Sean Taylor and unintended consequences

In the wake of the terrible tragedy of the murder of Sean Taylor, there will be some interesting consequences of the event. It is very sad to see any 24 year old killed. Taylor was a physical freak of nature with unlimited potential as a professional football player but that is not nearly as important as a young father killed inside his home by an intruder. The actual circumstances may never be known but it appears to be a home invasion robbery. Here are a few predictions:

1) There will be much speculation about his past run ins with authority. Some will raise the "where there is smoke, there is fire" speculation. Others will say that such discussion is racist because Taylor was black. If he was killed by a robber, both sides are morons.

2) There will be a spike in gun sales. Despite this being a solitary incident in Miami, there will be an elevation of the paranoia level across the US and people will purport to protect themselves with weapons. I just hope people are smart enough to buy the correct weapon, a shotgun. Since police who regularly train with weapons only hit 40% of what the fire at, a sleepy non-trained person in a dark room at three AM needs something that doesn't require accuracy. You can fire a shotgun around the corner and almost hit everything in the room.

3) The NFL will honor Taylor this week, then completely forget him by next year. In professional sports, if it doesn't make money, they aren't interested.

4) Some idiot sports fanatic somewhere is wondering how many weeks getting killed will keep him from playing and whether he should be dropped from his Fantasy Football picks.

CNN and MSNBC Off the Cliff Again

CNN and MSNBC, fading quickly in relevance and audience due to the decidedly biased reporting they are now widely recognized for, have now started using the tabloid journalism trick of trying to create controversy when none exists. In their most recent attempt to rally their liberal viewers, they have attempted to create controversy surrounding comments by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. O’Reilly, who has the most watched program in cable news, was discussing how the gangsta rap culture does not represent the mainstream black culture in the United States with Juan Williams, a respected liberal journalist who writes for the Washington Post and is also a Fox News regular contributor. What O’Reilly said was that Sylvia’s, a well known restaurant in Harlem was no different than any other conventional American restaurant in atmosphere. CNN and MSNBC have attempted to construe those remarks as racist. Juan Williams, who is black and usually very restrained, has called the people at CNN “idiots” for their pretend controversy. I am not a big O’Reilly fan but I can certainly recognize sensationalized nonsense when it appears.

I watched this evening as Heidi Collins of CNN had two people on to discuss the topic. LaShawn Barber, a black woman, said that if you listen to his comments in context that there is nothing offensive about them whatsoever. However, in addition, they bring on a raving diatribe-spewing Boyce Watkins, who manages to accuse Bill O’Reilly of a long standing history of racism and hate and even manages somehow to insult President Bush in the process. This is their “expert” opinion? It is like Wolf Blitzer giving credibility to Jack Cafferty, the loudest whining shill of them all.

On MSNBC, there is Keith Olberman who apparently has some pathologic hatred of Bill O’Reilly as he devotes episode after episode of his cable-access style program to smearing O’Reilly and Fox News. Tonight, he had some “expert” who sounded more like an asylum escapee saying that Mr. O’Reilly is about to have a mental breakdown and talking about psychiatric diagnoses based on how Mr. O’Reilly pays for his food in restaurants. Who at MSNBC thinks that discourse of this low level has any place on television? Countdown with Keith Olberman cannot aspire to moving up to the class level of the Jerry Springer Show. The show is a total sham when it comes to any objectivity.

As I said earlier, I am not a big fan of the O’Reilly show. He is sometimes unnecessarily uncivil to guests and talks over them. But I am a fan of some semblance of objectivity. I am reminded of the McCarthy hearings. At long last, CNN and MSNBC, have you no sense of decency? Have you lost all of your self-respect? Are advertising revenues and ego so important that you are will to prostitute your journalistic values to this kind of phony controversy? It is shameful.

Leadership, Responsibility and Behavior

There is a disconnect I see relatively often when it comes to leadership positions. Many don’t seem to understand that responsibility and authority come as a package. You cannot be held responsible for things you don’t control and you cannot control things without being held responsible for the outcomes of your decisions. The more common disconnect of the two is people being reprimanded for things they did not decide. I have written earlier posts about brown-nosing and non-confrontational leadership. Being in charge is a lonely position. Those who cannot handle the isolation need not apply. In order to be effective in those positions, there are certain core requirements. First and foremost, effective leaders demonstrate that they have the welfare of their people at heart. This does not mean a leader is always nice. A leader does reprimand. A leader does hold subordinates accountable. A leader hands out unpleasant tasks. The true leader does these things fairly while simultaneously attempting to the utmost to provide the best working environment for subordinates.

There is similarity between leadership in an organization and raising kids. The two most important factors are caring and consistency. Your subordinates and your children have no reason to behave if they feel you don’t care what happens to them. They have nothing to lose from you by misbehaving. Children want to maintain the trust and caring of their parents. Subordinates need the same support from their leaders. They need to feel like their leaders have their interests at heart. The minute they don’t feel it, they lose respect for the leader. Everyone knows there are tough jobs to do but if the jobs are handed out fairly and leadership takes the time to explain why the job is important, respect will remain in place.

Consistency is a hallmark of a well-run organization. Both children and subordinates need to know where the lines are and that there will be repercussions for crossing those lines. It is not that there MAY be, it is that there WILL be. There is a lot of security in knowing the rules. A lack of rules shows subordinates that leaders don’t care. Consistency with the rules shows fairness and forethought. Everyone hates the stress of “walking on eggshells” situations where you never know what is coming next. A consistent mean-spirited leader is better than never knowing minute to minute what is coming.

Another side of responsibility is individual. I have told my children many times that at some point in your life; you have to decide what kind of person you will be. Being a reliable and conscientious person is not a grand act. It is not one day running into the burning building to save the occupants. It is a series of small daily decisions, often made when no one else is around. It is deciding to do the right thing when the right thing is inconvenient or unpopular. It is taking the harder course of action and not allowing standards to slip. It is being willing to uncomfortably confront someone to improve their performance or correct a mistake when the easier course is to let it slide.

At the end of the day, it is not the perception of others that the good leader strives to improve. The real leader holds himself/herself up to a personal standard. You cannot fool yourself. You know, even when others don’t, that you did not do your best. You know when you blew something off. If you did everything to the best of your ability, in the end it doesn’t matter what others think because you cannot control others opinions and you will have the satisfaction that comes with true accomplishment.

Here They Go Again

For the last few months, the country has been anxiously awaiting the progress report on Iraq by General David Petraeus in September. The Bush Administration and the Republican supporters of the war hope he will say that the surge in troop levels has been effective. The Democrats hope he will say the entire thing is a disaster and we should leave immediately. Everyone acknowledged when he took the job that as the US Army’s top counter-terrorism expert, he was the appropriate and best man for that job.

When Petraeus arrived in Iraq, he completely changed coalition strategy. Instead of operating out of isolated Forward Operating Bases, Petraeus instead has the troops interacting more with the local Iraqis in the population centers. This has led to more intelligence gathering as the locals begin trusting the troops and has also established working relationships between the local tribal leaders/warlords with the US troops. The result has been local cooperation and even fighting between the local population and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been mostly driven out of several of the formerly hottest provinces due to the cooperation of the local leaders. Even Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and no friend to the Bush Administration, recently returned from Iraq saying that significant military progress had been made. The Democratic presidential candidates admit progress has been made. I can tell you since I am deployed out here seeing what is happening that they are correct in their assessment. We are making a lot of progress.

With that as a background, what do CNN and MSNBC do? Because the anticipated report by General Petraeus is now widely expected to be different than the networks own agenda, they are starting a campaign to impugn General Petraeus’ integrity before he arrives to give the report. The same guy who was the best great hope a few months ago has these same network hacks saying he is a partisan lackey and has no credibility. These people are so transparent and vile that it should surprise no one that they have less and less viewers all the time.

I wrote a piece a while back about how the other news network anchors, particularly the ones with obvious agendas, constantly publicly trash Fox News. However, on one recent ratings night, the viewer numbers were:

FNC O'REILLY 2,260,000
FNC SHEPPARD SMITH 1,308,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,286,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,278,000
FNC GRETA 1,031,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000

No wonder they trash Fox News. They are being whipped like a Michael Vick dog. Like most liberals, their inflated egos lead them to believe that the people are stupid and are being led around by Fox and the evil Rupert Murdoch. They can’t imagine that most people are fed up with their trashing of the American system and character assassination tactics. In one of the seemingly hundreds of Democratic debates, Hillary Clinton recently said about her negative numbers in polls that any of the other Democratic candidates will have high numbers after the “Republican hate machine” gets through with them. She won’t acknowledge that maybe people just don’t like her or maybe people actually loathe her. In typical liberal fashion, it couldn’t possibly be her fault. Well, folks, keep railing on. People will vote with their remote controls and MSNBC, CNN and the other left agenda news organizations that purposely trash America will continue to wither on the vine. Rush Limbaugh calls them the “drive-by” media for their tactics. I will now refer to them as the “Raisin media” because they are drying up so fast.

ESPN Jumps the Shark

When did ESPN jump the shark? What was originally a sport reporting network now almost uses sports as a background for their own network self-promotion. In a period of very busy sports activity (major league baseball, football training camps, professional golf events, the Tour de France, major soccer, etc.), what does a significant portion of the hour go to? The “Who is more Now?” contest. First of all, what the heck is “now” anyway? More importantly, who CARES? The anchors at ESPN have fallen into the trap historically set for ministers and politicians who believe that they personally are more important than what or who they represent. The network has gone the way of the National Basketball Association in not promoting its product but rather its individual performers. And performers are what they are, not reporters. Each anchor has an obligation to come up with his/her own catch phrases and uniquely quirky delivery so as to become personalities rather than reporters. I personally want to know the outcome of the sporting event and don’t care to hear the next addition to the sporting lexicon. We are returning to the days of the “Battle of the Network Stars” where sporting events are not covered, they are created, like the reality shows on every network now. I would appreciate it if the people at ESPN could go “back back back back back…” to the days where they reported on sports events instead of trying to be the show themselves.

What Men Really Want

I have theory about the difference between men and women in one great respect. This is not exclusively a male characteristic but it almost always holds true. What is it that men really want? My theory is this: It doesn’t matter if you are talking about a sexual relationship, a job, a vehicle, a night out, car repairs, lawn maintenance, wives, friends or anything else. What men want most is: NO HASSLE.

There is a certain amount of hassle that is just associated with living. If you expect a paycheck, you need to show up for work. If you want to drive a car, you have to occasionally stop to get gasoline. Men can deal with those hassles because they are a given and come as part of the package. What inflames men more than anything else is: unnecessary hassle. Things that are made more complicated than they need to be or require more than an appropriate amount of effort. One of the reasons that all houses of married couples are decorated the way the wife wants it done is that women will always win any argument about things the man has little interest in because women can dial up the hassle meter until the man inevitably says “screw it” (or words to that effect). In any relationship, the last thing a man wants to hear is, “We need to talk”. That phrase always means there is some sort of mental hassle awaiting. Men don’t like deep complicated movies or dramas because it is too much hassle to worry about the feelings of the characters. That is why simple blow up the bad guy, attractive naked women movies do so well. When the check is for $31.95, the man throws in $40 and doesn’t worry about the appropriateness of the tip because he doesn’t want to have to worry about it. There are guys with calculators and a change purse, but we don’t talk about them (don’t ask, don’t tell). I would rather throw away semi-valuable things from my garage to finally be able to walk in it than hassle with a yard sale to make some not worth my time amount of money.

In the male community, those who make things simple and easy are well thought of and those who create hassle are shunned. It is a badge of honor to be someone who makes things go smoothly. So, despite being occasionally accused of being a simpleton, most guys would gladly rather have that accusation than go through the hassle of proven the critics wrong.

I was once in a discussion about how much money I wanted to make. My answer was this: I don’t know how much in actual dollars but what I want is: when I turn the key, my car starts; when I feel like Chinese food, I buy some and don’t worry about not paying my car payment; when someone calls and wants to have a picnic, I go get some munchies and go; when I pull in the driveway, I am happy to live where I do. That is what I want, an income that produces a hassle-free life. So just like all guys, the avoidance of hassle is the ultimate goal.

Cheaters Again

I wrote an earlier piece about how cheating doesn’t seem to bother people anymore. Now, on the verge of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s home run record and the Tour de France scandal of 2007, it seems appropriate to revisit the issue. One of the things I have always admired about real golfers, not the weekend kind who cheat endlessly, is how they would rather lose than win dishonestly. In almost all other professional sports, the coaches and athletes will wink at missed calls and clear cheating and call it “part of the game”. The coaches who were really good at mentally working over referees were against instant replay. Why would anyone interested in fairness be against something which reveals the truth? Calls are not overturned without convincing credible evidence. I read an article pointing out the hypocrisy of Americans jeering the Tour de France while cheering for Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Shawn Merriman, and the other well-known cheats. Her point was valid. The Tour de France is being transparent and looking for cheats instead of ignoring or praising them. That is actually refreshing. There is a philosophy of “anything you can get away with is okay”. This is not confined to sports. Routinely, Congressmen use the phrase “I did not break any law” when justifying actions which are clearly unethical and wrong. They skirt the edge of legality and use that phrase to “prove” they did nothing wrong. Even when caught breaking the law (e.g, Bill Clinton), supporters quibble about the law. It is okay to perjure oneself as long as the subject is correct.

In the service, we use the code words of Honor, Courage and Commitment. Despite that, there are people like John Kerry saying that military members were too stupid to choose to do anything else. When 70-80% of officers have postgraduate degrees, it is hard to make that argument. In this case, though, consider the source (a proven liar).

I cannot cheer for steroid, human growth hormone using freaks of nature in baseball and football, teams using illegal components in auto racing, or erythopoetin using bicycle racers any more than I could cheer for sailors who gun deck log books or leave their post while on watch. Until the public stops rewarding the athletes who cheat by refusing to pay to attend the games and stop making money for the owners of the teams, the doping will never stop. There will always be someone of low enough moral fiber to break the rules of decency.