About Those Anti-Smoking Commercials

By now most have viewed at least one of the HHS anti-smoking commercials featuring victims of various cancers and other ailments caused - they say - by smoking and tobacco use. It's a cliche but still true: these are our tax dollars at work. Your government commissioned these ads and purchased the airtime with your cash. HHS Secretary Sebelius and her minions risk another sort of medical problem - namely, rotator cuff injuries from patting themselves on the back for foisting these grotesque, voyeuristic images on an unsuspecting, undeserving public. This isn't a tear in the eye of Iron Eyes Cody when he sees litter along a roadway; this are 21st century bureaucratic bullies grabbing you by the scruff of your proverbial neck and rubbing your nose in the misfortunes of others under the rubric of education.

Let's stipulate that smoking is injurious to health and has strong links to cancer and other diseases. A reasonable person might also point out that anti-smoking campaigns have been in place for most of our lives and cigarette packages have carried anti-smoking messages for just as long, making these ads surplus to requirements. They rely on the Fallacy Of The Dramatic Example by showing the worst examples (apart from actual corpses - but let's not give them any ideas). But extreme scenarios involving death or disfigurement could be conjured up for nearly every activity in life: driving a car, skydiving, skiing, or even slipping in the bathtub.

The ads and the sentiments expressed are based in cowardice. If the substance being discussed is maiming and killing indiscriminately, why has it not been completely banned from use? We know the answer - and so does HHS - but the same government sponsoring this modern-day Elephant Man sideshow is hopelessly, er, addicted to the taxes generated by smoking. The ends-justify-the-means crowd have an enduring blind spot on this issue. Remember governors and state attorneys general rubbing their hands with glee over tobacco settlement money? It was supposed to be a twin panacea for public health and public finance. Where did all those billions go? And why aren't we all hale and hearty by now as a result of state benificences?

As someone once said, the Bill of Rights should be amended to include The Right To Be Left The Hell Alone. Most of us have precious little leisure time available. When we choose to allocate some of those hours to watching TV i.e. escapism, we do not and should not wish to be subjected to graphic video of amputations, prosthetics, voice kazoos, etc. when we are simply attempting to relax for a few fleeting moments before heading back to work (at least for those still lucky and/or disciplined enough to do so) in order to pay the salaries of Sebelius et al.

Elections mean pandering, and the ongoing political battles over health care mean that the disabled and the ill are often targets of such pandering. We are always scolded with 'person first, disability second' by many of these same DC health commissars. Don't rob them of their dignity or their humanity, we are told (and don't forget the inevitable ADA lawsuits). To them I respond: if you want dignity, then Step #1 is to refuse any offer to act as a political show pony. Surely by now you know that after a few seconds under the lights with a candidate for a photo op, you will be as distant a memory as last Thursday's lunch order. Ignore the blather about cautionary tales, etc. You cannot set a good example by setting a bad example, therefore anyone claiming to be your champion is lying. If you are self-aware enough to realize what your lifestyle has wrought on your body, then please be self-aware enough to realize when you are being exploited.

Leftists have a cult-like obsession with disease and death. Look at their pet causes: environmentalism (i.e. man is voluntarily poisoning his world and in turn himself), euthanasia (they've convinced millions that 'doctor-assisted suicide' is not an oxymoron) and, of course, abortion. They are equally obsessed with playing God, deciding who is worthy of medical care, drugs, and operations, as well as the nonstop coercion of food providers and consumers with laws, bans, restrictions, labels, etc.

Proponents of the ads will claim that shocking images are the only way to get people's attention and change their behavior. But why and how should government be in charge of our attention i.e. our thoughts? References to Orwell and 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' are easy but in this case they are absolutely relevant. As before, an intelligent, educated and free people should neither need nor want any central authority attempting to dictate what to think or how to behave. The individuals appearing in these ads and those subjected to watching them have one thing in common: a government constantly attempting to manipulate them in order to amass more power.

NASA and the Space Shuttle

Many observers, including the brilliant editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez, are lamenting the end of the shuttle program and calling it the effective end of NASA. For those who have idolized astronauts over the years, it's unbelievable and disheartening to imagine that the 'star voyagers' are all dressed up with nowhere to go.

But NASA and its contractors have nobody to blame but themselves. Relieved of the immense pressure to land on the moon by the end of the 60s, NASA became a make-work agency and just another federal sugar daddy. It took less than 10 years - with some tragic losses in the persons of Ed White, Roger Chaffee and Gus Grissom - to go from Project Mercury to Tranquility Base yet the shuttle program dragged on for 30 years (with its own tragedies of course).

It goes without saying that the shuttle provided diminishing returns. A good rule of thumb was that the greater the hype about a mission, the less important it really was. Fixing the Hubble was important and didn't need NASA's PR fluff. Giving out rides to foreign astronauts as party favors was quite a bit less crucial.

In the end, NASA allowed PC and PR to serve as very weak substitutes for science and progress. Where is the innovation, research and leadership that might provide a path to a new program? Ideas cost nothing yet we apparently have none to offer. Why should we reward inertia with additional funding?

NASA is an organization that has lost its vision. Here's hoping they will use the post-shuttle era to locate it again.

I've said repeatedly....

Note: I have tried to keep politics out of this blog but this isn't a political post so much as a post about veracity and personal integrity.

Impressionists, cartoonists, and even historians rely heavily on identifying and amplifying the physical and verbal idiosyncrasies of public figures, especially presidents.

Their constant presence in the media means that their pet phrases and mannerisms become familiar to all (even against our will) as the inevitable caricatures demonstrate.

There was Reagan's "Well..." and a shrug of the shoulders, GHWB41's slow-motion karate chops on the top of the lectern, Clinton's raised index finger, etc.

Obama is a special case, however, as he rarely has anything to say of substance (or truth, if you like) beyond the verbal window dressing.

His "Let me be clear..." has already passed into legend for its annoying frequency of use and its contradictory nature - for what he says after rarely contains one iota of clarity.

Less frequent - but more insidious - is Obama's reliance on the pet phrase "I've said repeatedly." He occasionally changes it to "I've said in the past" or "I've said all along" but it is his go-to phrase especially in one-on-one interviews.

It sounds harmless enough until you realize several things:

1) He will claim to have said something in the past when no evidence of same can be found.

2) He believes that use of this phrase somehow confers a continuity of purpose, philosophy, policy or action when we know full well this is not the case.

3) He believes that an inherently wrongheaded idea or plan somehow gains validity if it exists for an extended period of time.

4) He uses it as a sort of after-the-fact clairvoyance. When the market dips, when home prices fall, when jobs are lost, Obama will claim to have "said repeatedly" that action X, Y or Z should have been taken. Of course, he never gets round to identifying or taking that action BEFORE negative consequences occur.

At the risk of drawing further attention to the more maddening aspects of this intellectual lightweight, I have reached the breaking point with this particular verbal trip hammer of his. It is his umbrella, his shield, his front porch. Count (if you can stand it) the frequency and quantity of "I've said repeatedly." This man cannot stand to be in the wrong. And if he is in the wrong (that is to say, most days), he will claim to have been in the right, safe in the knowledge that nobody within a 100-mile radius of the White House has the nerve nor the initiative to challenge him on the most rudimentary of facts.

Steelers/Jets AFC prediction/analysis

Hero: BR7

Goat: Roger Goodell, the media and the officials. The media have devoted 75% of airtime to 25% of the AFC/NFC finalists i.e. the New York Jets. Steeler fans may welcome the lack of intrusions but what about the Bears & Packers who are the NFL's two oldest franchises both with incredible histories and a storied border rivalry all of it played in mostly brutal weather? All we're getting from reporters in Chicago are a load of by-the-numbers pregame updates. Meanwhile, extended segments on the Life And Times Of Rex Ryan, Mark Sanchez And The Rest Of God's Chosen People Including The Fans Most Of Whom Are Wearing Chrebet #80 Jerseys are on heavy rotation.

Goodell and the NFL earn goat horns for putting a game in the CENTRAL time zone ahead of a game played in the EASTERN time zone. Who cares if it's a New York team? It's preposterous to believe that all four sets of fans won't be watching regardless of kickoff time, especially when it's 8 ****ing degrees out across the northern US and everyone is indoors already. Further proof that Manhattanites view the large landmass beyond the bridges and tunnels as a foreign land full of rubes who deserve what they get and are lucky to get it.

There's no need to wait until gametime to decry officials' bias. Think they don't know the NFL along with Jets TV, er, ESPN, is absolutely dying to get the Jets to the Super Bowl?

Let's all take a moment to remember Tim Donaghy. Sleazy crooked basketball official who was in thrall to the bookies, they said. The NBA and its media partners did their level best to discredit and destroy him but they could do nothing about his claims that the league demanded and engineered desired outcomes of certain games and playoff series - probably because the claims were true! David Stern lost his permanent smirk for a few weeks while he worked feverishly to stifle coverage of that subject. Several years on NBA fans (hands up, both of you) are supposed to believe that, gee whiz, the Finals matchup is just a one of those flukes (again)!

The NFL does its outcome-tilting with a bit more style due to the larger audience involved but there are a host of issues such as advertising (read: big markets come first) that are higher on the list than objectivity. The replay system, ostensibly designed to aid officials and 'get the call right' has become another tool for the league office to influence results from afar while providing cover for the on-field officials since all parties can blame an inanimate object - deus ex machina. NFL referees don't make calls; they make speeches. But if the rulebook - lovingly cared for and modified by the competition committee (themselves inherently biased since they attempt to alter the rules to favor their own franchises) - is unambiguous why the need for the Hamlet soliloquy? It's because trotting out a load of codswallop enables the 'neutral' NFL to make a show of claiming the referee 'interpreted the rule correctly/incorrectly' - all after the fact of course and if your team took it in the shorts better luck next year. Shouldn't they all get together BEFORE the season to agree on interpretation of rules?

The point is: if there is a close call it will favor the Jets. The Steelers should be prepared for it and brush aside any feelings of surprise, anger, injustice, etc. In fact, they should assume that they are down 7-0 at the beginning of the game and make no less than a 14-point margin their target in order to mitigate the tinge of green that will be visible on the black and white striped officiating crew.


Outcome: 23-17 Steelers. The only problem with advancing so far in the playoffs is that Bruce Arians looks at himself in the mirror and convinces himself (again) that the team is winning due to, not in spite of, his trickery and guile. Like Robert Stack in 'Airplane!' who orders the runway lights turned off because 'that's just what they'll be expecting,' Arians will serve up a contrarian game plan that uses the most talented players as decoys and ignores high-percentage plays regardless of down and distance. Everyone is obsessed with the matchups between the Steeler starting WRs and the Jets DBs but that will likely be a stalemate. Loads of passes underneath to the sure-handed Heath Miller seem to make eminent good sense but Miller will find himself ignored again. Arians will pass even when the defense is ripe to give up running yards simply because he views it as a contest of oneupmanship with Rex Ryan. Let us not forget that last week's offensive game-changer came about because BR7 vetoed Arians' original playcall.

The Arians/Tomlin axis will settle for field goals and make the game closer than it should be - a regrettable Pittsburgh 'tradition' since Chuck Noll was in charge and certainly continuing during the Cowher era. The Jets will get a TD from an INT, PR or KOR which will give them a huge emotional lift in addition to the free 7 points. LeBeau will make extensive use of the nickel as he attempts to prevent Braylon Edwards et al from running streak patterns all day while relying on a 3-man rush and his trusty LBs.

Intangibles: the Jets' reaction to finally vanquishing their division mate Patriots was somewhat over-the-top and one is reminded of the Arizona Cardinals' giddy reaction to winning the NFC title game especially in contrast to that of the Steelers who, after winning the AFC, symbolically shrugged their shoulders on the way to packing their bags for the real prize. Perhaps only Barack Obama has enjoyed better PR from the East Coast press than Mark Sanchez but he is still a 2nd year QB and facing a defensive coordinator with, oh, only 50 years' more experience in the game. Let's hope the virus known as false confidence infects both Sanchez and his offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer.

The TSA are not 'serving with honor.'

To the TSA worker quoted in this Techdirt article:

If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country.

Er, no. People in the ARMED FORCES are serving their country. At a stretch you could say that FBI, CIA and certain other groups are serving also. You simply took a job with the federal government with an eye on the inflated pay for menial work, ridiculously extravagant benefits and retirement, and where being fired is virtually unheard of despite the incompetence and sloth on display. You're no different from a GSA slob mowing grass somewhere.

There is no honor in what you are doing. You have been brainwashed along with the rest of your TSA brethren. Forget all the PowerPoints, videos and paperwork that DHS/TSA handed you when you signed up. Snap out of your personal Stanford Prison Experiment and try to remember that these are your fellow citizens and beyond that they are human beings with rights, personal space and dignity which you are violating under the false pretense of providing security.

The passengers are REASONABLE persons reacting to UNREASONABLE searches and INEXCUSABLE transgressions against their person and their rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Stop pretending to be the injured party and if you really want to quit then do it now. And take as many of your colleagues with you as you can manage.

On 'underage' drinking

The most effective way to combat underage drinking is to lower the drinking age to 18 (or possibly 19) again.

Simple? Silly? Self-evident? Perhaps. But it will work.

All of the bluster about alcohol (binge drinking etc.) ignores one fact: for 3/4 of an undergraduate population alcohol is forbidden fruit due to the 21 age restriction. Yes some bars will allow 18-and-up in and we all know that (wink wink) these 18+ customers MIGHT have a tipple or two.'

But prohibition and an arbitrary age limit simply increase demand. In the case of college students the demand and the prohibition set up a challenge, a game to be won at all costs. Consumption of alcohol in moderation is, or was, a rite of passage into adulthood. Social drinking is called that for a reason. When alcohol becomes contraband then access to that contraband can become an obsession. When the object of the obsession is obtained the next logical (?) step is to go absolutely hog-wild. Overconsumption becomes the norm because in the back of the mind of every underage drinker is "when and where will I have access to alcohol again?"

The 21 drinking age has failed on two fronts: it has failed to prevent or even reduce consumption; indeed, it has increased it in many cases. Worse, it has created hundreds if not thousands of unsupervised speakeasies in the form of dorm rooms, apartments, off-campus houses, etc. where social drinking i.e. a public display of being able to consume and still function as a rational human being is nowhere to be found. Instead, interaction is limited to drinking-oriented games (e.g. beer pong) and constant exhortations to consume stupor-inducing quantities of alcohol (beer bongs, shots, etc.).

In sum, the 21 drinking age is an overreach that stands the process of socialization on its head and forces students who choose to drink into a state of arrested development. They remain children but they are children with easy access to oceans of beer and spirits rather than young adults who frequent licensed venues in order to drink, yes, but also to (hopefully) continue the process of maturation via interaction.

Requiem for a friend

A friend died. A friend I haven't seen in months and who might not even consider me a friend since he treated so many like friends upon meeting them. But maybe that's why he had so many friends...real friends.

This poor bloke was born with a variety of congenital heart defects and suffered through surgeries and frequent trips to specialists and out-of-town clinics. It's a horrible cliche to employ but he dealt with it a hundred times better than I ever would have. His poor mother and father employed gallows humor by the truckload but obviously they worried...but not enough to exempt him from the family squabbles that served as live entertainment for me and other patrons of their restaurant/bar business.

At one point the friend's heart was reported to be operating only at 10% of capacity. He was put at the tail end of the transplant priority list if he was listed at all due to a variety of other factors.

One night he was working like mad behind the bar and turned literally white as he fought for breath and sweated profusely. It scared me almost as much as it must have scared him.

I'm ashamed that so much time passed since I last was able to see him in person and I'm gutted that I will never have a pint and a chat with him. Even more distraught for his family, of course - two brothers and a mother and a father who must perform grim duties no parent should ever have to face.

I don't believe in ghosts but I do believe that hearing about someone's death causes us to think intensely about that person...where we saw them last...what we talked about or did together. This concentration, I believe, causes us to 'see' the departed whenever we go to a certain place, hear a certain song, or engage in certain activities.

Farewell, Matt. I won't forget you and while I'm on this earth I will no doubt 'see' you quite often, such is your positive and lasting impact on me.