I don't touch on the NBA much. The main reason for that being, I really don't care much for it. I attended two Indiana Pacers games, and I was not impressed with the kind of play. One of the biggest things in basketball is TEAMwork. In the NBA, there is no team. I watched Carmelo Anthony battle with Amr'e Stoudemire for the star role, or to be the hero that brought them back from behind. The Knicks trailed by double digits by most of the game to an inferior Pacers team. Had they played together like they should, they would have beat down the Pacers from the very beginning like they should have. They were too concerned about being in the spotlight, and lost to a last second shot by Danny Granger. My other problem with the NBA is making too much of a show of it. The game takes twice as long as it should because of TV time outs, Pacemate performances, Mascot performances, etc. What should be a 30 or 60 second time out turns into about 5 minutes.
I have not gone out of my way, or made an effort to cover the NBA much because I don't care for it. I don't have the passion for it like I do football, college basketball, or baseball. The playoffs are in the middle of the second round, and there are a few things I wanted to point out. I haven't watched any of the games, just caught highlights and analysis on ESPN and TNT. During the season I didn't follow enough to know much about the teams, again going by what the "know it all's" say. As the playoffs are well underway, we are seeing that these "know it all's" don't really know what they're talking about again. The biggest headline of the season was the Carmelo Anthony trade to the Knicks. Some people were putting them in the NBA finals before they even played a game. Well, post-carmelo trade, things happened a little differently. The Knicks got worse, and the Nuggets actually improved without Anthony. But, the most popular topic was how the Miami Heat were performing with the "Big 3". They had a hard team beating teams with a winning record. So these guys rushed to the conclusion that the Heat would get bounced from the playoffs early, if not immediately. The San Antonio Spurs didn't get the coverage that the Lakers got, but had the best record in the NBA all season long. But the Lakers and Spurs were by far the "Best in the West." They put the Spurs and Lakers in the western conference finals. Then, lastly, the Boston Celtics, who happen to be the defending champs, kind of limped their way into the playoffs. They did the same thing last year, and won it all, yet they still wanted to advance the Knicks over the Celtics in round one. Here we are, well into the second round, and let's follow up with these "headlines". The defending champs swept the Knicks right out of the playoffs. The Knicks didn't win a single playoff game. The overall #1 seed Spurs were bounced in the first round by the #8 seed Memphis Grizzlies. The Lakers managed to get by the first round, but the Dallas Mavericks made them look like they didn't belong in the playoffs at all, getting out the brooms and sweeping them back to LA LA land, ending the Phil Jackson era in LA. Now, let's see how the Miami Heat, the team that couldn't beat a team with a winning record have fared thus far. They beat the 76ers in 5 games. That's no big accomplishment. They Celtics would be a bit more of a test. Or would they?? Well, the Heat just beat the defending champion Celtics in game 5 tonight. So the team that couldn't beat a team with a winning record has won 8 games and lost 2. They lost more than the #1 overall seed Spurs won! The "best in the west" are sitting at home watching on TV, and the team they predicted to be watching is pretty hot right now. But, this is good for the NBA. There are several positive aspects with the remaining teams that people will enjoy. Everyone likes to see something new. We are guarranteed two new teams in the Finals. Everybody loves an underdog. There are several teams that can claim this title. The Mavericks have been under rated all season long. The OKC Thunder are proof that small market teams can succeed, and the Memphis Grizzlies are the #8 seed. Then you have a villain in LeBron James and the Miami Heat. Then you have the real best team in the NBA, in the Chicago Bulls. After Jordan retired (the second time) and Jackson left, ownership stripped down the team and started a LONG rebuilding process. Well, they are back. I might actually find myself watching the conference finals, and probably the NBA finals as well. I could not say that if it were going to be the Knicks, Celtics, Lakers, Spurs, etc. OKC v Dallas starting an NBA version of the Red River Rivalry perhaps?? MVP Derrick Rose and the Bulls against the "Big 3" and the Miami Heat. Both very appealing matchups I think. Half of those matchups are set, the other half still in limbo. But that's something I would really enjoy watching. I think...
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Congratulations
We all thought college basketball was over with until next fall. We've heard of a few star playings signing letters of intent, but that's about it. Well, last week there was some pretty big news developing, that Gary Williams was retiring at the University of Maryland. Gary Williams built that program into something special. It's not Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, or North Carolina, but it's right up there with it. But what's more important is that it's in a very talent rich part of the country. This job could be a win win for both Maryland and the next head coach. Maryland would have the luxury of being able to choose a good quality coach, and for a coach that's established himself at a good school that's not a national powerhouse, to take that next step up. And let's face it, Coach K, Bill Self, John Calipari and Roy Williams aren't going anywhere any time soon. Most schools like a Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Missouri, etc. look to a mid major coach, such as Brad Stevens or Mark Few to revive their program. Well, as we saw with Kansas hiring Bill Self from Illinois, Maryland would be in the same position. They could afford to look at those coaches and give them a shot at the big time. Well, I was very suprised, and very happy to see that Maryland was considering someone who was also rumored to be Williams replacement at Kansas. I don't know for sure, but I imagine a big part of the reason Mark Turgeon wasn't picked at Kansas was because he hadn't yet coached at a bigger school, in a power conference. He was the Missouri Valley Coach of the Year in 2006 then took the Wichita State Shockers to the Sweet 16. I was really pulling for him to get the Kansas job, and if he had, I'd probably be one of the biggest Jayhawk fans in the country. Yes, you could say I have a "man crush" on Mark Turgeon. He comes from basketball royalty. He played for Larry Brown at Kansas, and was an assistant for Roy Williams at Kansas. He did at Wichita State what many before him failed doing, resurrecting their basketball program, making them a powerhouse in the Missouri Valley. He would ultimately leave WSU for Texas A&M to replace Billie Gilespie. At the time, I was skeptical. I thought he could do much better than Texas A&M. But at the same time, I knew he wouldn't be there forever. I figured this would be a stepping stone to something better. A&M is a football school, and I wasn't sure if he could succeed. Well, bottom line, he did. His accomplishment at A&M is similar to what he did at WSU. This year had to be one of his best coaching seasons after the way it started. Just before the season, his top recruit was killed in a car accident. To be able to take a football school and make it relevant in basketball is quite an accomplishment, and was unfortunately one of the contributing factors to him taking the job at Maryland. A&M's football program is coming back, which means more competition for him. I was VERY happy to read last night that Turgeon got the job at Maryland. As I said earlier, this is a win-win for both parties. Turgeon gets his shot at a big-time, tradition rich school, and Maryland gets a proven, winning coach. He is taking over at a good time too, with the ACC being down. He will be able to make a run at the ACC title almost immediately. Another factor is the respective conferences. The Big XII is headed for major changes next year. They will be going from 12 teams to 10, and play a round robin format, playing each team twice, home and away. It's not know how this will work out. It's not known if this will help or hurt the Big XII's status as a power conference. The Big XII isn't going anywhere, but they may not be a top 3 like they have been the last few years. The (old) Big XII was also football conference. Now he goes to the ACC, who is down, but on the way back up. The ACC is a basketball conference. They tried to make themselves relevant in football by adding Miami and Virginia Tech several years ago, but since have been even more irrelevant in football. Bottom line is, Turgeon WILL succeed at Maryland. As one of Turgeon's biggest fans, I am extremely happy for him, and hope this works out for him. I am confident that he will succeed, but nothing is guarranteed. Matt Doherty (another one of my favorite coaches) got his dream job in North Carolina, and that didn't work out. I still think it had nothing to do with him, but I won't go into that. I am excited to see this, and it's already got me looking forward to next season. Good luck Mark, and I wish you the best of luck in your new job.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Back on track...
I've been a little off track the last few weeks. But I'm gonna try and right the ship and get back on topic. The baseball season is well underway, and I would much rather talk about that than politics.
I have been very annoyed lately with the media, mainly ESPN. If you've been following my blog, you know of my feelings about ESPN. To say I don't care for them is an understatement. But unfortunately they have a monopoly on the sports market. Fox sports tried to compete, but couldn't quite make it work. Recent events lead me to believe that they are trying to make another run at it. I was watching their Saturday baseball when I saw a commercial where they brag about the events they have. They of course have the baseball all star game and world series. But they also have the new Pac 12 and Big 10 (football) championship games. They Big 12 also recently signed a tv deal with Fox Sports so that every Big XII football and basketball game will be televised. Their current agreement with ESPN expires in a few years and reports are the Fox will get ALL the Big XII games after that. ESPN has become too corporate. They have no real competition, and they know it, so they do whatever they want. Hopefully Fox Sports can "take them down a notch."
My biggest problem with ESPN is they only cover certain teams. All you hear about on Sportscenter and Baseball Tonight is the Philadelphia Phillies and they starting rotation. They are off to a good start, but there are 29 other teams in MLB. Several of which have just as impressive starting rotations as the Phillies. Two of those teams are in the same division. The Florida Marlins are just 2 games behing the Phillies in the very tough NL East. Every time Josh Johnson or Anibal Sanchez take the mound they are flirting with a no-hitter. They talk about this pitcher and that pitcher coming close, but that's only once in a while. Anibal Sanchez is the #4 guy in the rotation. Those two guys do it every time they go out. The Marlins have the second best record in the National League. The other team in their division is the team most famous for awesome starting rotations, the Atlanta Braves. The Braves have Tim Hudson, Derek Lowe, Tommy Hanson, Jair Jurrjens and Brandon Beachy. They are just a few games behind the Marlins. Switching divisions, you have the St Louis Cardinals and the Cincinnati Reds. Let's not forget the defending champs, the San Francisco Giants. The American League has a few rotations worthy of mention, but haven't put up the numbers. Sunday night baseball is an ESPN tradition. They've broadbasted a Sunday night game for as long as I can remember I think. I have noticed this year especially that there are always one of three teams playing. If you want to be on Sunday night baseball, not only do you have to be good or respectable, you have to play either the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, or the Philadelphia Phillies. The Phillies are on tonight for the second week in a row. Fox Saturday baseball is similar to NFL where they broadcast several games, and give you the game closest to your market. I.e. yesterday's game here was the Reds at the Cubs. I think it's safe to say that people outside of those team's markets could care less to watch the Mets v Phillies, or the Red Sox v Yankees. Those people in those markets that would want to watch them would be able to anyway on their regular networks. I guess I don't see why they can't do what Fox does with Saturday baseball. They have more resources to work with than Fox. Why can't they offer several games and offer the game in your market. Let people out west watch a game they want to see, like the Giants and Rockies, instead of forcing them to watch the same team they could care less about week after week. I've been watching the Braves at Phillies for about 20 minutes and these announcers remind me of watching Dick Vitale call a KU-K-State game. They act like they have a "man crush" on the Phillies. Being a Royals fan in Indiana is tough. Even though I get Fox Sports Midwest and Kansas City, the Royals and Cardinals are blacked out here. As I've said before, the market here will only allow us to watch the Reds, Cubs, and White Sox. This game (Sunday Night Baseball) is nationally televised and the blackout restrictions do not apply. ESPN could broadcast other games, still good teams or competitive games. This weekend alone, you also have the Giants v Rockies for the west market. You have the Cardinals v Brewers for the Midwest, Marlins v Nats for the south, and you could offer the Phillies v Braves for the northeast.
I would love to see an interactive channel where you could pick any one out-of-market game to watch. You would only be allowed to pick one game per day. Once you picked it, that's final and the only game you could watch for that day. So, if the Royals are not playing, or playing someone I could care less to watch, I could watch the Marlins, or the Braves, or the Rays, or the Rockies. I am not the only out of market fan in the country. My brother is a Cardinals fan. My dad likes the Giants. There are Cardinals fans all across the midwest. There are a few teams, like the Braves, Cubs, and Yankees that have fans nationwide who would love the opportunity to watch and follow their teams. I remember growing up, watching the Cubs on WGN and the Braves on TBS. That is probably a big reason these teams have fans all over the country. I remember when the Cubs played the Braves, my brother and I used to fight over watching the game on WGN or TBS. Now the new tv deals have ruined that. If you are an out of market fan and want to follow your team, you are forced to shell out big bucks to get a tv or internet package, just to watch your team. ESPN could help this a little, but they choose not to. But, ESPN is like the government. They think they are bigger and better than anyone else, and don't have to listen to anyone. They simply don't care about the viewer's opinion.
I have been very annoyed lately with the media, mainly ESPN. If you've been following my blog, you know of my feelings about ESPN. To say I don't care for them is an understatement. But unfortunately they have a monopoly on the sports market. Fox sports tried to compete, but couldn't quite make it work. Recent events lead me to believe that they are trying to make another run at it. I was watching their Saturday baseball when I saw a commercial where they brag about the events they have. They of course have the baseball all star game and world series. But they also have the new Pac 12 and Big 10 (football) championship games. They Big 12 also recently signed a tv deal with Fox Sports so that every Big XII football and basketball game will be televised. Their current agreement with ESPN expires in a few years and reports are the Fox will get ALL the Big XII games after that. ESPN has become too corporate. They have no real competition, and they know it, so they do whatever they want. Hopefully Fox Sports can "take them down a notch."
My biggest problem with ESPN is they only cover certain teams. All you hear about on Sportscenter and Baseball Tonight is the Philadelphia Phillies and they starting rotation. They are off to a good start, but there are 29 other teams in MLB. Several of which have just as impressive starting rotations as the Phillies. Two of those teams are in the same division. The Florida Marlins are just 2 games behing the Phillies in the very tough NL East. Every time Josh Johnson or Anibal Sanchez take the mound they are flirting with a no-hitter. They talk about this pitcher and that pitcher coming close, but that's only once in a while. Anibal Sanchez is the #4 guy in the rotation. Those two guys do it every time they go out. The Marlins have the second best record in the National League. The other team in their division is the team most famous for awesome starting rotations, the Atlanta Braves. The Braves have Tim Hudson, Derek Lowe, Tommy Hanson, Jair Jurrjens and Brandon Beachy. They are just a few games behind the Marlins. Switching divisions, you have the St Louis Cardinals and the Cincinnati Reds. Let's not forget the defending champs, the San Francisco Giants. The American League has a few rotations worthy of mention, but haven't put up the numbers. Sunday night baseball is an ESPN tradition. They've broadbasted a Sunday night game for as long as I can remember I think. I have noticed this year especially that there are always one of three teams playing. If you want to be on Sunday night baseball, not only do you have to be good or respectable, you have to play either the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, or the Philadelphia Phillies. The Phillies are on tonight for the second week in a row. Fox Saturday baseball is similar to NFL where they broadcast several games, and give you the game closest to your market. I.e. yesterday's game here was the Reds at the Cubs. I think it's safe to say that people outside of those team's markets could care less to watch the Mets v Phillies, or the Red Sox v Yankees. Those people in those markets that would want to watch them would be able to anyway on their regular networks. I guess I don't see why they can't do what Fox does with Saturday baseball. They have more resources to work with than Fox. Why can't they offer several games and offer the game in your market. Let people out west watch a game they want to see, like the Giants and Rockies, instead of forcing them to watch the same team they could care less about week after week. I've been watching the Braves at Phillies for about 20 minutes and these announcers remind me of watching Dick Vitale call a KU-K-State game. They act like they have a "man crush" on the Phillies. Being a Royals fan in Indiana is tough. Even though I get Fox Sports Midwest and Kansas City, the Royals and Cardinals are blacked out here. As I've said before, the market here will only allow us to watch the Reds, Cubs, and White Sox. This game (Sunday Night Baseball) is nationally televised and the blackout restrictions do not apply. ESPN could broadcast other games, still good teams or competitive games. This weekend alone, you also have the Giants v Rockies for the west market. You have the Cardinals v Brewers for the Midwest, Marlins v Nats for the south, and you could offer the Phillies v Braves for the northeast.
I would love to see an interactive channel where you could pick any one out-of-market game to watch. You would only be allowed to pick one game per day. Once you picked it, that's final and the only game you could watch for that day. So, if the Royals are not playing, or playing someone I could care less to watch, I could watch the Marlins, or the Braves, or the Rays, or the Rockies. I am not the only out of market fan in the country. My brother is a Cardinals fan. My dad likes the Giants. There are Cardinals fans all across the midwest. There are a few teams, like the Braves, Cubs, and Yankees that have fans nationwide who would love the opportunity to watch and follow their teams. I remember growing up, watching the Cubs on WGN and the Braves on TBS. That is probably a big reason these teams have fans all over the country. I remember when the Cubs played the Braves, my brother and I used to fight over watching the game on WGN or TBS. Now the new tv deals have ruined that. If you are an out of market fan and want to follow your team, you are forced to shell out big bucks to get a tv or internet package, just to watch your team. ESPN could help this a little, but they choose not to. But, ESPN is like the government. They think they are bigger and better than anyone else, and don't have to listen to anyone. They simply don't care about the viewer's opinion.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
What it's like
One of my favorite songs of all time is "What it's like" by Everlast. If you haven't heard this song, I strongly recommend you listen to it. The basic moral of the song is, you do not know what the other person is truely thinking unless you've walked in their shoes. It starts by talking about a homeless man begging for change. Someone replies, "get a job you f*(#ing slob." The next part is a teenage girl getting pregnant, and her boyfriend abandons her, so she decides to get an abortion, being called all kinds of hateful names as she goes into the clinic. Then he makes the point that no one is perfect. Everyone has flaws. "I've seen a rich man beg, seen a good man sin, seen a tough man cry, seen a looser win, seen a sad man grin, seen an honest man lie." Then he goes back to the original point about a man that's got himself caught up in the gang life. He gets in a fight, looses his cool, spouts off, pulls a gun, and gets shot. "Now his wife and kids are caught in the midst of all his pain. People say that's what you get when you play the game." These situations are a bit of an extreme for most people, but look back in your life and tell me you haven't judged someone before thinking about what THEY're going through.
This song has made me who I am today. For those of you who know me, you think i'm an antagonist that's always negative and starting arguments. Stop and think about it for a moment. I've always followed the belief that there are 2 sides to every arguement. We all have our sides that we like to take, and we stick to that. We never look at it from the other person's perspective. I call my approach a "Devil's advocate" approach. I am not trying to be an antagonist, or start an argument. I also believe in fairness. People often look at things with goggles on, so to speak. They only see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. That attitude really irritates me.
The last week or two, I've had a pretty intense discussion with someone that all started with our president's response to the rising gas prices. As I said in my last blog, his response was, deal with it, and if you don't like it, get a more fuel efficient vehicle. I was told that my responses were critical and insulting. Well, if you ask me, I think it's pretty insulting to tell the people that put him in that office to "deal with it." In this case, I was trying to defend the normal, working class americans who do not have the ability to do that. MOST Americans either live paycheck to paycheck, or require government assistance just to pay their bills. It's easy for someone who has always made good money, never had to struggle to make a living to sit their and offer advice like that. These people make a very comfortable salary, probably have good credit, and can afford to trade their vehicles as soon as it's due for an oil change. A person living paycheck to paycheck has a very fixed and limited income and can't afford to give up just a few extra dollars, let alone a car payment. If I were that person living paycheck to paycheck, trying to support a family, etc. and someone told me that, I'd be pretty insulted. For people living the "good life" they can afford that extra money a week to compensate for the rising prices. For someone on a fixed budget like that, they have to make sacrifices to make up for that. In my case, we had to give up a very nice house and move because I couldn't afford to drive to work. I was very fortunate that my employer had another house for me to move to. If not for that, I don't know what we would have done. I know there are people out there who had it a lot worse than we did. I am thankful that I had an employer that would work with me and help me out. I was told my responses were critical and insulting, and that I should be more positive.
Criticism, insults, and negativity is all a matter of perspective. You can take the same comment said by myself, and a positive person, and I guarantee you will take it two completely different ways. I don't mean for my comments to be insulting or critical, that's just how they come across. I am not starting an argument, merely defending the common person from people who don't take their situation into account. I don't care how positive and optomistic you are, there is no avoiding criticism. If someone needs to improve, let's say a musical competition, there is NO way you can give that person advice on how to improve without it being criticism. It's how we improve.
Then today I was told that if I didn't like it, get a different job. One should REALLY think before they make that comment. A job is something that should be cherished right now. With the economy the way it is right now, unemployment being so high, there are MANY unemployed people that would give anything to have that job. It is not something that should be taken for granted and traded in for something better. Every employer gets a stack of applications over an inch thick for a job. There are litterally hundreds of people out there who would LOVE and give anything to have that job you are taking for granted. It would be nice to move to a different job that makes more money etc., but realistically, how often does that happen?? I would say 1 in 10 times is pretty optomistic. Then you have your "tenure" factor. As you work at a job, you get raises, accumulate vacation, sick leave, etc. To leave would be starting all over. During that 10 years, you've probably got several raises during that time. Most places let you accumulate your sick leave and don't loose it like vacation. So, at 5 days a year, for 10 years, that's 50 days of sick leave. Most places also award you more vacation time for the longer you've been there. For example, 1 week for the first 5 years, 2 weeks up to 10 years, and 3 weeks after 10 years. In that scenario, you have thrown away 50 days of sick leave, which is almost equal to two materinty leaves, and 3 weeks of paid vacation, and several dollars an hour, all that took you 10 years to work for. If you started your job making say $10 an hour, and after 10 years you're probably making $15 + an hour. Tell me how you would better yourself by giving all that up, finding another job that literally hundreds of people are also trying to get. I'm sure any unemployed person would be VERY insulted that you think jobs are expendable and easy to come by.
As I said in the beginning, people have a hard time with empathy and thinking objectively. People need to be more open minded and remember that song. You don't know what it's like until you've been in that situation. You don't know what it's like to not be able to afford to put gas in your vehicle unless you've been in that situation.
Another thing that has been bugging me is Obama getting so much credit for doing something that any president would do. Let me say first that I support the end result completely. I am glad that SOB is dead and gone. The seals that did that should be the ones praised. Obama merely gave an order that any president would do. But, let's look at this from a christian perspective. The bible says that when someone slaps you, do not seek revenge, but turn the other cheek. So, that christian person is supporting someone seeking retribution?? That sounds like quite a contradiction to me. A few weeks ago people defended Obama about the possible government shut down, and gas prices, saying it's not his fault, and he has no control over it. So, you want to praise him and give him credit for taking out Obama, when all he did was merely give the ok. But when there's criticism, it's not his fault. That sounds a little unfair, and one sided. Those are perfect examples of what I've been talking about. My comments were not meant to be insults, but were taken that way. They were taken that way because that person is being stubborn and refuses to be open minded and look at it from both sides. Every one has an opinion about everything, and sometimes we agree, and sometimes we don't. My opinions might be a little one sided, but I ALWAYS try and do my best to look at it from both sides. You don't know what it's like, until you've been in that situation. You don't know what it's like until you've been that homeless guy, the pregnant girl, or the family who lost a husband/father. If more people would look at it that way, and do this, it would be a much more peaceful and understanding world.
This song has made me who I am today. For those of you who know me, you think i'm an antagonist that's always negative and starting arguments. Stop and think about it for a moment. I've always followed the belief that there are 2 sides to every arguement. We all have our sides that we like to take, and we stick to that. We never look at it from the other person's perspective. I call my approach a "Devil's advocate" approach. I am not trying to be an antagonist, or start an argument. I also believe in fairness. People often look at things with goggles on, so to speak. They only see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. That attitude really irritates me.
The last week or two, I've had a pretty intense discussion with someone that all started with our president's response to the rising gas prices. As I said in my last blog, his response was, deal with it, and if you don't like it, get a more fuel efficient vehicle. I was told that my responses were critical and insulting. Well, if you ask me, I think it's pretty insulting to tell the people that put him in that office to "deal with it." In this case, I was trying to defend the normal, working class americans who do not have the ability to do that. MOST Americans either live paycheck to paycheck, or require government assistance just to pay their bills. It's easy for someone who has always made good money, never had to struggle to make a living to sit their and offer advice like that. These people make a very comfortable salary, probably have good credit, and can afford to trade their vehicles as soon as it's due for an oil change. A person living paycheck to paycheck has a very fixed and limited income and can't afford to give up just a few extra dollars, let alone a car payment. If I were that person living paycheck to paycheck, trying to support a family, etc. and someone told me that, I'd be pretty insulted. For people living the "good life" they can afford that extra money a week to compensate for the rising prices. For someone on a fixed budget like that, they have to make sacrifices to make up for that. In my case, we had to give up a very nice house and move because I couldn't afford to drive to work. I was very fortunate that my employer had another house for me to move to. If not for that, I don't know what we would have done. I know there are people out there who had it a lot worse than we did. I am thankful that I had an employer that would work with me and help me out. I was told my responses were critical and insulting, and that I should be more positive.
Criticism, insults, and negativity is all a matter of perspective. You can take the same comment said by myself, and a positive person, and I guarantee you will take it two completely different ways. I don't mean for my comments to be insulting or critical, that's just how they come across. I am not starting an argument, merely defending the common person from people who don't take their situation into account. I don't care how positive and optomistic you are, there is no avoiding criticism. If someone needs to improve, let's say a musical competition, there is NO way you can give that person advice on how to improve without it being criticism. It's how we improve.
Then today I was told that if I didn't like it, get a different job. One should REALLY think before they make that comment. A job is something that should be cherished right now. With the economy the way it is right now, unemployment being so high, there are MANY unemployed people that would give anything to have that job. It is not something that should be taken for granted and traded in for something better. Every employer gets a stack of applications over an inch thick for a job. There are litterally hundreds of people out there who would LOVE and give anything to have that job you are taking for granted. It would be nice to move to a different job that makes more money etc., but realistically, how often does that happen?? I would say 1 in 10 times is pretty optomistic. Then you have your "tenure" factor. As you work at a job, you get raises, accumulate vacation, sick leave, etc. To leave would be starting all over. During that 10 years, you've probably got several raises during that time. Most places let you accumulate your sick leave and don't loose it like vacation. So, at 5 days a year, for 10 years, that's 50 days of sick leave. Most places also award you more vacation time for the longer you've been there. For example, 1 week for the first 5 years, 2 weeks up to 10 years, and 3 weeks after 10 years. In that scenario, you have thrown away 50 days of sick leave, which is almost equal to two materinty leaves, and 3 weeks of paid vacation, and several dollars an hour, all that took you 10 years to work for. If you started your job making say $10 an hour, and after 10 years you're probably making $15 + an hour. Tell me how you would better yourself by giving all that up, finding another job that literally hundreds of people are also trying to get. I'm sure any unemployed person would be VERY insulted that you think jobs are expendable and easy to come by.
As I said in the beginning, people have a hard time with empathy and thinking objectively. People need to be more open minded and remember that song. You don't know what it's like until you've been in that situation. You don't know what it's like to not be able to afford to put gas in your vehicle unless you've been in that situation.
Another thing that has been bugging me is Obama getting so much credit for doing something that any president would do. Let me say first that I support the end result completely. I am glad that SOB is dead and gone. The seals that did that should be the ones praised. Obama merely gave an order that any president would do. But, let's look at this from a christian perspective. The bible says that when someone slaps you, do not seek revenge, but turn the other cheek. So, that christian person is supporting someone seeking retribution?? That sounds like quite a contradiction to me. A few weeks ago people defended Obama about the possible government shut down, and gas prices, saying it's not his fault, and he has no control over it. So, you want to praise him and give him credit for taking out Obama, when all he did was merely give the ok. But when there's criticism, it's not his fault. That sounds a little unfair, and one sided. Those are perfect examples of what I've been talking about. My comments were not meant to be insults, but were taken that way. They were taken that way because that person is being stubborn and refuses to be open minded and look at it from both sides. Every one has an opinion about everything, and sometimes we agree, and sometimes we don't. My opinions might be a little one sided, but I ALWAYS try and do my best to look at it from both sides. You don't know what it's like, until you've been in that situation. You don't know what it's like until you've been that homeless guy, the pregnant girl, or the family who lost a husband/father. If more people would look at it that way, and do this, it would be a much more peaceful and understanding world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)