Got Mongo? Feed On This!"
Become a fan of the STORE on Facebook. Click here.
Become a fan of the BLOG on Facebook. Click Here

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Deflated Punishment: Why It Doesn't Matter If Brady Did It

Deflategate.  Interesting that the Wells Report came back with a wonderful non-answer answer about the probability that the Patriots, no wait, Tom Brady is culpable for deflating footballs below regulation air pressure prior to the AFC Championship game against The Indianapolis Colts.  But, even with this not so new information that Brady and two underlings are probably guilty of the act, months after the incident, talking heads will still devote hours to drive time radio analysis of one of the more humorous discussions about balls.

In the end, what does it matter?  Brady and Belichick played through and beat the Colts 45-7 with or without underinflated balls.  Brady and Belichick went on to defeat the Seattle Seahawks 28-24.  Brady and Belichick have four championships.  Brady has Giselle.  Brady poops rainbows and cries dollar bills.   WHO CARES?!?!?

I guess Steelers’ fans do.   They get to play New England to kick off the 2015 season.  They get to play it in Foxborough.  They get to play it without their star Running Back, Le'Veon Bell, who was arrested for marijuana possession, with New England’s LeGarrette Blount during preseason.  (LeGarrette Blount is suspended for the game, too, but he gets to sit at home with his Super Bowl ring to keep him company.)   So, add all that together and sprinkle in the spectre of not being able to beat the Patriots during the post season and you get a tonic of vitriol and ire from Pittsburgh.

But, again, it doesn’t matter what happens to Brady and Belichick in light of the report because any punishment is moot.

“He could be fined.”  
So, what?  I’m sure he’ll be broke in a week, no longer able to wipe his tears with $100 bills or cry softly into Giselle’s bosom.

“He could be suspended for the opener.” 
Ooooh, except it’s the opener and not even against a division rival. 

“His legacy could be tarnished.”
I’m sure he’ll wring his hands with all four Super Bowl rings clacking like crazy.

“The Patriots could lose a draft pick.”
A: Kraft and Belichick were found not "probably" guilty.
B: Draft picks do not equate loss of good players… especially when you pick LAST!

If there were to be a punishment for the Patriots for directly affecting the outcome of a game, regardless of how well they would have done without cheating, it would have been for the next game, The Super Bowl.  Seattle almost beat New England, despite Tom Brady.  An interception at the goal line tanked their chances of overcoming the odds and beating the Pats.   And, quite frankly, it would have been a better story had the Patriots beat Seattle without their golden boy at QB.   That would have at least put to rest some of the controversy surrounding this team’s mounting questionable winning strategy.  After all, this is at least the second time the Patriots have been called on the carpet for cheating.  Remember Spygate?  Barely anyone outside of Pittsburgh does.   Spygate resulted in a $250,000 fine and loss of their first round pick… which was 31st since they lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl.   Surely, they were impacted as they missed out on drafting such greats.  Then again, they could have had Ray Rice in their ranks to compliment Aaron Hernandez.   In the end, they still won their division six out of the next seven years.

Again, my point is, it does nothing for credibility and accountability to suspend Brady the first game of the season or any other punishment.   Look at this perspective.

In 1992, at the age of 17, I had a part time job delivering newspapers.  I made maybe $20 a week delivering 54 papers, six days a week.  My friends and I spent our hard earned money on tickets to a concert.  It would have been my first live concert, ever.   Tickets were a whopping $24.95.   Not sure if that’s the going rate for concerts or the going rate for Def Leppard in 1992.  In any case, it was a week and quarter of pay. 

However, right around Halloween, my friends and I decided to be jackasses and go on a pumpkin smashing and egging tour of the neighborhood.  Well, we managed to egg the one house that everybody egged and they were tired of it.  They chased my friend’s Chevy S-10 until they got the plate and turned us in to the police.   The next weekend, my parents received a call from the police.  My friend had already given all of us up.  I was grounded.   The weekend before the concert and I was grounded.   I pleaded with my parents that I would accept my being grounded but that I had spent $25 of my own money on a concert.  It didn’t matter.  I missed the concert, I was out $25, and I learned a lesson.

Now, how much of a teachable moment would it have been had my parents said, “OK, you did something wrong and you will be punished.  How about a week night in the middle of next January when you have absolutely nothing important or fun going on?”

That’s what suspending Brady is.  It is a hollow action by a hollow commissioner that gets paid for making the owners money, and the owners make money when their top performers are playing in games like the Super Bowl.  Jerseys and ticket sales and concessions and fans with their butts in the seats put money in the pockets of the Kraft’s and that’s what a commissioner does, gets the owners money.  It doesn’t matter what is right, what is moral, or what is a good example for fans.  They don’t care because they’re addicted to the product the NFL is selling.

If you want to make a point suspend Brady for the first game... of the playoffs.

Granted, they can’t be assured a playoff spot, but when you plan on suspending him for a pointless game, anyways, what does it matter if it’s a "maybe" game?  That not only punishes Brady, but it punishes the organization if they fail to win.  Maybe, playing with a suitable handicap is better than a slap on the wrist.  

And just maybe, the real threat of punishment would start to make the rest of the players and teams realize that on Any Given Sunday… they might just be stuck home watching, like I was, while Def Leppard was playing.  I was a little poorer, but I survived.   Now where's my copy of Hysteria?

I probably won't be watching this season as I didn't last year.  It's not that I don't love the Steelers anymore, it's that I refuse to give any more time of my life to this league and this commissioner.  Goodell may be the most profitable commissioner of them all, but he's corrupt, cares only about the money, and has turned this sport into entertainment, like wrestling.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

The Fallacy of John McClane, Hero of Nakatomi Plaza?

In July of 1988, the cold war was all but over.  Reagan was at the end of his second term in which he had already made his famous “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech.   Six months later, Pan Am Flight 103 would be blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, ushering in a too-close-to-home terrorist threat (My sister was a classmate of one of the victims).  But that summer, the answer for terrorists was a lone man, a cop in the wrong place and the wrong time, doing his job.    He would singlehandedly take down a group of European "thieves" in a downtown Los Angeles skyscraper.  His name was John McClane.

Die Hard invented a new genre of film.  In fact, it lent its own name to the genre as, “Die Hard on a blank.”  The premise was simple.  A very well organized and well-funded group of bad guys, usually a mixture of foreign players and one or two Americans, would attempt to take over, blow up, rob, or kill someone, only to be defeated by one man with some peripheral help and a creative mind in regards to weaponry and self-defense.   The lone wolf savior was usually an off duty police officer or former soldier, and in the case of the “Die Hard in a hockey game” offering of Sudden Death, the protagonist was a firefighter. 

The protagonist would usually pick off a few of the terrorists or criminals before having their weakness exploited by the mastermind or tricked by a false friend, leaving them in some lower than low state.  But in the end, some Deus Ex Machina type device would save them, allowing them to dispatch the mastermind in some symbolic fashion complete with a fitting catchphrase. 

Regardless of how many times the formula was reused in the cinema, the original was still the best.  Die Hard introduced a real human protagonist.  John McClane wasn’t Rambo or Commando.  He wasn’t some body builder or ripped athlete.  He was just a man on the edge with vices and flaws.  He had a trucker's mouth and a distaste for authority.  He was everyman, the blue collar American, your dad, or your uncle who went to war.   He appealed to us all who wanted something more realistic than Stallone or Schwarzenegger.   It wasn’t a political or religious fight.  It was usually greed that drove the bad guys’ plot.

But, could the original Die Hard exist today?  Look at all the drama and discussion surrounding American Sniper.

“It’s “right wing” propaganda.”

“It glorifies war.”

“Snipers are cowards.”

“We should never have been there.”

“This is why we need to defend the 2nd Amendment.”

Each argument piggy backing a movie to serve its own purpose and soon an election will probably use the movie version of Chris Kyle’s life as a way to gain votes.  Exploitation at its best.

But again, could Die Hard work today?  Pacifists or “tree hugging, gun hating, pinko commie hippies” as they are probably looked at by others would say, “John McClane was in the wrong!” 

2nd Amendment extremists or “Gun toting tea baggers” as they are probably looked at by others would say that Die Hard demonstrates the need for more freedom for gun owners to carry all the time.

Well, maybe they can both be right and wrong.  But above all though, what if John McClane was never involved, or involved to a lesser extent?

Let’s look back at the film.

It’s 1988 America and John McClane has just arrived in LA to visit his estranged wife at her place of business for a Christmas Party.   Combating jet lag, McClane takes to a private office bathroom to clean up and “make fists with his toes” to alleviate his condition.   At that moment, a well-organized group of criminals with great hair care invade and take over the building.  All inside are killed or rounded up for the nefarious purposes of a yet unseen crime.  Are they taking hostages?  Are they extorting some kind of ransom?  We don’t know.  We just know that John McClane, shoeless, grabs his service weapon and takes off for another floor to avoid capture.  He appears to be the only invited guest at the party with any kind of weapon other than security, who were easily dispatched.

The bad guys round everyone up and keep them confined to the main foyer where the party takes place, while a few of the participants attend to other matters such as security, networks, and extracting a much needed code from the President of Nakatomi Trading for the vault downstairs.  Meanwhile, John McClane looks on in horror as Mr. Takagi is murdered, causing criminal mastermind, Hans Gruber to go to Plan B which involves a yet unseen element after Theo drills through the first layers of the vault door.

John McClane attempts to attract police attention by setting off a fire alarm and then making a distress call on the emergency services band using the radio from a dispatched terrorist.  This forces Gruber to try and neutralize this threat, but more importantly, it advances Gruber’s plan by involving police forces and ultimately, the FBI.

Does John take out terrorists?  Yes.

Does John represent the best chance for the hostages’ survival?  Maybe.

Let’s take a look at the death count on the good guys’ side.

Victim - Joseph Takagi
Killed By - Executed by Hans Gruber. 
Reason Killed - Because he wouldn’t give up the code.
McClane’s involvement – None.   
Reason for level involvement - He could have stopped them, perhaps temporarily, but then he’d be dead too. By giving away his position, he may have been able to take out many of the terrorists in the room, perhaps even Hans, himself.   But the cons in that equation definitely outweighed the good.  He would probably have been killed due to the odds, Takagi could have been killed by crossfire or in retaliation, and most likely, had John not nailed every one of them and saved Takagi, the smart thing would have been to go downstairs, kill all the hostages and leave before anyone knew what was up.   
Karmic impact – None if any
Final Word - John made the most calculated and logical decision given his circumstances.

Victim - Harry Ellis –
Kille By - Executed by Hans Gruber. 
Reason Killed - Because he got in the way, giving Hans information about John’s identity, and then ceased to be useful to Hans.  He was more of an annoyance.
McClane’s involvement – 80%
Reason for level involvement - Ellis told Hans who John was in order to help keep the hostages safe.  Yes, he was still a dick, but he didn’t know of Gruber’s end game.  When John didn’t give into Hans demands and was basically outed, Ellis was no longer useful.  John interfering with the entire ordeal caused Ellis to act on his own, leading to his death.  Furthermore, John not surrendering ensured Ellis’ death.  However, John would have been dead and so would have been Ellis pretty much.  While the audience and the characters may not still know the end game for this, Hans had no use for the hostages so Ellis would have been dead anyways.  But John interfering with Hans plan, even while advancing it, made for Ellis’ decision to try and quell the uprising.
Karmic impact – minimal.  He felt bad and even tried to save his life which made him more useless at that point.
Final Word - John being involved moved up Ellis’ death time but probably didn’t influence it.  Still, his involvement is implied.

Victim(s) - Five SWAT Team Members –
Killed By - Uli and Eddie ambushed four at the entrance with machine guns.  The Driver was killed by a missile exploding the SWAT vehicle, fired by Alexander and James.
McClane’s involvement – Direct involvement.  John called the police, involved Al Powell by dropping Marco onto his police cruiser which alerted the police’s full attention and SWAT involvement. 
Reason for level involvement - John’s continual annoying nature exacerbated the issue possibly causing their ultimate deaths as a statement of Hans’ “Do not mess with me, McClane!”
Karmic impact – less than you think.  The SWAT, by Hans’ blueprint would have been involved and according to Theo, they followed standard procedures.  They would have been there anyway.  They also took that role of their own accord so it came with the territory.  John’s involvement may have led to Hans using over the top measures but then again, why did he have a missile launcher in the first place?
Final Word - It’s their job but John put them there unknowingly.  Still, we don’t know if Hans would have killed them or more because John took out the missile launcher position and operators with the C4 in the elevator shaft.
Victim(s) - Agent Johnson and Special Agent Johnson, helicopter pilot
Killed By - Hans detonating the explosives on the roof caused the helicopter to catch fire and crash into the building... or gravity.
McClane’s involvement – Direct involvement.  He attempted to get the hostages off the roof but the FBI helicopter mistook him for a terrorist and began firing.
Reason for level involvement - John went to the roof because he knew the roof was wired to blow up.
Karmic impact – none.  Hans pulled the trigger but McClane being on the roof is what forced Hans to blow it.  The copter may not have been as close to the explosion had McClane not gone up there.
Final Word - While they were there because of their job, they totally planned on killing any terrorist they saw and possibly 20-25% percent of the hostages due to collateral damage.  John may have forced the issue, but Hans killed them and they were dicks.  That doesn't give their families any solace but they were in the business of being put in harm's way.
That’s all the good guy deaths.

Now, the plot of Gruber’s crime itself hinges on the fact the police would show up.  At what point in his original timeline would they be alerted to the situation.   For argument’s sake, let’s say John McClane is not at the party.  His plane was delayed.  So, Gruber and company take over Nakatomi unfettered.  They manage to execute every step of the plan with probably only one casualty, Joseph Takagi. 

So, there they are, with everything ready to go:
  • Roof rigged with explosives
  • All but one lock opened on the vault
  • All hostages accounted for in the main area of the party floor
  • No loss of terrorist life
  • No resistance to their efforts
  • No questioning of their command
All they need is for someone to call the police and have them show up.  Then, they give the fake “Release my brothers in arms” story to sell their hostage story.  SWAT team shows up with no knowledge of how many terrorists and what fire power they have involved.  Do they do a breach of the building without the knowledge that McClane gave them?   Better yet, do they even believe the story as Dwayne T. Robinson says, “He could be one of the terrorists, Powell” about McClane’s information?  In fact, Powell wouldn’t even be involved because he would have been home with his pregnant wife by the time Gruber was ready to execute the next phase of his plan.  No Powell means no questioning of the response.    

This is conjecture of course.  The SWAT team could have still been killed as Hans could have ordered more missiles fired.

So, was John McClane the best possible way to ensure that the greater good was served?   Was a lone wolf with a gun the best possible way to resolve the conflict?

Here are four possible scenarios:

No McClane = Hans executes his plan fully, all the terrorists escape with the millions and all the hostages are killed in the explosion on the roof. 
  • 100% hostages dead
  • 0% terrorists dead
  • 0% FBI forces dead
  • Maybe 1% of total SWAT officers killed (The math is fuzzy but 5 out of all total SWAT officers with LAPD Metro has to be around 1% I would think, even for 1988)

No McClane = Hans executes his plan up until the involvement of authorities, but due to the lack of McClane, the strategy changes and perhaps Gruber doesn’t get to blow up the roof with the hostages and escape with his money.  Some hostages die because the FBI takes them out as they are prepared to accept a loss during the firefight.
  • 90-100% terrorists dead (Theo and Eddie maybe taken into custody)
  • 20-25% hostages dead including Takagi killed by Gruber  OR maybe 100% of hostages dead because the roof blew and no McClane to get them down. 
  • Same amount of SWAT officers killed roughly 1%
  • Possibly 33-50% of FBI are killed or 1 Agent Johnson during the fight if we count helicopter pilot as FBI.
McClane involved  but surrenders because of Ellis = Takagi still dead, Ellis still dead, McClane dies because of Ellis, plan still carries out beyond that.
  • 38-75% of terrorists are killed because of McClane or police/FBI involvement
    20-25% hostages killed, including Takagi who is killed by Gruber. 

  • 99-100% killed as Holly still taken as hostage due to McClane and Ellis’ involvement and maybe killed later.
  • Same amount of SWAT officers killed roughly 1%,
  • Possibly 33-50% of FBI are killed or 1 Agent Johnson during the fight if we count helicopter pilot as FBI.
  • 100% of heroes killed

McClane Involved as originally scripted = Movie plays out as it does. Gruber’s plan gets modified and timetable pushed up.  He blows the roof prematurely and has to try and steal the loot during the aftermath.
  • 99% of terrorists dead (Theo taken into custody)
  • Less than 6% of hostages killed (Takagi and Ellis),
  • Same amount of SWAT officers killed or roughly 1%,
  • 100% of FBI forces killed (Both Johnsons and helicopter pilot)  
  • 0% of heroes killed.

Result – John McClane was the best option, using his training and brains. 
Yippee Ki-Yay Motherfucker!

And then, there's this gem:

  • Only one terrorist was killed by McClane having a gun at the party.  He shot Eddie at the end when he taped the gun to his back. Hans Gruber was shot by it, but died from falling out of the 30th floor window onto the pavement.    John either killed the remaining terrorists with other means or their own weapons. The list of deaths and how they occurred is here.
  • Had any of the guests been carrying a registered and concealed firearm, it is more than likely they would have been shot before getting a chance to use it or it would have been confiscated had they been round up before being able to respond. This also plays into a fifth scenario that I did not explore. John shows up and is present when the terrorists take over. Most likely, being a cop, John would not have tried to engage them at the onset as he would have most likely been outnumbered and killed immediately. Also, his service weapon would have been confiscated. In the event he would have come up with a plan while being held hostage, he would have had to rely on his brains or mistakes made by the terrorists so the carry and conceal argument would not even play into it.

Friday, January 2, 2015

2014 D-Bag of the Year Awards Part 2 - Oh The Humanity

In Part 1 I did a semi round up of 2014's biggest d-bags, glossing over some of the moments in order to not really do any damn research.  What I came up with was somewhat of a generalization of what I feel is the biggest d-bag of the year.  I think I've done it before but we win again, Humanity.

Call it a cop out.  Call it what you will, but my pick for the biggest, most vile, hipster hat and non prescription glasses wearing douchebag of the year is Humanity via Social Media.

What is that you say?  Did you just make up some weird nominee off the top of your head like some sub-sub-sub-genre of music like Mathcore or Lowercase…  You’d kind of know what lowercase is if you ever sat and watched the DVD menu of The Social Network.  It’s ambient music with a few notes scattered about with stuff like real life noise, people talking, traffic, clacking of keyboards, footsteps, etc.

Yeah, I just coined it Humanity via Media is the biggest d-bag of the year.  I wanted to just say Social Media specifically, but there’s more to it which I will get to in a bit.

Why Media? 

Social Media has been as pervasive in our lives. 
We post, tag, comment, retweet, upvote, tumblr (sp?), Instagram, blog, film, and basically overshare everything.  The problem is there is no governance in place to weed out the real, satirical, or fake information.  To the point about Bill Cosby, both Kirk Cameron and Raven-Symone were reported to have been raped or assaulted by Bill Cosby sometime in their career.  These stories were both false, posted by Onion emulating sites like HipHopHangover.  But regardless of their incredulous nature, they were shared across the Internet via twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites.    The Michael Brown and Eric Garner deaths promptly divided friends on Facebook, probably more so than the midterm elections because on one side you have the barrage of people tuned into the “Police State” conspiracy and abuse of police power theories, and on the other there is the contingent of people who stand behind the badge and say that if they were truly innocent victims they wouldn’t have been committing a crime and when an officer tells you stop, you stop.   The problem lies in the dissemination of information via Media and how Humanity shows its colors when it shares or promotes those stories, real, satirical, or fake as it were.   Look at the “fake” media accounts of Chris Rock and other Twitter celebs who were retweeted without any kind of verification of “Did they actually say it.”  It’s akin to everything on Facebook being attributed to George Carlin or Sarah Palin whether they said it or not.   The Media itself is wholly guilty because they sensationalize some things and no one site is truly objective in its portrayal of anything anymore.   Fox is all right wing, MSNBC is all left.  Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert piss everyone off because they get hoisted onto the pedestal of news when they are basically satire and entertainment.   But the media feeds into social media and then we go back down that rabbit hole all over again.
We have no filter and we have social media muscle. 
It’s kind of like beer muscles.  You get drunk and think you are invulnerable to anything you try to punch, animate, inanimate, or otherwise.  In the case of social media or even media, it’s the belief that we have no problem making a comment, vile as it may be, towards someone because we don’t have to say it to someone’s face.   Think back to that Artie Lange Twitter rant.  Go search over the ones tagged to the Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice, or even Hollaback.  Do you think Artie Lange would seriously say, in person, to Cari Champion the things he tweeted?  Have you ever read the comments section on any news article concerning anything polarizing like politics or human rights?  It’s insane.   Now, I joke about hating on PewDiePie as a YouTube content producer because I am one, too and my opinions are just that, my opinion.  But he disabled the comments on his YouTube account, for good this time.  His belief is that the comment section on his videos is just rife with spam, self-advertising, and fights among fanboys.  With about 19 million subscribers, I guess there is a ton of comments.  Well, it may be best for humanity but it’s only one of millions of places to see vinegar and hate on the Internet.  I, myself, jumped into the ring early on, being online for certain things trying to drum up my social media profile after this little moment pushed me a small step towards Internet Fame Mediocrity by calling out John Travolta on Twitter during the Oscars. It was retweeted 1500 times and favorited by 1000 people.  I admit it, I took a little pride in my humor and was continuing to try and make fetch happen throughout the rest of the year.  Then again, I think John Travolta has dyslexia and I just laughed at someone with a disorder.  But, he's famous and knows famous people, and he is musical and should have known that her name wasn't Adele Dazeem.

For every Social Media win there are millions of fails.
Everyone thinks that revolution will not be televised, it will be posted.    We had countless videos of people dumping buckets of ice water on themselves, all for… charity?  Was it really charity or attention?  The Ice Bucket challenge was probably the most videoed moment of the year and people challenged each other to donate to ALS and film themselves being hit with a bucket of ice water, supposedly how it feels to have symptoms of ALS.   But what started out as a way to donate to a worthy cause became a “look at me” moment as everyone posted videos of themselves but probably not everyone donated.  And in doing so, did they actually fix anything?  Social Media Cause of the Week Awareness comes off more like Evil Political/Business Figure Karma Washing by building libraries or parks in areas to offset their horrible practices or platforms.  And while the initial ALS Ice Bucket challenge started off with a good message, it was polluted by the fails videos and other “Staged” event videos and copycat challenge videos that followed.  And it didn’t just hit the everyday Joe, celebrities got in on the challenge as well.   Glorification of the self outshone the message in the end.    Another case of fail was that Hollaback video where after it went viral, tons of parody videos including everything from someone dressed as Princess Leia to a Lamborghini became the subject of catcalls or lack thereof.  The Arab Spring was filmed on a cell phone and that lent a face to what was actually going on in the region.  That was social media for the win.

We have no context or objectivity.
 Recently, Sarah Palin tweeted out a picture of her son Trig, standing on the family dog to reach something on the counter.  As a proud grizzly mom, she said her son was a problem summer, the tweet went viral and the Internet did what it does.    She pointed out in a fiery article that Ellen Degeneres posted a similar picture in July of the same year.

A: Sarah Palin touts the problem solving skills of her son, Ellen says "Well, that's one way to reach the sink."  Both are bad examples of how treat animals. 

B: That's Sarah's kid and dog.  The other is fan submitted to The Ellen show.  Ellen can't stop someone else's bad behavior.  Sarah could.

The difference is, one is Sarah Palin, and the other is Ellen.  Righties, including Palin, will say "No one cared when Ellen did it."  Well, they did.  If you go to the Facebook post and look at the comments, A LOT of people called it out.

It's called context.  They pulled that Ellen pic because she is a well known liberal and lesbian.  It's a tactic of taking something that looks the same and then use it as a juxtaposition.  The more visceral and equally non contextual comment would to be to say, "Obama ate a dog once."   

We also look at things non contextually such as photos depicting a moment in time, free of whatever is going on before and after that moment.  Someone's face say the Obama daughters looking disgusted.  Then, media adds the context.

Or, as I did last month on Facebook to prove a point, "An armed white man killed three police officers in Pittsburgh, was in a long standoff with the law, and was taken into custody, alive."  Immediately, my conservative friends accused me of trying to associate this event from a few years ago to the Michael Brown case.  I did no such thing.  I simply made a factual statement with no context.   Everyone attached their own context based on their beliefs.   It was a dick move but showed the nature of what I am speaking to.

 We have no long term memory.
"Hey, did you hear the one about the price of gas when a certain President took office vs what they are now?  Blame so and so!"  
"Hey did you hear how so and so is giving all these illegals clemency?" 

Chances are, you have seen your friends share something on social media, touting their political leanings.  Usually, it's bashing the person they didn't vote for.  Chances are, they didn't do any research into the subject and just re-posted or re-tweeted something from a site or feed that uses these little subjective posts as click bait for traffic.  What usually occurs in some of these situations is that people cling to the notion that this country is going to implode because of the people in charge and nothing like this has ever happened before in anyone's lifetime.  Let's face it, nothing is new anymore. Policy and political strategy is about as fresh as Hollywood script ideas.  The problem lies in that people tend to have short term memory when these things occur.  They tend to forget that other administrations and other environmental influences recur, like the seasons.  Gas prices fall in the winter, and rise in the summer, so when someone points out that the price of gas was lower in the January of an inaugural year vs. the Memorial Day of a midterm, everyone grabs torches and pitchforks.  Moreover, Presidents have no direct influence on the price of gas.  The market fluctuates based on fear and speculation and time of year.  But social media, and by proxy, we tend to wear our hate right out on our sleeves and feed the trolls of viral mud slinging because why?  See the next point.
We are despicable human beings.
Everyone wants to see the train wreck.  There are far more disasters and fires started on social media and media outlets than good feel, faith in humanity stories.   Everything is hashtagged for social media glorification.  #NotAllMen  #YesAllWomen #NotAllPolice #NotAllBlacks #AlexFromTarget #BlackLivesMatter #PoliceLivesMatter #GamerGate  But, you cannot change the world with a hashtag.  Let’s face it.   We are not Gandhi, Maya Angelou, The Dalai Lama, or Whatevertheirnames are like Bukowski or Poindexter.    Slacktivism is not helping fix problems.   If it were, we wouldn’t need a name attached to a social media account.  It would be anonymously attached to a building or a billboard.  Stop the glorification of yourself in the name of some cause.  In a more despicable note, GamerGate was a form of victim blaming in that someone posted something, maybe true, maybe not, about a female gamer who released a game and then she and her family received threats by misogynistic people on social media.  People came to the defense of Person A and were threatened as well.  Others criticized Person A and they were threatened.  The funny thing is, I wonder if those same people who sent death threats would ever, ever follow up on them if they were face to face.  It's the Social Media Muscle at work.  "Yeah, I'll kick your ass from behind my firewall."  But, in person, you're peeing your pants at actually following through.  If it actually happened, it'd be like this... (NSFW - Language)


Fear sells better than cheer.
When Ebola entered the country, pundits went nuts saying "CLOSE THE BORDERS!" and "OBAMA IS TRYING TO KILL US!"  First of all, Ebola was already in Atlanta at the CDC.  The level of spreading of Ebola in the US vs. Africa is ridiculously disparate.  We are a first world country with better than average healthcare.  And quite frankly, how the hell do you close the borders to air traffic?  Ebola isn't just walking over the Rio Grande.  We had an outbreak of mumps in the NHL this past fall, did anyone, ANYONE start yelling to close the border to Canada?  Ebola is a dangerous disease if you don't have the capacity to deal with it.  But it's a lot easier to get people glued to their sets when you have that newscast with the scary music, biohazard graphics, and fear than it is to give out good news.  We are a society that likes Schadenfreude.

We are ALL the problem.
Was the iCloud hacks a sexual crime?  Maybe.  I am not a lawyer.  I am not a woman, either.  But, those involved did steal private images and videos.  They did re-post them and that, in itself, is probably worthy of some investigation.  If anything, digital theft or invasion of privacy, breaking and entering if that applies to digital environments.  And not as if I am downplaying the severity of what Jennifer Lawrence went through, but to say that anyone who viewed the images are also committing a sex crime, that is a stretch.  OK, I admit it.  I saw the images.   I wanted to know.  And I'm not claiming Pete Townsend "research" as reasoning, but really, is it a crime.  The sites that host the images, yeah, probably guilty of something, but best you can do is say, "Take it down or face litigation" over copyright.   What happened to the people who had their cloud accounts invaded is awful and this victim shaming/blaming mentality is horrible, but quite honestly, if you're using your digital accounts to store naked images and videos of yourself then you shouldn't be surprised that this is going to happen.  Not to say it's apples to apples but if I walk down the street in a bad neighborhood with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets, I don't deserve to be mugged, but it's probably going to happen eventually and I can be pissed off about it and say it's wrong and it is, but it's still something that can be prevented.  Flame me all you want, but the same goes for the cloud.  And yes, the hackers are the worst in humanity, but the victims calling it something it probably isn't doesn't help.  It is what it is, wrong and unfortunate. So, there it is.  As cliched as a wrap as that is, and pretty much ever word I say,  "That's That"  We have a lot of cleansing to do in 2015.  To quote Neal Sampat from The Newsroom, you embarrass me. 

I embarrass me, too.   I am just as bad.

Since 2008, I've pretty much dedicated 98% of this blog to pointing out what's wrong with the world through the pop culture lens.  The last two years have been particularly crass or depressing depending on the day.   And while I am probably going to continue to uphold the "Angry" moniker since it is my brand.  I want to be different.  I got old real quick in my late 20s and 30s and I will be starting a new decade of my life.  I gave up a lot of what made me... me.  I still haven't given up all of my snark as a resolution but I do plan on making substantial changes in my life starting now.  So, let's see if I can get back to being a little more like who I used to be before Mongo took over.  Hopefully, I can bring some of you along with me.

Happy New Year, d-bags. 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

Shredded Tweets