Rampant Stupidity

I don’t have a particular article for a number of reason, many of which come down to me watching the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, I have a few things I’d like to mention.

● Race & Cam Newton: During Super Bowl week, I was saddened that Cam Newton suggested that part of the criticism aimed at him is the result of his race. This isn’t true. Yes, there is a lot of nasty, unwarranted and false criticism aimed at Newton, but I don’t see any of it having a racial component. If anything, there is a generational component. Indeed, much of the criticism seems to be centered around Cam acting in a way that differs than the older, more staid quarterbacks of the last couple generations (he’s like a throwback to the guys from the 60’s and 70’s). More accurately, however, this is just trolls doing what they always do – making themselves feel better by spewing hate and idiocy at better people.

What troubles me is that Cam reached for the race explanation when none of it even suggests a racial component. Newton is a role model and as such, I would hope that he would be much more careful about accepting such a dangerous and controversial explanation without at least some justification. Indeed, isn’t it funny that we are cautioned not to assume that Islam was a motivating factor when Islamic terrorists killed non-Muslims and claimed they did it in an Islamic jihad, yet it’s acceptable for a black quarterback to blame racism as the basis for criticism of conduct that many people simply consider unsportsmanlike and without a hint of anyone suggesting a racial component to their thinking.

● Race & Beyonce: Bizarrely, Beyonce decided to perform a song at the Super Bowl halftime which supports Black Lives Matter and which includes the line “stop shooting us.” My response is simple. We aren’t shooting you. You are shooting each other. What’s more, if anyone has a grievance, it’s whites being killed by black thugs. Why don’t you care about that?

● A Hostile Press: I’ve been fascinating watching the NFL-centric media doing their best of late to destroy the NFL. It’s really become an obsessively, paranoid adversarial relationship. Indeed, the media obsesses over the issue of concussions, their view that the NFL is unfairly trying to destroy Tom Brady, is covering up for Peyton Manning’s supposed use of human growth hormone, etc. Seriously, the coverage has long ago left the realm of reporting or even advocacy reporting and slipped firmly into a realm that is vaguely similar to when an obsessed loser wants the world to know that their ex-significant other is worse than Hitler.

This has been fascinating to watch, particularly as it compares to the political media and their relationship to politics. Read a site like Huffpo or watch MSNBC and you see a similar obsessiveness with the focus on the absolute destruction of their mortal enemies, i.e. anyone not on the far left. It’s frankly amazing that a group of supposed professionals could lose touch with reality so completely that they could become seething cauldrons of rage whose sole purpose is to destroy people they have been hired to report upon.

I wonder if this is how groups like the Nazis develop secret police so easily?

● A New Species: I have been wondering about this Zika virus. Is this how evolution works perhaps? I can easily see this thing spreading to the point that it becomes ubiquitous. Add to that, that we don’t know yet what will happen when the affected children have their own children. But it’s quite easy, frankly, to see this leading to a permanent change in humanity. Interesting thought. Interesting too how quickly it could work this change. Rather than being a slow process that takes tens of thousands of years and hundreds of generations, this thing could change half the world in only a generation or two.

● Bush: Jeb made a point that needs to be shot down. He whined that he could drop his pants and the media would still ignore him. The implication is that a candidacy depends on the press because the press decides how much exposure a candidate gets.

The thing is, Trump has proven that’s not true. Trump, like Reagan (and that’s the only time I’ll ever compare those two men), has shown that a candidate can make themselves relevant by being relevant. In other words, if you are compelling, the media will give you the following you need whether they want to or not because they simply cannot afford to ignore you. So my response to Bush is that this just highlights how poor he is as a candidate.

I will also add that ironically, Billionaire Trump’s rise and Bush’s failure has proven that money does not control politics, as the Democrats want to believe. Being compelling brings coverage and interest and an audience whether you spend money or not (Trump hasn’t). And conversely, money cannot save you from being worthless as a candidate (as Bush’s futile spending has shown).

Thoughts?