American Football, Baseball and American Politics

[Eamonn]

A question I get asked a lot is how long have you been here?

This is often followed by -But you still have your accent!

Sometime in the past year or two I passed the line.

That line being that I have now lived in the USA longer than I lived in the UK.

 

I can put my hand on my heart and say without hesitation that I love America and really like Americans.

This country has been more than kind to me and my family.

After all the years of being here I kinda sorta have an understanding for American Football. At one time I didn't understand why they kept stopping to have a little chat. That was before I found out that there was an offense and a defense.

While I wouldn't plan my Sunday around a Football game, I will on a winters Sunday when I have nothing to do watch a game on the telly (Just joking!)

I do not and now think that I ever will understand baseball.

I don't feel bad about this as most Americans will never understand cricket.

Then there is American politics.

While it is fair to say that having not lived in the UK for a very long time, I don't know how "Down and Dirty" things have become in England.

Still I can't help but feel things are more down and dirty here on this side of the pond.

While I'm very much to the Left and don't have much time for the Right, putting that aside. Just watching and following American politics is the best reality entertainment on the TV and the media.

Just like almost everyone else I get fed up with TV ads that fill the airways with ads that slam the other guy.

Still two of the things that I've always admired about Americans is how honest they seem to be and how brash they are.

Now of course these ads don't always tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, still they give a great inside look at what that side or what they group is really thinking.

It's all very much in your face.

Where as the English way of politely shaking your hand and stabbing you in the back both at the same time, now just seems a little sneaky.

This week the Republicans will have their convention.

Guys who six or eight weeks ago were out for each others blood and didn't have a good word to say about each other will kiss and make up and join sides to go after the blood of the other side.

Both sides will try and sell the idea that their values are better than stronger and better than the guys on the other side.

To this end they will both wheel out their kids, their wives but I kinda think one side might do better not to bring on any family pets.

These conventions seem to me to be a complete and utter waste of time.

Still it's fun to watch and try and see who is being groomed to be the candidate four years from now.

I will watch it all.

No, I still don't like popcorn, but will enjoy a nice cup of tea or maybe something a little bit stronger.

Me being me? I will of course hope that the Republicans put their foot in their mouth, but these things are so well planned and scripted that I really don't see that happening.

This years race is so very close that I bet the entertainment value will be better than ever.

Much better than baseball.

Eamonn

 

[packsaddle]

I'm still with you on the popcorn. The cat doesn't even like it for litter.

The conventions ARE a waste of time. I'd rather stare at the test pattern (for those of you who are old enough to remember)

"Just watching and following American politics is the best reality entertainment on the TV and the media."

For me it's depressing...because this IS a representative democracy. But at least Ron Paul is there with his loyal followers demonstrating: 'We can do better'. And they're not talking about Obama either. They're probably right.

 

Oh yeah, I hate to admit it but I'm beginning to catch on to cricket. I need a few dozen more trips to the island....

[NJCubScouter]

Eamonn, I have watched the British House of Commons on CSPAN and have noticed that they really do tear into each other sometimes, mostly on matters of policy but sometimes it does get right up to the line (and sometimes over) of being personal. And that is right to the Prime Minister's face, in the case of opposition MP's, or the opposition leader, in the case of government MP's, because they are all there in the same room. (I believe that what they show on CSPAN is only "Prime Minister's Question Time", and not debates on actual legislation, but even the question time is really more of a general policy debate, where they are making little speeches at each other disguised as asking and answering questions. I also saw, once or twice, the same thing in the Irish Parliament, and they get even nastier to each other.)

 

In the U.S., on the other hand, you do not have the President and the opposition members of Congress (who may control one or both of the houses) directly debating with each other on television. Obviously there will be debates for the presidential election in a month or two, but those debates tend to be somewhat "civilized" because the candidates don't want to be seen as being angry, unlikable people. So they try to tear each other down with a smile on their face. I have never seen a debate between candidates for Prime Minister in the UK (do they have them?) so I don't know how nasty they get.

 

The general tenor of politics in the U.S. has gotten much less polite and more war-like, mainly in the past 30 years, but it's getting worse all the time. Members of Congress who served before the 80s have spoken about how members of different parties would debate on the floor and then chat with each other or go out for an adult beverage, and how now the parties are more liked armed camps and if you are seen being friendly to a member of the opposing party you are likely to have it thrown in your face at the next primary (especially in the Republican Party.) I don't know how that compares with the UK.

 

I love baseball, although I realize many people think it is boring. I like what you call "American football" too, just not quite as much. I have tried to understand cricket, but I find it totally incomprehensible. I mean, there are positions called things like "backwards short leg", right?

[CalicoPenn]

I'm not sure you can compare baseball, football and politics anymore. Baseball and football have rules.

[skeptic]

It would be great if we could have a couple of "real" debates. What they call debates is nothing but a programmed shouting match most of the time. But then, anyone who has actually debated, knows how shallow and superficial they are. Unfortunately, most people watching them are like sheep, and already have their herders pushing them around.

[Sentinel947]

As a Political Science major, I enjoy that my object of study gets coverage all the time. Unfortunately, this time of year is hard for someone like myself, who doesn't have a party affiliation. I want to find out what Obama and Romney plan to do, yet they both seem to want to talk about anything else, mainly, how bad the other is.

[NJCubScouter]

Actually Skeptic, the debates for president and vice president would be more interesting if they were "shouting matches." Hardly anybody ever even raises their voice. They are not really debating with each other, they are just giving speeches, sometimes in answer to the questions they are asked, and sometimes just what they want to say without worrying about what they were actually asked.

[skeptic]

Yep, I can agree with that. Shout, but do it about something real. Don't hold your breath. They also should absolutely allow other party candidates to be there if they choose, period. Guess they are afraid someone might think a third option might be better.

[NJCubScouter]

Skeptic, I don't know about inviting every single candidate to the debates. Remember that ballot placement is done state-by-state so there are a number of candidates that are on the ballot in only one or a few states. Even if they won EVERY state on which they are on the ballot, mathematically they still could not win a majority of the electors. I just looked this up on Wikipedia and I count 21 candidates in that category, and I suspect there are more that Wikipedia doesn't even know about. That would make the total number of candidates 25 (I'll get to the other two "third party" candidates in a minute.) Do you really want to have a debate where 25 candidates get 4 or 5 minutes of speaking time each? It sounds worthless to me. I would rather see the candidates with a realistic chance of getting elected be given the opportunity to make their cases to the American people, without a lot of crackpots such as Roseanne Barr, truthers, birthers and everything else crowding the spotlight as well. (Although the can't-get-a-majority group also includes some real, but very small, parties such as the Socialist Workers, Constitution Party and Reform Party. It appears that the Natural Law Party (see other thread, although the party's view of "natural law" is probably a lot different than those of the people discussing it in this forum) has dropped off the face of the Earth this year.)

 

There are two "third parties" that, in theory, could actually win the election, although in reality they obviously won't. These are the Libertarians and the Greens, which has a certain sense of symmetry about it. I think it would be reasonable to add one debate to the usual three or four, and for that one debate invite the Libertarian and Green candidates as well as Democrat and Republican, and have a four-way debate. I think the Republicans would probably like that, because Green candidate Jill Stein has really ripped into President Obama for being too... wait for it... conservative. Or maybe they wouldn't, now that I think about it a little more. Seeing a real hard-leftist (which the President is not) might convince some independents that the President is a lot more moderate than they have been led to believe.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[NJCubScouter]

I just found another list of cricket positions. Here are some highlights:

 

"Silly mid off"

 

"Cow corner"

 

"Short fine leg"

 

Can anyone explain these? Eamonn? Packsaddle?

[OldGreyEagle]

First everyone hates when they are pigeonholed and tell people they are individuals, yets as much as we all want to be addressed as individuals, we have no problem lumping opponents into a single group. Until Recently I had never heard of Todd Akin but now I know he said some pretty stupid things. Almost as fast as he said them, I saw his comments on Facebook that would lead you to beleive that Akin was a spokesman for the Republican party. He is not. Many Republicans decried his comments and yes, still, I hear and see comments about how this proves the Republcan attitide towards women. OK, and Representative Wiener, remember him? The guy who was sexting his genitalia to anyone he could? Is he the poster boy for Democratic Social Networking?

 

Both sides will have their Gaffes, both sides have nut jobs. When we break down to "At least my guy doesnt suck as bad as yours"

I am at a loss

 

I somehow ended up with a Republican questionairre about theur platform. I wrote accoss the top of it I was not Republican and proud to be Independent and there really is not that much different between the two parties. Both pretty much are trash

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, Todd Akin is not a spokesman for the national Republican Party but he is not some obscure mayor or county judge somewhere, either. He is not only a Congressman but won the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in Missouri. The national party leadership tried to get him to step aside, but he won't go.

 

But you can't blame the Democrats for suggesting that he speaks for more than just himself within the Republican Party, can you? Or maybe you do. I don't, any more than I blame the Republicans for doing basically the same thing on other issues. It's just politics, which isn't always fair or pretty. My theory is that "the people" get the type of politics they (we) will put up with. If people really don't like "negative campaigning" they will vote out those who engage in it. But "negative campaigning" works sometimes, so candidates and parties do it.

 

If your point about Anthony Wiener is that politicians on both sides of the aisle do or say stupid things, that is certainly true. But on that specific example, it is worth noting that he did resign.

[OldGreyEagle]

Well,it has been said People get the government they deserve, and who ever said it, got it right and this is just another example

[packsaddle]

I was in another country when Weinergate happened so I don't know much about that. But I know quite a few people around these parts who agree with Todd Akin. I submit that across the country, if you consider every person who agrees with Todd Akin and believes as he does with regard to rape and pregnancy, you'll be hard-pressed to find a Democrat among them.

On the other hand, I actually give Todd Akin credit for being honest about his beliefs. It might have been a political gaffe, but isn't that the definition of a political gaffe? It's when a politician accidentally is honest about something?

[CalicoPenn]

OGE,

 

Ever hear of false equivalency? Weiner texting his privates to a single person is not the equivalent of Akin going on a televised interview and using the term "legitimate rape". Yes, both are stupid things to do, but one was a personal transgression while the other one was a "gaffe" based on the persons actual position on an issue.

 

Yep, lots of Republicans decried what Akin said, but a bunch of the far right members of the party came out backing him up. I don't recall anyone on the Democratic side going to CNN to support Weiner.

 

Further, the issue Akin was talking about was not denounced by the GOP. They denounced the comment, but thats as far as they went. Akin was talking about his position on Abortion, which is no abortions, ever, not even for rape or incest. The "legitimate rape" comment is really more of a sidebar to the real statements - and our media, dumb as a box of rocks as always, got sidetracked by Jo-Jo, the Wolfboy, and missed the Flying Wallenda Brothers in the Center Ring, and the politicians they went to for comments were the ones they knew would validate their attraction to the shiny bling (and of course the media is too stupid to realize that they'll be glad to validate the media's idiocy in order to keep the focus away from the real issues).

 

Akin may have said something really stupid, but the policy behind it, that abortion should be banned in all cases, no exceptions, even in the case of rape and incest, is the same policy that is supported by Paul Ryan (who was a working co-sponsor with Akin (as opposed to a person who jusrt signed it without doing any work on it) of just such a ban (and who also decried what Akin said) and is part of the latest GOP platform. That's the real story - but lets get distracted by the bling and pretend the rest of the GOP doesn't think the way Akin does.