Washington Redskins

The glory of the National Football League returned in September, much to my delight! With it comes the joy of Monday Night Football, the frustration of Thursday Night football (it’s on the NFL Network, we don’t get that channel), and the motivation to complete my weekend yard chores before the 10 am Sunday morning kick-offs. But it also brings a recurring drudgery, specifically, the talk of whether or not the Washington Redskins football team should change their name.

There are a number of people and groups who take offense to the team’s name alleging insensitivity to Native Americans. Similar talk occasional arises regarding Major League Baseball’s Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves, but it’s the NFL’s Redskins moniker that absorbs the brunt of this line of conversation.

A name change to a professional sports franchise is not unprecedented. In 1998 the Houston Oilers football team moved to Tennessee and renamed themselves the Titans. That was a change decided upon by team ownership, the former Houston Oilers, looking for a fresh start. A catalyst for the move from Houston to Tennessee was money. The football stadium in Houston at that time left a few things to be desired. Namely, the team had an unfavorable lease agreement and the stadium did not have enough luxury amenities to benefit the Oiler’s team owner. The move to Tennessee fixed that, but I digress.

In 1972 Stanford University changed their mascot name from the Stanford Indians to the Stanford Cardinals; later dropping the plural, a reference to the primary color of Stanford’s athletic teams, not the bird. That was a scenario where the university consented to pressure applied by a group of Native American students and a vote by the student senate.

Aligning Stanford’s action to what some would like the Washington Redskins to do is not equivalent. While the Washington Redskins is a private company and Stanford University is a private institution, Stanford receives millions of dollars from the government in the form of grants and financial aid. They were not entirely independent, as is the owner of a professional sports franchise, to do what they wanted. The university has not a singular head to make tough decisions, but rather yields to a consensus decision-making process.

A name change, while it would make the complainers happy, would have the downside of a significant loss of value to the Washington Redskins football team. The Washington Redskins were founded in 1932, that’s 81 years of branding and team history. That’s time enough to build up generations worth of strong affiliations. Strong enough to keep fans buying millions of dollars in Redskins sweat shirts, jerseys, hats and season tickets. A name and logo change would put the owner of the team at risk of decreasing the value of the team by hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, hundreds of millions. The team currently has an estimated worth of $1.7B! Yes, billion. A change of name and branding would mean fewer people interested in consuming the millions of dollars in team-related merchandise annually. The fan affiliation to the team would be significantly handicapped. This decrease in avid customer base, fewer customers consuming the product, would result in a decrease in team value.

I am in favor of the Redskins changing their name under one condition. The one condition is that the groups of people and individuals who desire a name change pool their funds, buy the team, and then change the team’s name to whatever they please. Do it with the team under their care, custody, and control. No way am I in favor of anyone requiring the current owner to do it. The complainers are welcome to blunder around and damage the value of their own investment, they should not be encouraged to pompously try to obligate someone else to knowingly sacrifice their financial standing. Do it themselves.

-klem

The Prager. Constructive Talk Radio.

I do much driving in the course of my employment and quickly learned that listening to music all day can leave a fellow feeling mentally exhausted. Looking for a change one morning I discovered sports talk radio and found myself blissfully encapsulated in a sports broth for several months. But even that wore thin without an ever-changing landscape of topics being discussed.

It was during the two month lull between football and baseball season that I encountered political talk radio, and I was enamored. Rush Limbaugh held my attention for a few years, I’m almost embarrassed to admit now, on account of his aggressive and demeaning tones he often takes. [I would like to clarify that the tones ultimately became the source of my embarrassment, they were not the means by which I became enamored.] I vastly agree with his positions, but I turned the corner on my appetite for the way his positions were presented.

After the November 2012 Presidential Election, finding myself boasting of a bottomless sinkhole of disappointment, I traded in my drive time listening with Mr. Limbaugh for a new road companion, Dennis Prager, an AM radio talk host. My interest in aggressive and angry tones expired that dark night watching the election results stream in. I wanted out of the angst market and Prager offered constructive conversation for the disappointment I was experiencing. I offer this prelude because, while I would like to claim the following pieces of wisdom as my own, it important to source the wisdom as pieces gleaned from The Dennis Prager Show.

·       Treat people equally, not the same.

We hear much talk in today’s politics and culture about fairness and equality, but there is typically a vacancy where qualifications should follow. People should be treated equally based on their equal standing, but not equally just because it would be polite or kind.

Example: A mom and dad should be shown equal degrees of respect. But let’s be honest, a mom and dad cannot be treated the same as if they are interchangeable. Each fulfills different parenting needs to their kids. Sure, there is much overlap in what they provide, but to say that they are the same is to purposely ignore the fact that a significantly disproportionate number of young troubled males were raised in single parent households.

·       Results are more important than intentions.

It is necessary to discriminate between good and bad results, not good and bad intentions. Rarely will a person or organization consciously set out to do wrong or harmful deeds. But if good intentions yield bad results, the source of those intentions need be held accountable.

Example: Consider charitable organizations. Virtually every non-profit organization seeks to do good deeds. But when making a donation you may prefer an organization with a greater degree of efficiency. Would you prefer to donate to a charitable organization where a higher percentage of the donation actually affects good results? Or would you prefer to give to an organization with a better Mission statement while it consumes a higher percentage in administration costs?

The same could be said when voting or making governmental policy. Look beyond the intentions and vacant calls for fairness and equality. What will be the consequences? Is the topic in question better for the country? Or is it simply better for a group of citizens at a cost to everyone else?

·       Let your brain decide, not your heart.

Feelings and emotions render the heart the decision maker while rendering the brain a non-factor. Where reason and a logical train of thought are absent, feelings will be the decision maker. The great thinkers throughout history used their brains to argue and decide between right and wrong. They were not emotion-based waifs, the proverbial impulse buyers at the check out counter loading up on gossip magazines, beverages, and snappily packaged snacks as if loading up for a road trip.

·       Standards supersede compassion.

Standards (read, the law) do not have a sliding scale of right and wrong depending upon the reasons why the law was broken. An action is either right or wrong, the sliding scale applies only as it pertains to the level of punishment. Ill-placed compassion, on the other hand, would indicate that a sliding scale of right and wrong is applicable, provided the reason for wrong doing was deemed good enough.

Example: A person that vandalizes private or public property has done wrong. If, however, they do it as a declaration of war against ‘The 1%’ they are defended by too many public officials as having an important opinion that is worthy of being heard and respected. By the standards I wield, my compassion goes out to the law-abiding citizen whose property was damaged, not the self-styled victim striking out in ignorance.

When making decisions, whether they are to affect a small number of people or the country as a whole, it is necessary to consider what the consequences will be on society. Decisions need be made in favor of an improved whole, not an improved set of individuals.

Thanks for hearing me out.

-klem

My Gripe With Global Warming

I’m a guy who’s not sold on the idea of global warming. I believe that the earth’s temperature goes through periods of warming and cooling, but I certainly don’t agree with Al Gore’s comical ‘hockey stick’ portrayal of rising global temperatures from his film. Having said that, I’m perfectly OK with folks who do believe in global warming, even those folks who believe in Gore’s version. People can believe in all kinds of things. Heck, I’m a guy who still believes that the Cleveland Browns will one day win a Super Bowl.

My gripe with global warming, or global climate change if you wish, is that it is a massive and unfortunate misallocation of resources with negligible, if any, positive results. I can make an argument, in fact, that ‘remedial global warming’ steps actually yield harmful results, but that takes me off point and would require a separate entry itself.

Global warming is an issue that receives discussion only in developed countries because in the global hierarchy of needs it is a miniscule issue. Much of the world’s population is simply bogged down with such inconveniences as survival. Food and clean water rank amongst the top priorities for them. It is an inconceivable luxury for much of the world’s population to even concern oneself with the possibility of global warming. And then, on top of that, to allocate resources away from food and clean water to commit them toward the uncertain possibility of global warming is a disgusting waste.

To concern oneself with the issue of carbon emissions and global warming is akin to elective plastic surgery. It merely makes a person feel better about oneself. The problem, to speak more clearly, is that sufficient amounts of food and clean water are two conundrums that could actually be toppled if this same money and attention were not being so massively misallocated to the bottomless pit that is global warming.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a strong advocate for recycling, commendable MPG, not overwatering the lawn, minimizing waste, turning off the lights when not in use, incentivizing privately funded research for alternate energy sources, and reusable shopping bags. But if you want to save humanity, help a human.

-klem

The End of the World!

Wife Klem and I enjoy our weekly routine of Friday Night Movie Night. Put the kids to bed, pour a glass of beer or hooch, a bowl of snacks and watch a film. We recently watched Seeking a Friend For the End of the World (2012) starring Steve Carrell. A fun movie about the world coming to an end by means of a huge asteroid on a collision course with earth. Got us thinking, what would we do?

So you have two weeks notice about THE asteroid. It is irrefutably going to crush us. What do we do? For me, it comes down to three stages of action: immediate, preparation, then the waiting.

[Stage 1] Immediate:

Immediately upon hearing the asteroid news, I would go to the bank and max out our ATM cards. Cash, I figure, could be crucial because some merchants may refuse credit cards under these circumstances where humanity would be gone by the time the bill came due. Next stop, the grocery store because I don’t know if this supply line (i.e., food) would be available all the way up until the asteroid collision. Wouldn’t want to come to an unsightly end due to neglect while the asteroid is still en route. And besides, if it can be arranged, you might as well enjoy some degree of comfort in these final days plying oneself with grub. Final major acquisition stop would be Walmart to stock up on a few additional key ingredients. A quick summation:

·       Bank - max out ATM cards

·       Fuel for cars - would be crummy if we had someplace to go, or family to see, but no fuel

·       Grocery store - grub (preferably stuff that can be eaten right out of the can or with little preparation just in case the electricity or gas were not available), water, fruit, meats (hot dogs and lunch meat – these things will last two weeks)

·       Walmart - batteries, walkie-talkies (would want ability to remain in contact with my people), flashlights, solar battery chargers (in case electricity and batteries become unavailable)

·       Propane tank refill (a few final barbecue outtings)

Drop off supplies at home then go back out for a second round amidst the rising chaos. Endure it now while there’s still a chance to acquire necessities . . . or bonus items such as frozen turkeys, pies, and video games.

[Stage 2] Preparation:

Once the immediate action is accomplished to the best of our abilities it’d be time to make a checklist and assess what other preparation is needed to make the final two weeks safe, secure, and enjoyable.

·       Fill a few tubs full of water. You don’t know how long water would be available, so this would be our emergency supply.

·       Water purification kit – get one from Walmart or a Sporting Goods shop?

·       Rechargeable batteries in use throughout the house – charge them full while electricity remains available.

[Stage 3] The Waiting:

What to do with oneself once safety and preparation are accomplished? First, a few things that I would NOT do, possibly ever again. Yard maintenance – mowing or watering of the lawn, raking leaves, honing the sprinkler system to maximum efficiency, and trim bushes. I wouldn’t pay any bills (or at least make only the minimum payment - you know, what if the asteroid misses us, wouldn’t want to have to contend with an overdue penalty), and I wouldn’t go to work. I wouldn’t quit, I’d just put in for two week’s vacation. Again, no need to quit, what if the asteroid misses and I need to return to gainful employment?

The bulk of the final two weeks, once stage I and stage II are secured, would be spent as if it were Thanksgiving. Big meals with family and friends (see turkeys above – turkey reference is to the food, not family members and friends). I’d intend to close this thing out by socially gorging on people I know and love. Phone calls and e-mails to those folks I couldn’t reach, provided these lines of communication remain operable. Reminisce on past joys.

Also, with things coming to an end, no need to save good food, beers, or assorted spirits for special occasions. After all, we’d be in a situation where there would likely be no more occasions at all. This is it! Candy bars, ice cream, hot chocolate, beef jerkey, and ‘sugar’ cereals. It’s time to zero it all out. Empty the cupboards of the good stuff right down the gullet.

Please let me know what I missed. Would be nice to know in advance so that I may update the checklists.

-klem

Year End Thoughts

·       What’s up with wacky Warren Buffet publicly advocating for higher taxes while his business is in a $1,000,000,000 scuffle with the IRS over taxes owed?

·       People who don’t pick up after their dog are crummy.

·       Separation of church and state simply meant that there would be no Church of America in the ilk of The Church of England. It does not mean Christmas trees should be banned from public buildings.

·       Gratuitous use of foul language in every day conversation. Stop the clutter. If you have something to say, make it worth hearing.

·       What’s up with Hollywood celebrities overwhelmingly advocating for higher taxes while their actions betray their words? High tax-state California, and Los Angeles County specifically – host to expensive local taxes, have been losing much movie production business over the last few years to other states and Canada. Reason? They’re being lured by offers of favorable tax treatment they can’t get in California.

·       ‘Right-to-work’ laws, having recently been signed into law in Michigan, now exist in 24 states. Right-to-work makes paying union dues optional instead of compulsory in unionized workplaces. It’s the kind of thing that may make a state more attractive to business and maybe spark an influx of jobs. Sure would be swell if California would join in a reasonable pro-business position.

·       One should not inflict their bad moods onto others. Stew quietly in your own juices and then return to humanity in better spirits.

·       Prison inmates in California have been released early due to prison overcrowding since 2010. In some cases the early release inmates have killed again. I’m disappointed there was no discussion for going the other way on the overcrowding issue. Instead of letting inmates out, the first option should have been to ‘zero out’ death row to make more room.

·       The Fiscal cliff. At this point I want to go off this proverbial cliff. That may be the only way the citizens will have to pay for what they voted into office.

·       Big ups to Wife Klem for keeping Santa Claus alive for our kids for another year. Christmas Eve presents are from mommy, daddy, and maternal family while Christmas day presents are from paternal family. But Christmas morning presents are from Santa Claus. Wonder how long we’ll be able to keep this going.

Merry Christmas!

-klem

President Obama Re-Elected

The people have voted and President Obama gets another whack at this thing. 24 hours after the election results I was still trying to figure out what the hell happened. The ‘oh oh’ moment for me came at 5:30 pm Pacific Time. The election results were trickling in and they were much closer than they were supposed to be. Commence sinking feeling.

Yes, the economy was in the tank when President Obama first got into office, but at what point does his name and failed policies get attached it? After five years, six, eight, or does he have immunity? With this complete lack of accountability maybe nobody should be surprised that we’re worse off than before he got into office. What will this country and economy look like after another four years? How are we possibly going to start to dig out from the deficit hole that’ll be awaiting us in 2016?

My first reaction after hearing of the reelection was depression. [‘Now what’s going to happen to this country?’] Next came disgust, disgust with the low-information and/or stubborn populace that can do such a thing as reelect President Obama. The next day brought anger. [‘What kind of people am I circulating amongst that would keep this man in office?’] And on the third day brought a want of fight. No, not fisticuffs, no jail yard scrapping for this guy, but a verbal sparring of ideas. Save the name calling and sloganing, the election is over and I accept the results. But I do not accept that the ideas and policies of the other team are better than my own. Their troops are merely more numerous.

Governor Romney’s concession speech was so classy. It would have been great to have that man and his family representing this country. But no, as a country we chose a divisive smothering micromanaging Federal Government to one that would reward self-sufficiency and try to get out of the way to allow people to become productive again.

So, what the hell did happen? Days leading up to the election it seemed that Governor Romney had pulled ahead in many polls. I believe the results were largely affected by two things:

[1] Hurricane Sandy. In the eyes of some voters this catastrophic destruction made President Obama appear presidential, like the guy to keep in office. Regardless of what he actually did to assist after the hurricane’s destruction, the appearance of being there apparently gave some folks a confidence boost in their president.

[2] Negative ads. The little known fact of negative advertising is that they’re not supposed to make you want to vote for one candidate or the other, but they’re intended to make you not want to vote at all. They make you want to skip the voting process entirely and stay home. Governor Romney received 2,000,000 fewer votes than John McCain got in 2008! That’s odd since people seemed excited about the prospect of a President Romney in a way that McCain never inspired. So how can the drop in votes be explained? The negativism. It worked.

Conservative thinking must move forward. No retreat or defeat, too cowardly would that be. We must aspire for victory. ‘How so, Klem,’ you may ask. For me, this grand disappointment makes me want to improve myself. Sure, I consider myself to be pretty swell already, yet I want more.  My plan is to seek knowledge then victory in the field of conversational challenge. This’ll take practice, especially maintaining one’s train of thought once engaged in the heat of ‘battle.’ When an opportunity is presented it must be engaged calmly, politely and patiently. Never angry, agitated, rude, or hurried. Ask questions of the opposing side, let them try to explain their reasoning. Ask follow up questions as their misguided statements unfold. Can they respond without calling names or attempting to demean my point of view? Then counter with the answer, the conservative solution, and await their challenge. Victory will be measured by who loses patience to the other’s calm.

Can minds be changed? Maybe. But surely I do not want to be relegated to listening to someone’s feeble swill without having a reasonable retort. I aspire to visibly and distinctly separate myself from the trough of humanity that voted for four more years. Not separated with anger or sharp words, but with my own productivity, self-reliance, and well-reasoned disagreement. This I will do for myself without the need for governmental validation.

-klem

Obamacare. One Man’s Gripes.

[Gripe 1] Affordable Health Care, the bill was called. It’s important to note that the bill is called ‘Affordable’ Health Care, not Good or Improved, but Affordable. The fallacy of ‘Affordable’ aside, let’s consider the meaning of the word.

Week-old bagels are more affordable than fresh bagels, but at least fresh bagels are available if you want them and can afford them. The problem with the Affordable Health Care bill is that to achieve the stated goal, only the ‘week-old bagels’ will ultimately be available. Fresh bagels (i.e., the world’s best health care as we know it) will become a thing of the past once the bill is fully implemented.

[Gripe 2] Analogizing Health Care to Transportation: Transportation is important. You can’t work if you have no means of getting to the workplace, but government doesn’t furnish the populace with cars. Instead, the government sensibly makes public transportation available for a nominal fee. It doesn’t make all citizens abide by this same means of transport. If someone wants better transportation than a bus, they provide for it themself.

I would’ve preferred that government take the Transportation approach to Health Care instead of sticking us with this bill.

[Gripe 3] Medical costs will increase as a result of this bill, despite being told differently. The Federal Government said they had to get involved in health care because it is too expensive. Citizens were further advised that the bill would provide expanded coverage and include more people with no increase in supply (i.e., no increase in medical professionals to provide these increased services) and still bring costs down? Under what economic model does that work? That, plus the expense of a new bureaucracy to enforce this debacle.

[Gripe 4] Access to health care does NOT equate to accessible health care. Tales have been well publicized about the long waits for health care services in England and Canada, countries with socialized health care systems. Is that our future?

[Gripe 5] The forthcoming loss of employer-provided health care. Effective 2014, under this bill, employers will have an incentive to drop health care for their employers. If an employer does not provide health care for employees they will be fined, but that fine is far cheaper than the expense of actually providing health care. Employees would then be picked up by the government-provided plan instead. Affordable health care means it’s more affordable to drop the coverage for employees than actually providing it.

Additionally, even if an employer decided to continue providing health insurance for their employees, a fine will be imposed if the employer-provided health care does not meet a certain standard of coverage. The fine for inadequate health care coverage is larger than the fine for not offering it at all!

Under such a ridiculous and perilous plan, what employer would opt to provide their employees with health care? Employees will be lopped into the government plan by default like so much ash in the dust bin.

[Gripe 6] If Congress is so proud of themselves for passing this bill, why did they except themselves and their family from abiding by it? Because they know the bill stinks. They’ll let the citizens wallow haplessly in this frothy mess while they hold a handkerchief to their nose and tell us how swell it is.

-klem