"

Kasich: "No, I want to expand Medicaid."

Udintjusaythat: "You're impossible!"

Kasich: "That's what my wife says a lot of times."

Udintjusaythat: "She's right!"

Kasich: "She is and she's not."

Udintjusaythat: "Ugh! I'm leaving!!"

Fox News Irony

Recently, co-host of the Fox News show The Five, Kimberly Guilfoyle, said young women shouldn't vote because "they don't get it" due to a lack of life experience.

This isn't the first time someone on Fox News has made such a statement.

Earlier this month on the Fox show, Outnumbered, Tucker Carlson said, "Do you want your government run by people whose favorite show is Say Yes (To the Dress)?"

Fox's Harris Faulkner also said this on the show Outnumbered earlier this month: "Do we want young people to vote if they don't know the issues?"

This is ironic on multiple fronts. First off, when a person turns 18-years-old, he or she is eligible to join the military, which could result in going to war and placing his or her life on the line as a sacrifice for the country. So, in these Fox News pundits' minds, just because you're old enough to die for this country in war doesn't make you old enough to vote.

Fox News: "Sure, you all can go to war and die for this country, but there's no way in hell you should have the right to vote for these leaders that could possibly send you to war!"

Also, study after study shows Fox News viewers to be the least informed of anyone, even those whom don't watch any news.

Fox News: "These young people are too uninformed to be voting! They don't know the issues!"

Reality: "If people watch Fox News, they're too uninformed to be voting! They don't know the issues!"

Fox News: "We distort, we decide, and the uninformed continue to abide!"

Congrats to Rush Limbaugh for being the king of untrustworthiness!

No, he may not claim to be a "news" source, however, Rush Limbaugh does spout his views on the air throughout the course of the week and many of his listeners consider his opinions to be facts - so the man does influence a great number of people, whom treat his show like actual news. Sadly for Rush (not really), according to a new Pew Research poll, he is the least trusted name in all of "news."

According to this survey, while 12% of respondents trust Rush Limbaugh, 39% do not. Fox News came in second at 37%. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity came in 3rd and 5th at 24% and 21%, respectively. The only non-conservative leaning network or show to make the top 5 was MSNBC, which came in at 22% untrustworthiness.

Fact-checking site probably couldn't blame the public for not trusting Limbaugh very much. Here's the breakdown of the 28 statements of his they've researched:

True: 0 (0%)

Mostly True: 2 (7%)

Half True: 3 (11%)

Mostly False: 7 (25%)

False: 9 (32%)

Pants on Fire: 7 (25%)

So, out of his 28 statements, just 5 are at least half true (18%), while 23 are at least mostly false (82%), and 0% are completely true. Yes, that's quite the credible record right there!

Here are the 7 statements by Limbaugh which resulted in a "Pants on Fire" grade:

1) "Obama regime planned the influx of illegal alien children at the border."

2) "Says the media created the term 'polar vortex' and the cold air proves 'the ice isn't melting.'"

3) "Says it's not 'accidental' that the villain in the Batman movie is named Bane."

4) "Obamacare is ... the largest tax increase in the history of the world."

5) "People 'can't go fishing anymore because of Obama.'"

6) "There are 'high administrative costs' when you donate to Haiti relief through the White House Web site."

7) "President Obama ... wants to mandate circumcision."

Ah, yes, it's still a wonder how 12% of the respondents trust him...

"Thug" is the new "N-word"

According to the dictionary, the noun "thug" can be defined as: "a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer." However, anymore, it seems as if the term is used only in reference to a certain demographic - African-Americans. Seriously, when's the last time you heard a white guy referred to as a thug? Take your time...

This especially seems to be the case with regard to far right-wingers. Check out such a site. all of the comments below the article, and try counting the number of times commentators refer to an African-American as a thug. Then go through and count the number of times they call a person of a different race (especially whites) a thug.

Just over the past year, I've heard the following comments:

- "Richard Sherman is a thug!"

- "Barack Obama is a thug!"

- "Basketball is full of thugs!"

- "Trayvon Martin was a thug!"

- "Most rappers are thugs!"

Never have I heard any of the following statements:

- "You know who was a major thug? George W. Bush."

- "Robert Downey, Jr. was a thug back in the day."

- "I can't stand those '80s rock-star thugs!"

- "Phillip Rivers is kind of a thug."

- "The sport with the most thugs is definitely golf!"

It seems that since 99% of people know not to use the n-word, many have instead attempted to hide their prejudices against African-Americans by referring to some (or many) as thugs. They may be getting away with it for the most part, but an increasing number of people are catching onto their little scheme, including Jamelle Bouie of The Daily Beast, who wrote the following:

"...these constant declarations of Obama's 'thuggery' are a dog-whistle - an attempt to make the president a dangerous 'other' without resorting to the kind of language that earns wide public condemnation. It allows the speaker to indulge in racial taboos without ever crossing the line.

It's a nifty trick, and one that we should expect to see for the remainder of Obama's presidency, and whenever a famous African-American - like [Richard] Sherman - crosses some invisible line of perceived misconduct."

"I am a Liberian, not a virus"

It's getting increasingly disturbing how ignorant so many are about both geography and Ebola. I noted yesterday that there have been at least a handful of documented cases where a student, principal, school bus driver, or guests at a school have either been sent home or have prompted parents to keep their children home due to fear of a person from Africa or traveling from Africa potentially spreading Ebola to their kids. The crazy thing about every one of these cases is the fact these individuals, whom were from or traveled from Africa, were between 1,000 and 3,000 miles away from the Ebola outbreak.

That brings me to an even more recent such case, where Liberian-American mother and TV presenter, Shoana Solomon, released a viral video telling a sad tale about her 9-year-old daughter, whom was told at school that she has a disease because she's Liberian. Just a day later, after the little girl sneezed in class, she was sent home. This is despite the fact that, in the past two years, she hasn't traveled to Liberia or interacted with anyone whom had visited the country.

In the video, Ms. Solomon says the following:

"I am hurt and upset. We are Liberians, Sierra Leoneans, Guineans, and Nigerians. We live in a region that has been devastated by a deadly disease, but we're not all infected. It is wrong to stereotype and stigmatize an entire people. Remember, we are human beings."

Ms. Solomon is absolutely correct. Sadly, these are times when I think fear, paranoia, and ignorance, in conjunction with prejudices, gets the better of some people's common sense. Out of 47 countries in the continent of Africa, only 3 are currently battling the Ebola outbreak (Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea). According to my math, that means 44 of the 47 countries in Africa aren't fighting the Ebola outbreak.

What's worse than many people not appearing to know that Africa is more than just one large country is the fact some people seem to believe that, regardless whether a person has traveled to Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea since the outbreak started or not, they think natives from those countries automatically have Ebola in their blood and should stay far, far away.

It's like with the little girl I mentioned earlier - she may have been Liberian, but hadn't traveled to nor interacted with anyone from Liberia for the past two years. In other words, there's close to a 0% chance she has Ebola. What, do members of the school faculty and some parents think that, even though she hasn't been to Liberia in two years, since she's Liberian, Ebola automatically goes into her system? This is when people's prejudices gets the better of their judgment.

School faculty: "Have you been to Liberia recently?"

Little Liberian girl: "No, not for a long time - probably two years, I'm guessing."

School faculty: "Have you talked to anyone from Liberia recently?"

Little Liberian girl: "Nope"

School faculty: "Didn't you sneeze in class today?"

Little Liberian girl: "Yeah, probably allergies"

School faculty: "Hmm... But, you're Liberian, right?"

Little Liberian girl: "Yup"

School faculty: "Hmm, yeah, that's what we thought. Well, since you sneezed and you look so much like 'one of them,' I think we should probably send you home, because, well, you kind of frighten us. If we have an Ebola outbreak at this school, you'll likely be to blame."

Little Liberian girl: "I just sneezed. Other kids sneezed in class too."

School faculty: "Yeah, but they're not black, I mean, Liberian, I mean, why don't you just go home, so we can all feel better about things? Thanks."

Little Liberian girl: "But... but..."

School faculty: "Go on out now, and please wear one of these while you do so." :: hands her a mask ::

Yeah, as Ms. Shoana Solomon said, "I am a Liberian, not a virus." Amen.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Donald Trump Tweets "Black-ish" and Fails

Heard of the new critically-acclaimed ABC sitcom, Black-ish? I've seen every episode to this point, have found it to be quite funny, even clever in some spots, and look forward to seeing how the show progresses both this season and hopefully seasons to come. Fortunately, I'm not alone. According to, 85% of critics like the show (45 approve, 8 disapprove) and give it a solid average grade of 7.3 out of 10.

Here are just a few comments from some of the positive reviews:

- "In the capable hands of executive producers Larry Wilmore and Kenya Barris, Black-ish presents the topic as more of an open conversation that's welcoming to all." - Tim Surette (

- "At first glance, one could easily call this an updated version of The Cosby Show, but to do so would be doing a disservice to this uniquely ambitious undertaking." - David Griffin (ScreenRant)

- "In its own sweet way, this is a landmark show." - Matt Zoller Seitz (Vulture)

- "Black-ish is fun, cool, and hip. It just so happens to also have a lot going on upstairs." - LaToya Ferguson (AV Club)

- "What is revolutionary about Black-ish is that it talks about race, jokes about race and isn't squeamish about the results." - Brian Moylan (Guardian)

- "The African American experience is not one of easy assimilation into mainstream culture. What makes Black-ish potentially great is Barris' recognition of that." - Mary McNamara (Los Angeles Times)

- "It can't just be funny, it has to be astute and adept as well. The good news is that so far, it navigates that challenging territory with intelligence, wit and subversive purpose." - Maureen Ryan (Huffington Post)

- "[It] works on several levels -- multigenerational sitcom, workplace comedy, cultural and class satire. Will it have Cosby Show crossover appeal? That's one of those questions we shouldn't have to ask in post-racial America, but it tackles it with finesse." - Vicki Hyman (Newark Star-Ledger)

- "The pilot episode may be a discussion of ethnic identity, but for all the seriousness, it's a very funny discussion." - David Wiegand (San Francisco Chronicle)

- "At a time when so much talk about race is so serious, it's a pleasure to see a show which has a good time poking fun at everyone's misconceptions and hangups." - Eric Deggans (NPR)

Like with the new award-winning film, Dear White People, however, it appears as if a few have issues with this show's title. Many in the IMDb community have once again called this show racist. Donald Trump has been the one leading the chorus on the matter, as he tweeted the following message on October 1st:

"How is ABC Television allowed to have a show entitled 'Blackish'? Can you imagine the furor of a show, 'Whiteish'! Racism at highest level?"

What Donald Trump and those like him don't seem to understand about films like Dear White People and shows like Black-ish is that there's a big difference between signifying one's racism through making racist comments (and actions) and exposing others' racism through satire. Black-ish isn't about painting white people as inferior or racist. It's about African-Americans' identity in the "post-racial" age after Barack Obama got elected twice as President of the United States. This is especially the case for younger generations since this country continues to become more diverse. The show also cleverly shows the subtle (and not so subtle) types of racism African-Americans experience even in this day and age.

So, Donald, let me try and simplify things for you a bit. Exposing racism through comedy is not racism.

Racism: "I hate those (derogatory term)! They're so (adjective with a negative connotation)!"

Not racism: Exposing that above racist statement for what it is through comedy.

Get it now? No? Well then, there's only one thing to do, I guess - you're fired!

Americans: "Africa? Huh? What is that, like, a country or something?"

When Christopher Columbus came to the U.S. thinking it was India and, still to this day, many people refer to Native Americans as "Indians," it seemed all but inevitable that Americans would excel at geography like Rip Van Winkle excelled at speed-dating.

Case and point, it appears as if some schools, in light of the Ebola outbreak in Africa, feel that the continent is one country, as opposed to 47 countries. The thing is, this outbreak has broke out in just 3 of the 47 countries in Africa (6.4%). According to my math, that leaves 44 of 47 countries in Africa Ebola-free (93.6%). However, these wild numbers haven't seemed to cease the panic any at some schools.

In New Burlington, New Jersey, two Rwandan students are being forced to stay home due to the school's and parents' paranoia they'll magically infect kids with Ebola. Judging by the map and those crazy numbers again, Rwanda is about as close to a country fighting the Ebola outbreak as New York City is to Seattle. For those whom have to check a map for that, New York City is on the east coast and Seattle is on the west coast, so they're not very close to one another. If Seattle were somehow in Washington, D.C., as opposed to Washington state, then it would be closer to New York City, but I don't want to confuse anyone any - especially those affiliated with that before-mentioned school in New Burlington, New Jersey.

In Hazlehurst, Mississippi, a school's principal recently visited Zambia, which has led many parents to keep their children at home, because, you know, "Zambia" sounds like an illness all on its own. With the fact it's also located in Africa, well, that's doubly as troubling. However, sarcasm aside (for just a moment), Zambia is located in the southern part of Africa, which is over 3,000 miles away from any area which is being hit by the Ebola outbreak. That's the same distance as it is from New Hampshire to Los Angeles. Yes, once again, New Hampshire is on the east coast and Los Angeles is on the west coast. They're as much neighbors as I am to Prince Charles and Kate Middleton.

In Poplarville, Mississippi, a school bus driver, whom had recently visited Ghana, is not being allowed to return to work. Ghana is over 1,000 miles away from the Ebola outbreak. That's similar to the distance between Chicago, Illinois, and Savannah, Georgia. Chicago is in the middle portion of the country while Savannah is in the southeast. That's between a 14- and 15-hour drive. One could watch Gone With the Wind almost four times through in that time-span.

Lastly (for the time being anyway), in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, a school hosted a couple of visitors from Uganda, so this of course led some parents to keep their kids home. Uganda, for the record, is about 3,000 miles away from the Ebola outbreak. Once again, it's about as close to the Ebola outbreak as a virgin is to getting pregnant.

In light of these troubling comments and actions of ignorance with regard to world geography, expect these same people to make the following statements at some point in the future:

- "So, the Middle East is just opposite the Midwest, right? So, like, Tennessee and Kentucky? Is that right?"

- "Don't most Muslims live in Utah?"

- "If Iceland is so icy and Greenland is so green, how can they be so close to one another?"

- "Those Swedish Swiss are something else!"

- "So, what's Malaysia? Did Massachusetts buy Asia or something?"

- "Because of how similar they sound, I bet you Austria and Australia are just as close as New York and New Jersey."

- "Is Central America north or south of North and South America?"

- "I wonder if New Mexico has as many illegals coming into this country as Mexico."

- "Is there a country by the name of chicken near Turkey? Mm... I'm getting hungry."

- "What kind of name is Canada anyway? No, you cannot ada! U.SA.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

GOP candidate Anthony Culler: "Gays are like gremlins (you know, like in the movie)!"

The Republican Party really needs to stop trying to be clever when talking about gay marriage.

They've gone the slippery-slope route: "What's next? Poly-Sci, poly-something, what is that again? Oh, Polygon-gamy, or whatever."

They've gone the don't-know-our-Bible-too-well route: "Look, just read your Bible - besides those 5-10 other kinds of marriages, the only marriage in the sacred book is between one man and one woman. The rape marriages and those concu- or porcupine marriages, I mean, they don't mean anything anymore!"

They've also gone the gross-people-out route: "So, what? If gays can marry each other now, who says I can't marry my horse? I mean, come on, people! On second thought, it's true what they say about being hung like one. Maybe I should give that some thought after all!"

Then just recently, Anthony Culler - South Carolinian challenging Representative James Clyburn for a House seat - made the following post on his Facebook page:

"Same-sex couples that seek to destroy our way of life and the institution of marriage are NOT cute and cuddly but rather (for those of you that are old enough to remember the movie), Gremlins that will only destroy our way of life. These people, like my opponent SC-6 Congressman Jim Clyburn who OPENLY supports same-sex 'marriage,' seek to destroy the traditional family and the values we cherish. For years this insidious plan has been in the works."

He also referred to the LGBT community as "bullies."

First off, bullies? Really?

African-Americans: "We feel we should have equal education and equal employment opportunities as everyone else."

Women: "We feel we should receive equal pay as men for equal work."

LGBT community: "We feel we should have the right to get married just like heterosexual couples."

Anthony Culler: "Stop your whining! Just accept your inferior statuses, move on, and allow us straight white males to continually kick you while you're down! You're all such bullies! Geez!

Secondly, Mr. Culler tries to get cute and clever with his gays-are-destroying-our-lives comparison, but based on his quote, I have to wonder if he ever saw the movie Gremlins himself - that or he's just an idiot.

So, Mr. Culler compares gays to gremlins, just like in the movie. They're not those "cute, cuddly" things, also known as Mogwais. Well, as Mr. Culler should know, in order for gremlins to come about, there have to be Mogwais present. So, in other words, according to him, the following must be true about gays:

- Gays were once cute, cuddly Mogwais. Yes, talk about babe-magnets!

- Too much light, especially sunlight, kills gays. This is why gays' theme-song, in Mr. Culler's mind, is Corey Hart's "Sunglasses at Night." They also dig Horatio Caine from CSI:Miami.

- If gays come in contact with water, they produce more gays. Due to this, Mr. Culler, like most other Republicans, is likely against the birth-control method known as KD (or Keeping Dry).

- Lastly, the reason gays became gremlins is because they ate after midnight. At this time, it's uncertain whether or not Mr. Culler was ever a Mogwai, but if he's ever eaten past midnight, we should all be very concerned. There's only one thing which would be even more concerning - him winning an election.

New study: The brainwashing technique known as Fox News

Over the past year, the Pew Research Center has been conducting a study with regard to where people of different political persuasions get their news and how they discuss such matters. Here were some of the findings:

Consistent liberals...

- ...were rather divided when it came to a main news source they consistently went to for information: 15% went to CNN, 13% relied on NPR, 12% checked out MSNBC, and 10% read The New York Times.

- ...trusted 28 of 36 news outlets which were listed in the survey (NPR, PBS, and BBC were the three most trusted).

Consistent conservatives...

- ...went to Fox News first and foremost for news throughout the day. An astounding 47% listed Fox News as their main source for news.

- ...distrusted 28 of 36 news outlets which were listed in the survey. However, 88% said they trusted Fox News.

I can't say these results were surprising, but they're still quite frustrating. It's like I've said all along, while I despise Fox News and think they're a joke of a "news" organization, they did come up with a rather brilliant scheme to win over viewers and consistently be the cable-"news" king over the past several years. They said they were different than other cable-news channels (which was true), that people would hear stories on their channel they wouldn't hear anywhere else (which was also true), and due to this, other such channels couldn't be trusted, making them the only "fair-and-balanced" news network on television (that's the point where people got fooled). Just look at the numbers - consistent conservatives distrust nearly 78% of news outlets, yet 88% of them trust Fox News. This means that consistent conservatives are typically open to hearing about stories from only 22% of news outlets and just 12% of them may be open to hearing another rebut a claim made by someone at Fox News. This doesn't leave much room for open and civilized discussion regarding the political issues of the day.

Consistent conservative: "Obama's a Muslim!"

Consistent liberal: "Where'd you hear that?"

Consistent conservative: "Fox News, of course - the only network that has the balls to speak the truth!"

Consistent liberal: "That's not true! Here, check out these three links which successfully rebut your claim."

Consistent conservative: "Whoa! Wait a minute! What sites are these?"

Consistent liberal: "They're the fact-checking sites,, and"

Consistent conservative: "I don't think so, buddy! I don't trust any of those liberally-biased fact-checking sites! If you want real news, listen to Fox! They're the only ones I trust!"

Consistent liberal: "So, what? Facts are liberally-biased?"

Consistent conservative: "Exactly! I don't trust facts; I just trust Fox!"

Consistent liberal: "Ugh..."

The really sad part about this is the fact that study after study shows Fox News viewers to be more uninformed than anyone except for the deceased. In a PublicMind survey, Fox News viewers finished dead last on their knowledge of both domestic and international news. Here are the rankings:

Domestic Questions

1) NPR (most informed)

2) Sunday Show

3) Daily Show

4) Talk Show

5) CNN


7) No News

8) Fox News

International Questions

1) NPR

2) Daily Show

3) Talk Radio

4) Sunday Show

5) CNN

6) No News


8) Fox News

Yes, when it came to both domestic and international news, people whom didn't watch any kind of news program at all came away better informed than Fox News viewers.

So, let's break down these numbers again:

- 47% of consistent conservatives go to Fox News as their main news outlet

- 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News

- Fox News viewers are less informed about domestic and international news than anyone else, including those whom don't watch the news

In light of these numbers, Fox News should could out with the following ad:

"Want to feel smarter while actually becoming dumber about what's going on in the world? Then watch Fox News, where we distort, we decide, and you go along for the ride! Who needs facts and numbers when we can yell things that make us feel good? Who wants to be the nerd when you can be the bully and force that nerd into doing your homework? Fox News - bullying the nerds to better the world since 1996! Fox yeah!"

Info on my Facebook business, Twitter, and Tumblr pages

Here's the URL to my Facebook business page. I update it fairly regularly, but still haven't put forth a great deal of effort yet in researching matters and attempting to make the most out of it. In any case, it can be perused here:

Up next is my Twitter page. I'm still not 100% certain what I'm doing on there yet, but feel I'm gradually getting the hang of it and am up to 13.1 K followers. I update it daily with many of my own tweets, but also by retweeting some others'. It can be found here:

Lastly, here's my Tumblr page, which I've neglected quite a bit recently, but if you're at all curious, you can find it at the following link: