Pork Chop Gets the Axe

On recent trip to Allentown, PA to visit my grand-parents I learned that, beginning this season, the city would become home to a minor league baseball franchise. The Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs (formerly the Lynx of Ottawa) would represent the Philadelphia Phillies as their local affiliate at the Triple-A level. However, the arrival of the new team to the area has been marred by accusations of racism by local Hispanics regarding the name of their mascot.

Based on over 7,000 fan submissions of potential names, the cartoony, metallic pig had originally been given the title of ‘Pork Chop.’ The team quickly conceded to the complaints of “several Hispanics” that the name was offensive and dumped the fan-chosen name prior to the start of the season. My first thought was, “What is offensive to Hispanics (or anyone else) about naming a cartoon pig ‘Pork Chop’?”

Apparently the pig’s chosen moniker has been used by some people as a derogatory term for Puerto Ricans. Aside from the fact that this seems like a stupid racial slur (not stupid in the sense that it demeans a group of people based on race but rather because it is, in reality, a type of food and therefore should offend the group at which it is directed no more than someone calling me a ‘Cracker’ would offend me) but it is a term of which I doubt most people have any awareness.

Guillermo Lopez, vice president of the Latino Leadership Alliance and one of the prime complainants about the name, hammered this very point home with his own statements when he noted, “If my parents were alive, they’d be having fits. It meant much more to them than it does to Puerto Ricans now in the Lehigh Valley.”

Exactly! This may have been an offensive to term to a select group of people over 20 years ago but that is clearly not the case anymore. Moreover, this name was being given to a pig! The pig is the mascot and therefore the physical representation of the team’s spirit and camaraderie. The name was being used in the most positive of connotations (unless you are an actual pig) and this moron has not only stripped the public of their chosen name but also breathed life back into what was a dead racial slur so that an entire new generation of bigots can use it to belittle his own people.

So congratulations, Mr. Lopez, to you and all your fellow ‘minority’ groups out there who continue to fan the flames of prejudice by constantly reminding the public at large of not only the myriad of differences between our races, religions, and genders but also of all the ways with which they can offend you.

Oddly enough, nobody was offended by Pork Chop’s replacement, ‘Wetback the Dolphin’

The most ignorant statement from the whole story did not come from those who were offended, however, but from the man who conceded to them. General Manager Kurt Landes said of his decision to change the mascot’s name, “We were really unaware of any negative connotations with the word ‘pork chop.’ If it offended a few, it’s a few too many.”

No, it isn’t! The things we say and do can always be found to be offensive to a few people on some level, but that is no reason to alter our behavior. There will always be those like Lopez and his ilk who have nothing better to do than complain about things which could be offensive to some tiny sub-group of people (even if those people are from a past generation, as in this case) and if everyone continues to concede on the most innocent of or alleged faux pas then we, as a majority of the people, place ourselves ever more at the mercy of the few yahoos pathetic enough to spend their days searching out new ways to be offended.

If anyone involved in this entire situation is guilty of racism it is Mr. Lopez and his Latino Leadership Alliance of Lehigh Valley who, according to their own mission statement, claim the the LLA “seeks to improve the quality of life for the Latino community and the entire Lehigh Valley.” I would be interested, however, to know what specifically this organization does to help anyone in Lehigh Valley who is not Latino.

According to their president, the LLA “promotes education by providing ‘Si Se Puede’ workshops” in local schools. Sounds to me like these workshops are geared specifically to Hispanics (or at least only to those who speak Spanish.) I don’t speak Spanish and I find it offensive that they would discriminate against me simply based on my ethnicity or the educational opportunities I have had.

The group also gives out dozens of scholarships annually, but they are only open to Latino students. That is the very definition of racial discrimination and, once again, flies in the face of their claims of improving the quality of life for everyone in Lehigh. It makes me sick that groups like the LLA are able to promote the advancement of only those individuals who have the same color skin and speak the same language as they do. This organization and all those who support their bigoted, racist agenda should be ashamed of themselves.

I have gone on for long enough though. It is nearly dinner time and I am getting hungry. I think I will go get a pork chop so I can eat… that Puerto Rican chef sure knows how to cook. (Thanks for teaching me a new word, Guillermo!)

Iran Builds Rocket in 9 Months– Still No Gays

Iran has built their own unique space rocket, from scratch, in a scant nine months. At least, that is what President Ahmadinejad has announced. Then again, we should all remember that this is the same man who, during a speech at Columbia University last year, stated that Iran does not have gay people within its borders and wondered where Americans had gotten the idea that his nation routinely executed those among its citizenry known to be homosexuals.

I suppose he is correct depending upon how you look at it. Afterall, Germany (circa World War II) was entirely devoid of Jews if you don’t count those hundreds of thousands of ‘undelcared’ individuals  tattooed with serial numbers and forced to work themselves to death in prison camps. But, then again, if you ask Ahmadinejad about those Holocaust victims he will tell you that they don’t exist either.

Is anyone else out there getting more than a little sick of listening to these moronic blow-hards, who have weaseled their way into a position of power in some 3rd world sandbox, continually spit lies and accusations into the face of America and the rest of the Western World?  With people like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, and Saddam Hussein constantly testing to see just how far America can be pushed before snapping, however, I find it odd that we do not bomb another nation back to the stone-age on a weekly basis. (One thing we can be sure of, Saddam and his idiot sons have played their last game of brinksmanship with the West.)

These dictators lie, villify, and slander our leaders, our people, and our way of life every chance they get and we remain silent lest we be further bedeviled by the world at large. Chavez nationalized foriegn oil companies (like Citgo,) took the money to prop up his own dictatorship, and then came to America and said our elected leader is “Satan.” Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad constantly claim to have no weapons-related nuclear programs and then refuse to allow this fact to be verified. This sounds shockingly similar to the tactics used by Saddam Hussein prior to his fall from power and consequent short-drop into the unknown. As one of Saddam’s top advisor’s recently noted, the practice of denying any weapons programs on the world stage and then refusing to permit verification of this claim was a tactic to make it appear as though Iraq was lying about existing nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons operations in order to appear more stalwart in the eyes of Iran and other rival nations in the Middle East.

I know they have got a lot of sand in which to stick their heads over there in the Middle East but these idiots better wise up pretty quickly or start praying for some stronger candidates out of the Democratic party because I am sure that a President McCain is not going to take too much of their saber-rattling before he introduces them to Allah and their precious virgins.

Democrats: The Party of Racism & Ignorance

So I am in a cab this morning on the way to the airport and the driver has on the local NY affiliate for National Public Radio.  I am not a big fan of NPR, if only because I have never understood why the few outlets of broadcast media being propped up by our federal tax dollars (NPR, PBS) have been so historically to the left of center in the political spectrum.  Given that the last two U.S presidential elections have been decided but such a markedly thin margin, does it not make sense that our nation’s media market reflect both ends of the political measure (or at least show some semblance of compromise between the two?)

But, in spite of myself, I admit that NPR does put out some genuinely interesting programming from time to time and the mere fact that it was the radio station selected by my cab driver is not what is irritating me at the moment.  What proved troublesome for me were the comments made during an interview of some Maine voters regarding their state’s recent presidential primary.

Specifically, the NPR representatives were asking African-American voters from the Democratic primary who they had chosen to vote for and, more importantly, the reasons why they had done so.  The selection of interviews was small (it was not a very long report) but nearly every one of the comments irked me to some degree.  It seemed as though, when asked for the reason they supported him, nearly every African-American Barack Obama supporter’s predominant reason for voting for this man was that he is black.

What the hell kind of reason is that to vote for someone?  Casting your vote for one candidate or another based on the color of their skin is not only ignorant but it is also, by definition, racist.  I understand that many people (of all races) are excited to see the first serious African-American contender for the White House in our nation’s history but by making this man’s race into a selling point for his campaign you give legitimacy to the very racial differences against which you claim to fight.  Does this not fly in the face of the concept of all men, regardless of race, creed, age, socio-economic status, etc. being created equal?  Isn’t the point of equality to ensure that each of the candidates has a level playing field from which to woo potential voters?

This is not to say that such prejudiced votes are not cast by many other groups of people for many other reasons.  I know that Mitt Romney recently swept through the Utah Republican primary with nearly 90% of that state’s vote due, to a large degree, to the fact that Romney was the sole Mormon candidate running in a state known to be the Mecca of the Mormon religion; but that does not seem to be quite as knee-jerk of a vote as the African-American issue.  Mormons are a religious group whose family and social ideals are clearly defined by their adherence to the rules and norms of their church.  Moreover, they are a group in which membership is a matter of choice, not genetics.  To say the same about black people would be to imply that their entire race is predisposed to act a certain way.  That is, of course, not true and is also a racist sentiment.

Many African-Americans are obviously going to share some set of social norms and values as they are (for the vast majority) born into African-American families who pass on these traditions from one generation to the next (just as any racial, religious, family group does.)  Americans are not, however, voting to decide who should be the head of African-America or the leader of the Mormon religion; we are voting to decide who should run this nation and as much as I may be inclined to vote for a white Catholic from Massachusetts (as such a person would be wholly representative of my personal background,) I have never voted for anyone with the last name Kennedy because none of these people represented what I wanted for my political leadership or governance.

Perhaps the most disturbing sound-byte from the whole NPR segment came from an African-American woman who expressed her reasoning for choosing Hillary Clinton over Obama.  She stated that she “loves Obama” (without delving into any reason for this admiration) but that she was voting for Hillary because the New York senator has pledged to “double funding to black universities” if elected.

There are two serious issues with the sentiments expressed by this woman.  First, why is there such a thing as a ‘black university’ that receives any public funding?  This is an institution whose very goal is to further the progress of one specific racial group above all others in a nation where ‘all men are created equal.’  How does one justify that?  Such an institution is either attempting to unbalance the already level field of racial play in America or trying to advance a racial group which they themselves have determined to be inferior to the others in some way.  Can you even begin to imagine the outcry if someone attempted to start a ‘white university’ let alone secure its funding from tax dollars?  Those involved would be lambasted as evil racists and probably convicted of some sort of ‘hate-crime.’

The second issue I have with this woman’s reason for choosing Hillary is that she wants to see the funding for these ‘black universities’ doubled.  This begs many questions:  What is the deficiency in these schools that has caused them to need twice the funds currently allotted to them by our government?  Will doubling this funding really solve these problems or just set the stage for further financial increases down the line?  How much of an increase in funding will the public university system as a whole see under President Hillary?  How should I, as a Caucasian-, Hispanic-, Middle Eastern-, or Asian-American, feel knowing that my tax dollars are being set aside for group of people who wish to exclude me based solely on my race?

The bottom line here is that if you feel you have been disenfranchised in some way because serious candidates for the American presidency have always been white males then you should really have some sort of concrete evidence as to what you have missed out on.  With all the whining I have heard from the anti-Bush lobby over the past eight years about how the President duped the nation into launching an unnecessary war or how he is a moron incapable of leading anyone you would think that these people might be able to come up with a slightly better rationale for choosing our next president than race or gender.  If you don’t want to see our nation at war then why not choose Ron Paul, a former Libertarian candidate whose political ideals would certainly not have the U.S jumping into any overseas conflicts.  If you think that George W. Bush is an idiot then why not review the GPAs and IQ scores for each candidate and simply choose the one who is the most intelligent?  It’s odd that in spite of all the years of Bush-bashing and the current trend of voting along racial- or gender-lines I cannot recall a single instance of Bush being called ‘too-white’ or ‘too-male’ of a Commander-in-Chief.

In spite of voting for him in both elections, I do not agree with many things that President Bush has done over the past eight years.  I do believe, however, that I would be facing a much longer personal laundry list of issues with actions that Bush’s alternatives would have taken had they been residing in the White House.  That being said, I know that I can feel confident that I have made the correct decision each time I enter the voting booth by selecting the candidate who best represents my desired leadership style and personal values rather than someone whose skin color or chromosome make-up matches mine.

Jerry O’Connell is a Hater

Jerry O’Connell has suggested government intervention to break-up what he is calling the city of Boston’s “monopoly” on professional sports.  Speaking from Maxim magazine’s massive pre-Super Bowl party (a popular pulpit for invoking government-imposed restrictions of civil rights,) O’Connell expressed his dissatisfaction with the successes of Boston-area sports teams this season.

Being from New York, I am certain that O’Connell is quite familiar with sports monopolies as the city has been home to the most overpaid, owner-produced monopoly in the history of sports.   However, with the Red Sox having won the the World Series this past season and the undefeated New England Patriots on the door-step of another Super Bowl victory and a piece of NFL history, Mr. O’Connell feels something needs to be done. “It looks like the Celtics are going to win the season as well,” O’Connell said. “If the Boston Bruins, the NHL team, wins, the federal government has to break them up. They have to take a team away — they have to.”

In spite of Jerry O’Connell’s ability to win prominent roles in such Hollywood blockbusters as Joe’s Apartment and Kangaroo Jack, I still have a hard time taking a man who makes statements, like those above, too seriously.  However, without lending too much credence to this idiot’s call-to-action, I would like to remind him of the following facts:

1. The Boston Red Sox have won two World Series titles in the past four years due to their strong development of farm talent within their own system.  During that same time, the Yankees have continued a steady trend of throwing all of their money at the latest flavor-of-the-week in hopes that he will be the ‘missing piece’ that will put them back on top.
2. The Boston Celtics have spent the last two decades in total mediocrity after their heyday in the 1980s.  The team only truly became a consistent contender again this season with the acquisition of Kevin Garnett, a league MVP and the most highly sought-after player on the block this off-season.  The Celtics made a good move with the Timberwolves to get KG and are now reaping the benefits.
3. The Boston Bruins are not a dominant team.  Their current record is 27-20-5, putting them third out of the five teams in their division and sixth among teams in the play-off race.  While it appears the B’s are in good shape to make the play-offs, they will certainly be a long-shot once they get there.
4. The New England Patriots are undefeated all year and playing in today’s Super Bowl game, their fourth Super Bowl of the decade (so far.)  The Pats are just that good; there is nothing more to say about that.

That being said… stop the hate, Jerry.  It is your city’s turn to suck at sports for a while. Get over it!

Playing the Race-Card– On Two. Set. Hike!

This is not an issue of race. People are not reacting so harshly to this group of four black men, or even the one black superstar, because of the color of their skin. The courts are reacting because they broke the law. The NFL is reacting because Vick broke their rules. The public is reacting because they find dog-fights and the ensuing executions to be barbaric. This is not an issue of race.

This did not stop one NAACP leader, of course, from recently calling for Vick to be given the benefit of the doubt by his former league, team, and sponsors. R.L. White, president of the NAACP’s Atlanta chapter, told America that “as a society, we should aid in his (Vick’s) rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football.”

What ‘rehabilitation’ is he talking about?

Vick said, just weeks ago, that he was looking forward to ‘clearing his name’ of the charges against him. Now, in the face of his co-defendants turning on him, he immediately announces that he will plead guilty. These are not the actions of a remorseful man looking to better fit the mold his society wishes for him; they are the actions of someone who knows when he is beat and is trying to salvage some semblance of his former decadent life.

White alluded to this very fact, saying that he supported Vick’s guilty plea, if it was in the man’s best interest, but that he believed it was a decision more about “cutting losses than the truth.” Why are these two mutually exclusive? It seems to me to be a clear case of Vick and Co. cutting their respective losses in the daunting face of the truth.

White went on to say that Vick has received more negative press “than if he had killed a human being,” and that he considers dog-fighting to be “as bad as hunting.” So the real bottom-line for this guy is not that dog-fighting should be legal, but that other activities that he finds immoral, should be illegal as well. Maybe this guy is working for the wrong group; I am sure PETA would love to have a little chat with him.

Comparing a sport which is enjoyed the world over and follows in the foot-steps of man’s survivalist instinct to breeding animals with the express intent of locking them in brutal, mortal combat with each other for your own amusement and financial gain is pretty sad. It is even worse when you juxtapose a hunter stalking his prey and turning a successful kill into useful meat, hides, etc. with a bunch of drug-fiends hanging, drowning, and electrocuting dogs whose only crime was poor fighting ability.

Perhaps Mr. White’s most pervasive bit of wisdom shared that day though was his simple summation of the charges against Vick, “His crime is, it was a dog.”

No, his crime is, he bred and trained dogs to fight (a crime), gambled on the fights (a crime and NFL rule violation), while taking drugs (a crime), and then executed at least eight dogs in barbaric fashion (a crime, unlike hunting.)

If this guy was really concerned about racial injustice then perhaps he would have a better defense for Vick than saying that the quarterback has been hung out to dry by his co-defendants who are also black. That is merely supporting the man who has the most power and influence to lend to your side and nearly as ludicrous a case of passing the buck as comparing the charges against Michael Vick to sport-hunting.

Con-Vick

Well that was fast.

What had appeared to be several long months or years of Michael Vick ‘clearing his name’ in the court and media came to an abrupt halt yesterday as it was announced that the quarterback would plead guilty to the charges against him. At least Vick is smart enough to listen to his legal team and know when he is licked.

 

This was the only halfway intelligent move Vick could have made at this point. His thin sliver of hope at retaining his NFL career was rapidly diminishing (given that he was also facing gambling charges) and, as even Vick’s most vocal supporters were espousing, his chances at trial were pathetic given the public outcry already unleashed against him.

So, as the Vick drama is seemingly all over but the sentencing, I am left with questions. I do not condone dog-fighting or other activities of that ilk but neither do I believe that fighting dogs should necessarily warrant as much as five years in the clink. Afterall, the case here is over mistreatment of animals, and people seem to get off a lot easier in many cases for abusing and murdering other people.

Remember Kids, Like Russell says…

I recognize that these are animals which are bred and raised specifically to meet their inevitable violent death–granted. But then again, so are beef cattle (to a certain extent.) The lobsters we order for $10/lb have drawn a similar lot in life, don’t you think. But I digress from my previous point– I am left with questions.

Why kill the losing or feeble dogs in such a cruel fashion? Why electrocute, drown, or even hang a dog? Each seems an overly-involved and overly-dangerous way to do away with an unwanted animal. Moreover, it’s not like the other dogs are going to ‘get the message’ here. These are not kidnapees or POWs; they are dogs! We hang humans because it makes for an easy and graphic means of dispature of someone over which we already have corporeal control. I cannot imagine the process of hanging a pit-bull that has been bred for mortal combat to be a very easy one.

These are the offenses of Michael Vick which most anger me. If you breed dogs for violence, and they fail in that end, why needlessly brutalize them further in death? These are not rhetorical questions; I would honestly like some feedback on this. The only logical benefit I can see Vick and his cronies deriving from this cruelty is some sick psychological pleasure in killing these animals in such a fashion.

Ah, what the hell… Just fry him.

Drug-Testing for Welfare Wannabes

A friend of mine recently raised, what I thought to be, a very good question. Why is it that so many honest, hard-working Americans are subjected to pre-employment and/or random drug-screenings by their employers and yet no such requirements exist for people to collect welfare benefits?

As of the date of the most comprehensive statistics I could find (without looking too hard,) Michigan is the only state in the U.S. that requires ’suspiscionless’ drug-testing for all welfare recipients. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 granted all states the right to choose drug-screening as a requirement for welfare applicants; Michigan is just the only state to act on that power.

Most arguments against drug-screening (of any kind) are based around the Fourth Amendment’s references to unreasonable search and seizure. I am not usually one to go against those standing behind our Bill of Rights but here I think the document is being used in the wrong context.

We want to prevent the government from imposing such ’searches and seizures’ in any form, including drug-testing, when it is a violation of our rights as citizens of the United States. As far as I am concerned, welfare benefits are a privilege our humble tax dollars should afford to a select, deserving few.

I know that welfare regulation is not such a cut-and-dry matter but mandatory drug-testing, even on the tax-payer’s dime, for all welfare applicants seems like a logical starting point. Why should the very people supporting those on welfare be powerless to the fact that their money is perpetuating the cycle of drug-abuse that prevents the poor, huddled masses from getting a good job because the company performs pre-employment drug-screenings?

Obviously the private sector has found a far better way of regulating to whom they will be giving their money. Afterall, that is the crux of the issue; it is their money. The government blows through our tax dollars faster than, well… faster than a welfare supported drug-addict on the first of the month.

We, as voting citizens, need to make our voices heard and prevent abuse of our massively over-burdened welfare system with one very simple, logical step: stop our money from being wasted on drugs. It isn’t the ultimate solution but it is a solution nonetheless.

Terrorists Elect Not to Sue- Sort Of

What a gregarious move by the legal team of the six men who are suing for discrimination after their suspicious actions on an airplane caused them to be pulled off. Apparently, they have decided to no longer pursue legal action against the passengers who mentioned their actions to authorities so that they can focus on their civil case against the airline and police.

Let me set the scene for you:

• Six Muslim men (imams as it turned out) purchase tickets on a U.S Airways flight; half of them are one-way tickets.

Nothing overly suspicious so far.

• Several of them are perform what are described as “loud” Muslim prayers in the terminal before their flight.

Okay, it is part of their religion and should not overly alarm most air-travelers.

• Most of the imams request ’seat-belt extenders,’ typically used to accommodate the obese, in spite of having no need for them.

Hmm…

• The six position themselves evenly spread throughout the plane; two near the front, two in the middle, two near the rear.

Come to think of it, that does sound familiar.

• Although none were apparently seated directly adjacent to one another, one Arabic-speaking passenger reported hearing the group mention Saddam Hussein and criticize the U.S. involvement in Iraq while they spoke loudly in Arabic.

Excuse me, stewardess! Is my ticket refundable?

Okay, so these guys were not terrorists; but every passenger who reported them, along with the flight crew and police they alerted should all be commended, not prosecuted, for their actions that day.

These six imams stepped into the public eye and did everything they could to set off every red-flag in order to get themselves ‘racially profiled.’ These men are not stupid; they knew that a case like this will set legal precedent in the new amalgam of Homeland Security and the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act; a precedent which may be set in their favor.

If they were to win, it would eliminate the few teeth our nation’s rapidly decaying front-line in air security/defense has in avoiding another 9/11, so-called ‘racial profiling’ and a little vigilance among the citizenry.