Fantasy Football
While working last week, music in my ears, coffee on my
breath, and endless words on my screen, a couple of coworkers were walking by
and stopped in the hall just short of my office, lost in a passionate
conversation. Their hands flailed in
passionate expression and eyes bulged with inflection. People don’t usually get worked up at our
office, especially over work, so I thought that eavesdropping might be in order
to get the scoop on something that’s going on in the world of wildlife
conservation.
“Drew Brees did great! He’s making for an incredible
season!”
“The league is really dynamic this year, week 12 should be
even better than this week.”
So, much to my chagrin, this passionate discussion, heated
exchange of wits was just about football.
I’m not really into sports, I have to say, but I really don’t keep up
with professional football. However, I
thought that it might be a good idea to listen in and brush up on the current
season, leapfrog over hours of Sunday boredom and cut to the chase so that I could
act somewhat educated if football were to come up in conversation. So I listened…
“Manning went for 280 yesterday; that makes for some great
points on my overall.”
“Yeah, and my runningback, whatshisname, ran for over 100
again. Who knew, but hey, I’m not
complaining.”
“Whatev, my points status is amazballs over last year this
time”…..
And so on and so on and so on.
What I’m sure you’ve gathered, and which I eventually did,
was that these two friends were not really talking about football, but about
fantasy football, like, not life, not vicarious life, but a game marketed so
that we follow or care about professional football more. It’s like sports squared or something, or,
no, that would make it better than sports, maybe, let’s say, the square root of
sports divided by some big number like 100.
Basically, a giant, imbecilic activity. I’m don’t want to sound too
judgemental, but what a monumental waste of time. It’s a great marketing tool and method for
retaining a fan base, but geez, really?
2.
Flu Shots
Today, everybody seemed to be talking flu shots. At work, they were offering up free shots for
whomever desired one, and I, being the opinionated person I am, conversed with
several people, feverishly waiting by the elevators to get theirs. When it comes to flu shots, I’m not a big
fan. I figure they're for infants or the
infirmed, but not helpful for the general population. My limited knowledge of flu shots is that
they’re meant to inoculate recipients from the most common, i.e. most probable viral strains going around in a
particular season, but serve as a shot in the dark for prevention of what will
probably end up getting you. However, I
may very well not know what I’m talking about, and often wonder if there’s
something to the whole flu shot debate that I’m not getting. Well, in this age of endless, ubiquitous
information at our fingertips, I thought I’d do some research to see just what
seems to be the consensus on flu shots and if there is any point to them after
all. I’m biased, you understand, but I
tried my best to be as objective as possible.
Here’s what I found:
Pro-Vaccine - Here's a site that sums it up pretty well.
Anti-Vaccine - Here's a couple that refute it.
After looking at some background information, it's apparent that everyone who thinks that you should get a flu shot is operating on the assumption that they actually work. "Get a flu shot, because you're putting others to risk if you don't." "Get a flu shot because it will save sick days and help efficiency." However, when you look for corollaries between purchases of vaccines and flu rates throughout the population, there isn't any discernible relationship. In 2009, flu rates were the lowest in years, but purchases of the flu vaccine were as well. Finally, populations that get treated very rarely have a significantly different occurrence of the flu than populations who don't get treated. But, if it makes people feel better, I guess that makes it worth it. Just quit talking about it, either get one or don't.
3.
The Spin
In this world of constant, 24-hour news, politicians and
pundits are forced, or ‘motivated’ more than ever to wrap increasingly complex
ideas up into nice little bundles so that the fleeting constituent can get a
grasp of the issues as quickly as possible.
Ideas like a tax on inherited real property are termed the ‘death tax’
by those who are opposed to it, or, throwing a bone to the ‘other side,’ when
voters are asked to show identification in order to prove citizenship and that
they have the constitutional right to vote, to decrease fraud in the electoral
process, those opposed to the process call it voter intimidation.
So now I segue into the third of my showcased pet peeves
that reared its head in the news just last week. Spin.
Most would agree that republicans, for noble reasons or not, have
overplayed their hand in the past couple years when it comes to brinksmanship
in subverting the political process with gimmicks and political strategies that
were meant to protect our political process, not manipulate it. In addition to partisan votes and dangerously
strategizing to limit the reach of government or regulations, many of our
esteemed congressmen have contributed to an unprecedented use of the filibuster
to prevent political appointments of qualified individual to seats that need to
be, and always have been, filled. In the
past, we’ve required a supermajority, or 60 votes to bring cloture to a
filibuster, basically allowing congress to vote on a bill. Last week, however, Harry Reid decided to
change this longstanding rule and make cloture possible with 51 votes, a simple
majority of senators.
Now, while republicans and democrats in the nation’s capital
argued over the technicalities of this move, things got heated up. Brows were moistened with perspiration while
leather soles clacked on marble hallways on capital hill. Red velvety rooms were filled with passionate
politicians politely professing their proclivities. Press bulbs flashed in furies as lions of
both houses roared about tradition and civilized discourse. Meanwhile, though, the whole country, the
real people doing honest work and counting on their government to do the same,
didn’t really give a shit.
Some of you may feel differently, that somehow a simple
majority shouldn’t be enough to kill the free speech of a filibuster, but I
respectfully disagree and don’t care…at all.
Grow up, politicians, we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Calling the allowance of a simple majority to
rule in a democratic government a ‘nuclear option’ is a bit absurd, you have to admit. Heck, it doesn’t even have the impact of a
fart, it’s the way things should be and this is a good change that was a long time
coming. Did democrats use it to their
advantage? You bet your ass they did,
but that’s how everything gets done.
Nothing's accomplished if it doesn't help somebody. Stop alarming everybody with this crap.
It’s just a bunch of spin.
Okay, I'm done.
Okay, I'm done.
No comments:
Post a Comment