Michael Vick - model citizen

It's been too long since my last post. I've got a lot of half finished ones that I keep putting off, but as a metro Atlanta resident there's one current event I can't wait to post about. That's right - Michael Vick.
For those of you living in a Dixie cup he is the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and a huge NFL star. He was recently indicted on federal charges related to dog fighting. The indictment is full of horrific stuff; I'll leave you to find the details on your own. Sufficed to say, the details are gruesome, and he was in the thick of it. There's a special room in Hell for folks that do the things he's accused of doing.
The question in the past week has been what will the NFL commissioner or team owner Arthur Blank do in response? For those not in the know, the commissioner has complete discretion to sanction Vick. The team owner can either cut him or impose a four game suspension. Comissioner Goodell has been bringing the hammer down on low-lifes in the NFL since he took office. He can't look weak in the Vick situation, but he has to move carefully. There are factors like the players' union agreement with the NFL, and the conditions of Vick's contract that have to be taken into account.

We learned on Monday and Tuesday what will happen. On Monday Goodell ordered Vick not to report to training camp, which starts tomorrow. On Tuesday the Falcons held a press conference, and announced that prior to the commissioner's directive they were going for the max themselves, which is a four game suspension. The commissioner asked them to hold off until he completed his review. When asked if he ever expected Vick to play as a Falcon again Arthur Blank gave what is essentially a negative response. What it all boils down to now is that it is obvious Blank has had his fill of Michael Vick's embarassments - incidents like Ron Mexico/herpes, fake water bottle, skipping congressional hearing, flipping a bird at the fans, etc. etc. Reading between the lines you can tell that as far as Blank is concerned Vick is out. And, it's obvious that Goodell will bring the hammer down hard, and soon. My guess is that he will suspend Vick for the season, after which the Falcons will cut him, regardless of how the legal case plays out.

Now, many Vick apologists or general mamby-pamby folks say that Vick is innocent until proven guilty, and we should give him the benefit of the doubt. My answer is that the legal process is the legal process. He'll end up guilty or innocent. It has nothing to do with the NFL. The commissioner has the discretion and authority to discipline players that violate the league's personal conduct policy. The players' union expressly agreed to that. A player can appeal it, of course...to the commissioner. I love it.

So, has Vick violated the personal conduct policy? Is he deserving of punishment? Of course! Aside from the many embarassing incidents he's been involved in over the years, he is clearly guilty of three things:

1. He chooses very poor company


2. He has very bad judgment


3. He has been terribly negligent

The result has been one black eye after another.

He owns the house/property in Virginia where the dogfighting occurred. Let's say for the sake of argument that he knew nothing of it. At the very least, he deserves to be punished for allowing something like this to occur under his nose. He is responsible for his property and how it is used. And that's if you believe he knew nothing was going on. His cousin lives there, for Pete's sake! How naive are you?

He's brought negative publicity and embarassment to the league, the team, and the town too many times. He deserves to be cut, or at the very least suspended for the entire next season.

Let's be clear about one thing - unlike a lot of people I wanted Mike Vick as quarterback. I was eager to see what new coach Bobby Patrino and his staff were going to make out of him this year. I think that if he applied himself properly and the right coaching staff took hold of him he could be much more than an incredible runner with a mediocre arm. I'm terribly disappointed that we won't see Vick the athlete on the field this season. The Falcons are probably half as likely to win a game without him than with him. But I'm more than happy to see Vick the person go to jail or get run out of this town on a rail. As exciting a player as he is, good riddance to bad rubbish.

It terms of NFL history this is a huge loss. Vick will now become one of sports greatest "what if's". What if the Vick had taken football more seriously? What if he had worked harder? What if he had used better judgment off the field? What if Arthur Blank hadn't wasted three years with coach Jim Mora and staff? And the biggest one of all...what would this season have been like if Vick had played? We'll never know. Vick has cheated himself, his team, and NFL fans everywhere out of quite a lot...so he could conduct and watch dog fights. Well done.

AIDS vs. Cancer

Every dollar spent trying to cure AIDS is a dollar wasted that could have been spent trying to cure cancer. Cancer is the scourge of modern man - not AIDS.

Let's compare. Cancer can strike people of all ages, of all races, of all countries, of both genders, of all fitness/health levels, at any time. Aside from a small group of people that get HIV from transfusions or medical personnel that are exposed, the overwhelming majority of people that acquire the HIV virus do so from drug needles or sex. And the important word in that last sentence is "acquire", because although some people are practically asking for cancer whether they know it or not, you have to go out and get HIV. There are super-fit health nuts that die of cancer at very young ages, not just chain smokers. So, right there you have a disease that can get you no matter what you do, and one that would be eradicated if people stopped using hypodermic needles for drugs and having extramarital sex. Do you see a difference there? I sure as Hell do.

And I doubt there is a single person out there that doesn't personally know someone that has had cancer, or knows someone that knows someone that has had cancer. Chances are if you don't know any homosexuals, or people that work in medicine, you don't know anyone that has had AIDS or knew someone with AIDS. But...if you live in Africa you may know lots of everyday people with AIDS. There's a simple reason for that - male dominated societies in which the men can't keep their dicks in their pants, and the women can't fight back.

I don't know. AIDS is horrible, and fighting disease (any disease) is honorable. As I've gotten older, though, I've met no one (at least, no one I'm aware of) that has AIDS. Yet, the number of people I've known that have or had cancer continues to grow. And virtually everyone I meet knows someone that has had cancer. I shudder to think how many people have seen someone they know die from cancer.

When it comes down to it, I value simplicity. Simply put, AIDS would eventually go away if people simply modified their behavior a little, and made two simple choices: don't use needles for drugs, and don't sleep around. How simple is that? Combined with better blood screening methods AIDS would eventually disappear. Even if we find a cure for cancer, it will always be with the human race.

There's an alarming trend in the male homosexual community (no jokes please). The number of young, gay men with AIDS is rising. In an age where you'd have to be deaf and blind not to know that HIV can kill you, there are more and more young gays having unprotected sex and contracting HIV. Why? Because modern medications that have prolonged the lives of HIV victims and lessened the effect of the virus have fooled men into thinking that AIDS is not something to worry about. "It won't kill you", "you can live with it", etc. What it shows is that ignorance and a misunderstanding of the risks are leading to more AIDS cases globally.

I don't want people to die from AIDS. I'm fully aware of what it does, and I have just as much sympanthy for people that watch a loved one die from AIDS as do those from cancer. But it seems to me that for a lot less money than is being spent to cure or vaccinate against it we could save a lot more lives right now with better education and screening.

And that extra money could be spent curing cancer, or any number of other disease that are not so easily avoided. If anyone is actually reading this blog I'd love to know how you feel about this. Am I being too pragmatic? Am I being heartless? Or am I simply calling things as they are?

Smoking

My father smoked cigarettes for most of my life. He also quit several times, and although I thought he'd truly quit about a decade ago I've recently seen evidence he's doing it again. It’s something I’ve been dealing with my whole life.

Nevertheless, I don’t smoke cigarettes, and never had a desire to do so. If anything, my father’s habit galvanized me against it. I’ve had two cigarettes in my whole life. The first was around five years old, when I told my dad I wanted to smoke, too. He instructed me to take a deep breath through the cigarette. I did and the coughing fit lasted quite a while. It had the effect my father intended. My next cigarette was about 15 years later in college. My best friend was a cigarette smoker, and after getting drunk at a party with him I asked for a cigarette, thinking in my drunken state it was time to see what the fascination with these things was all about. I took one puff, and raced back to my dorm room to brush my teeth. It was one of the worst tasting things I’d ever experienced. Neither Listerine nor toothpaste could remove the taste entirely. It took about a day to work its way out.

I’ve also always been well-versed on the dangers of cigarette smoke. The left, media, and other types have been waging a war against smoking for fifty years (some of it rightly so). Even before it was widely know to be carcinogenic, who in their right mind would have thought cigarette smoking was safe? It is smoke…going into your lungs. Ask anyone that’s been trapped in a burning building how great their lungs felt after breathing in smoke. Of course, we later learned that tobacco leaf contains nicotine, which is an addictive drug (more on this later). Despite the fact I’ve always known that manufacturers put additives into cigarettes I had no idea exactly what went into them until recently. Like most people I figured they were mostly made up of cheap tobacco. Holy crap, was I wrong. Cigarettes contain many other substances. Let’s talk about that for a minute.

I’m not going to give you an ingredient list here. The additive list can be found with a little help from Google, and if you haven’t watched the Modern Marvels episode about tobacco I encourage you to do so (on the History Channel). Sufficed to say, only about 50% of a cigarette is actually tobacco (and not very high grade). The rest is made up of sludge derived from pulverized tobacco dust and liquid, along with numerous chemicals like ammonia. The various additives have purposes like keeping the cigarette lit (whether you puff or not), making the nicotine more absorbable by your body, etc. As you can imagine many of these substances are not body friendly to begin with, and burning them makes them less so. I was literally disgusted by what I saw on Modern Marvels when they showed the segment on cigarette manufacturing. I wish that footage could be shown to every cigarette smoker. It would be like seeing cat puke and elephant shit mixed into the cookie dough at the Oreo factory. I don’t care how much you like or are addicted to Oreos – it would be the end of your relationship.

So, smoke equals bad, and cigarettes equal monumentally worse. Even a die-hard (no pun intended) cigarette smoker is likely to admit that they know their habit is wrecking their bodies. Every time I see a cigarette smoker now I just want to scream at them, “If you’re going to smoke cigarettes, for the love of God, roll your own. Buy some natural tobacco and roll your own. Don’t you know there’s manure in those things???”

So, after all this, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re assuming this is an anti-smoking blog. It’s not. It could and should be labeled as anti-cigarette, though. I have always been, and always will be anti-cigarette and anti-cigarette manufacturer.

In actuality, I smoke cigars and pipes, and would freely encourage others to give it a try, if they feel so inclined. How did this happen, you ask? Several years ago one of my cousins married an arrogant, boastful, asshole, never-do-well, closet homosexual. Let’s call him J. Why she married him is still an unanswered question. He’s no longer in the picture, but that’s not relevant to the story. He was a one-upper that always acted overly macho to compensate for the fact he was gay. He always slapped you on the back as hard as he could, he wore camo, drove a jeep, etc. You get the idea. And, naturally, he was into cigars. He even worked at a cigar store for a while (one of his few terms of employment).

I’d always been curious about pipes and cigars. I enjoyed walking past The Tinder Box in the mall as a child. I loved the smell from the tobacco filled store, and often wondered why the cigarettes my dad smoked never smelled like that. As an adult I became curious about cigars. I wondered if they were really different from cigarettes and if they were really something to be savored like fine wine, or if they were just overpriced, oversized cigarettes.

The more time my family members spent around my cousin’s husband the less they liked him, and I was no exception to that. (He could be a blog entry all on his own, but I digress). I came to resent the fact that there was something he could legitimately expound upon that I could not – cigars. So, I started doing some research on the internet. Eventually, I went to the Tinder Box at Lenox Mall in Atlanta (unfortunately, the one that I walked by as a kid is long gone). I bought a couple cigars. I tried one. I enjoyed it. Later I decided why not try a pipe, too? I bought one. I enjoyed it.

Smoking is cathartic and relaxing. It give you time to think, ponder, or pray. It is a respite from other things. At least, it is for me. I smoke outside, on my own. I don’t have cigar buddies, or play poker games. Smoking is “me” time, that I’m lucky to get once a week, weather permitting.

Nicotine? Not a problem. You don’t inhale cigar or pipe smoke (unless you’re crazy). You simply puff it into your mouth and exhale, savoring taste and aroma along the way. Nicotine absorption through the mouth is not very efficient. If there is a nicotine “high” I’ve never felt it. And although there are cheap cigars and pipe tobaccos with additives, most are all natural (even pipe tobaccos that are flavored usually use natural flavorings, but I don’t smoke those anyway).

A premium, hand-rolled cigar is a work of art, a labor of love, and the result of painstaking work at every step along the way. Although pipe tobacco is less labor intensive, the same attributes I just mentioned can be applied to pipes themselves. Although smoking a cigar and a pipe are two very different experiences, they’re both quite enjoyable, and NOTHING like smoking a cigarette.

At this point you might be tinkering with the idea of trying a cigar or pipe. “Gee, if H.K. likes it, it must be good right?” Not necessarily. If you’re going to try one you should probably start with a cigar, and if you enjoy that move to pipes.

“Well, cigarettes smell like shit, H.K. I even tried one and it tasted like shit. How does a cigar taste?” Tough question. Think of it this way: a cigarette tastes and smells like ash, a cigar tastes and smells like premium tobacco. No one can be told what the Matrix is. You must see it for yourself.

I can help you predetermine whether you’re likely to enjoy the taste and aroma of cigars (or pipes). Take this quiz:

1) Do you like coffee (particularly black, and more particularly dark roasted)?
2) Do you like whiskey (particularly on its own)?
3) Do you like red wine?
4) Do you like toasted bread?
5) Do you like pepper?
6) Do you like the scent of leather, spice, or wood?

There are probably other things I could list, but I think you’re getting the idea. This does not mean that if you like few or none of those things you won’t like to smoke. In fact, if I made “Do you like cigars?” question number seven, it might be the only question a lot of people answer with “yes”. Rather, you should interpret it this way - if you like a few or all of those things you’ll probably like cigars or pipe smoking. And if not, there are many milder cigars and pipe tobaccos that would fit with your palate.

It’s a real shame that the big government types have made smoking about as socially acceptable as pissing in public. Mass produced cigarettes and the people that make them are bad, but it’s a shame that cigars and pipes get lumped in there, too. Like any true pleasure in life (a rich meal, a glass of scotch, roller coasters, etc.) they should be enjoyed in moderation, not simply for health reasons, but so that we don’t lose the ability to savor them.

Yes, health concerns are valid despite the fact there are no studies I’ve found that document the health risks to occasional pipe or cigar smokers. If you can find one please let me know. Anecdotal evidence suggests these folks are at no greater risk than non-smokers to any of the typical ailments, and may even live longer. When you smoke you should be aware that you're doing something that isn't necessarily good for you, just as when you enjoy a Coke, a triple mocha latte, or speeding.

Most things in life that are fun or yummy involve some degree of personal risk, and shouldn’t be overdone. Tobacco is no exception to that. If you’re inclined to try a cigar or pipe, walk into your local tobacconist and tell them. Most are friendly and honest when it comes to helping someone new to premium tobacco products. I think you’ll enjoy it.

And if you smoke cigarettes, please, please stop.

Illegal Immigration

Considering today’s nationwide rallies in favor of illegal immigration it seems a prescient time to discuss illegal immigration. Make no mistake, that’s what it is, and illegal is what they are. They’re not undocumented workers. Don’t bore me with politically correct euphemisms. They’re illegal immigrants. Quite frankly, some argument could be made that they’re a benign invasion force in light of the fact the Mexican government encourages and aids their people in illegally entering the U.S.

A porous border is a security nightmare. Go check out the latest National Geographic. There’s a photo article about the southern border, and it’s frightening just how vulnerable some sections of the border are right now. Drug runners practically rule portions of the border. Creating physically secure borders should be a no-brainer, and quite frankly the Executive and Legislative branches of our government have failed to live up to their oaths of office by not securing us. I could go on about the security aspects of a porous border (both the northern and southern), but that is only part of what we’re considering. And for the pro-illegal crowd it clearly isn’t a consideration at all, so let’s put it aside for now.

A great deal of this is about our national identity. Great waves of immigrants came to this country in the past 150 years, and after each great wave Congress closed the gates (unfairly in some cases, e.g. the Chinese). Once immigration was restricted, the groups that came here had time to assimilate and become Americans, particularly over subsequent generations. Then again, a lot of them came here open to the idea of becoming an American.

The Mexicans that have poured into our country over the past thirty years do not wish to become Americans, by and large. They wish to bring Mexico here, and that is the central problem.

There’s nothing more wrong with the Mexican people than any other people. But if they don’t want to become Americans, or at least play by the rules when it comes to entering this country, then they should stay in Mexico. If Canadians were pouring over the border and trying to bring their socialist paradise down here I’d be just as unhappy about it. It’s not about the Mexican people. They’re looking for an opportunity to get out of poverty, make a better life, and live in a better area. I understand that, and appreciate it. They work hard, often at physically arduous or unpleasant jobs. {The idea that they do jobs that American citizens won’t do is a myth, though. See how many Mexicans are cleaning toilets in rural Kentucky.} They endure great personal risk trying to get here, such as financial loss, unsafe transportation, or simply the many dangers of a desert journey.

Think about what Mexico is losing. It’s hardest working, bravest, and most ambitious people are leaving. What is the future of Mexico as these people leave? There are few prosperous areas of Mexico right now, and many areas of abject poverty. Who will be there to change that?

Don’t lecture me folks. I haven’t forgotten the human equation here. I know we’re talking about living, breathing people. “So, H.K., what should we do with all of them?” To be honest, if a person can’t prove that they’re here legally, they should be deported. If a company knowingly hires an illegal immigrant, they should face legal penalties. And don’t tell me we can’t accomplish those things. If we can send our armies halfway around the world to kick terrorist ass we can deport a couple million people per year. Is that cold? Yes. Will it end with good people winding up dead at worst, or screwed at best? Yes. Will our relations with our southern neighbor get tense? Yes. Those are always the consequences of security.

You might get the impression that I don’t care for immigration in any form. Nothing could be further from the truth. My mother is an immigrant. She came to America the legal way, worked damn hard, started a family, and became a citizen. She hasn’t forgotten her language, homeland or family, but she is an American. I welcome to America anyone that wishes to do the same. If my mother hadn’t done it, I wouldn’t exist (no cheering, please).

But offering amnesty (and let’s be clear - any program that allows criminals to stay, let alone get on a path to citizenship, is amnesty) to people that have circumvented the system is an insult to immigrants like my mother. It is also a clear political ploy by one political party (hello, Democrats) to increase their voter pool.

So, let’s take the politics out of this and just do the right thing. Enforce the law. Secure the borders. Seal the wound to the south, and purge this country of people that don’t deserve to be here. Most importantly, we must keep our arms open to people that wish to come here legally and become a true part of America.

In the beginning

You might think that the picture at the top of the webpage is meant as a joke, as if the people are cheering "yay, another blog!" No, it's there to illustrate something else. But speaking of another blog, let me thank anyone that has managed to find this one, and might feel inclined to return to it. I've always assumed that people would like to hear what I have to say. Now, I get to prove it.

I pay a great deal of attention to politics and American culture. That creates a great deal of frustration for me, because I don't care for most of what I see. As I'm getting older I see not only how different this country is compared to my grandfather's time, but also how much it has changed within my own lifetime. Some of the changes are good; most are not.

Let's take this opportunity to analyze the photograph at the top of this page in context to how our society has changed. I'm not sure what year it was taken, but one look at it tells you it was taken a long time ago. Let's call it 1940.

What do we see in this photo? If you look closely you can tell it is a game (football, likely) between a Minnesota school and an Iowa school. That's interesting, but not why we're here. Take a look at the people in the stands. They're wearing coats, ties, hats. One lady has on a fur coat...at a football game. The worst dressed person is a guy in the front in a plaid shirt. He doesn't look bad. He just looks like a rube compared to everyone else. But at a football game today, anywhere, he would be madly overdressed.

"So what's the point, H.K?" The point is that most people today don't get this dressed up for an awards gala, let alone a sports event.
"And you think I want to wear a tie to a game?" No, and neither do I, but I don't want to go out looking like a slob. I have a picture of my grandfather at college (circa 1940) in which he has just left class and joined an impromptu baseball game. He is wearing slacks, dress shoes, dress shirt and a tie loosened at the collar. He wore that to class. And it's not as if the other guys are wearing shorts and t-shirts. When I went to college most people showed up to class looking like bums, with an odor to match.
"Ok, wise guy, what does it all mean?" To be honest with you, I don't know. You tell me. I think this picture shows we've lost something - something valuable, or special. Should we be decked out to the nines just to go to a football game? No, but the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that we're mired in the opposite, and, quite frankly, I don't like it.

I remember my family eating at restaurants as a kid that wouldn't have let us in if my dad wasn't wearing a jacket. Now, at those same restaurants, people wear tank tops and flip-flops...next to people in tuxedos and prom dresses.

People complain today about the FCC regulating non-cable television, and that there shouldn't be any restrictions. I'll take less government over more government any day of the week, but in this case I'm all for regulation. I didn't think much about how violent or crude the shows I watch could be until I had a child. And I don't want The Kid seeing them, so The Kid won't. But I'm not always around, and when I'm not some parents or people that don't screen their TV programming could be letting Dennis Franz show his ass all over again on NYPD Blue. Do you want your kids seeing that? Wouldn't have had to worry about that thirty or forty years ago, because that kind of thing didn't get onto television.

America is different today folks. Yeah, some things are much better. For instance, I live in the South, and it's a much better place without segregation, thank you. But now, if you even hint at southern heritage you're a racist. Excuse me?

We've definitely lost something folks, but deep down, after you dig through my layers of cynical realism, I'm an optimist. And as long as we don't forget about how things were, maybe we can get the best things back.


How's that for a first blog? (Don't answer that). I'll try to post something at least on a weekly basis. Perhaps next time I'll discuss something that I have completely worked out, like Abortion.