Wednesday, December 8, 2010

They say you can make as many mistakes as you want, so long as you only make them once.

From ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5899769

I despise the Jets. As an organization, recently they've run themselves like Animal House. Pick up players with checkered pasts (despite their football potentials) and see if they can piece them together. They just lost 45-3 to the Patriots this past week after beating them in Week 2.

That being said, they're 9-3 and up there in the AFC as we speak. I do like Rex Ryan because he does what a coach does best, motivate. Whether that is to take the pressure off his players and be a huge goof-ball and have the media poke and prod him instead of his players, or whatever, he's quite the entertainer.

Same can be said for Chad Ochocinco. He would be up to his antics so the pressure was deflected off his team and onto him. Sadly, T.O joined forces with him and is drastically outplaying him with none of his typical antics. The Bengals are an awful 2-8 this season.
#85 Ochocinco 59 rec, 724 yds, 4 TDs, 12.3 avg, 42 long VS
#81 Owens 71 rec, 961 yds, 9 TDs, 13.5 avg, 78 long

Also another good story: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5900267

Why is using Riddell so important? There needs to be more pressure on Riddell to make safer helmets, or otherwise the NFL should just let players pick their own helmets that at least provide the minimum risk allowed. For car insurance California has state minimums, but people can buy the pricier premiums for more coverage. Same should be done for the NFL who does not want to assume health responsibility for its players, to be really honest. So mandate a minimum for helmets, and if players want to use the more padded ones, perfect they'll be good role models. If not, then they're liable under their own assumed risks.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

December 7, 2010. Thanks Republicans, Again.

From the New York Times:


The wealthiest Americans will also reap tax savings from the proposal’s plan to keep the cap on dividend and capital gains taxes at 15 percent, well below the highest rates on ordinary income. And negotiators have agreed that the estimated $900 billion cost of the cuts will simply be added to the deficit — not covered by reductions in spending or increases in other taxes. That is good news for hedge fund managers and private equity investors, who appear to have withstood an effort to get them to pay more by eliminating a quirk in the tax code that allows most of their income to be taxed at just 15 percent.


In fact, the only groups likely to face a tax increase are those near the bottom of the income scale — individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000.


“It’s going to look like the rich are getting richer again,” said Anne Mathias, an analyst for MF Global Inc.


"The marginal tax rate on high incomes will also remain unchanged. The top brackets had been scheduled to increase to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, from 33 percent and 35 percent. 


Under Mr. Obama’s failed proposal, which would have raised the rates on income over $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals, the taxpayers at the top 1 percent of the income scale — those with incomes above $564,000 — would have received an average tax break of $28,000. Under the agreement reached with Republicans, the top 1 percent will receive breaks of about $70,000.


Simply:


  • If you are an individual that makes under $20K or a family that makes under $40K, your taxes are going up
  • If you're a hedge fund manager (making millions already), you get to continue to cheat the program and pay a 15% capital gains tax instead of your proper income tax bracket of 33-36%
  • Those making over $200K a year as an individual, or $250K as a family, your taxes aren't going up to the pre-Bush [Clinton Administration] tax bracket percentages of 36% and 39.6%
  • All in all adding $900 billion to the deficit, the thing that Republicans kept preaching they would not do from this recent election campaigning [we need to balance the budget, blah, blah blah rhetoric]
Dandy.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Happy December. I'm back, and with a serious social question

I promised that I'd blog more often. Thinking of what to blog about, I think I watch too many sports, so I'll discuss that, and I follow too much news coverage, so that'll be of issue too.

Today:



First of all, everyone can agree that is pretty sexy. Women's bodies are beautiful, the physique has always been deemed a sign of beauty.

But it made me think of quite a few questions:
1. It was directed by Michael Bay, the same guy who capitalized on several elements to make Transformers work, namely:
a. Transformers is beloved by our youth and brings about a sense of nostalgia
b. To appeal to more men, it features sci-fi elements, and over-the-top special effects and violence
c. Attractive female lead [Megan Fox]
I don't think Mr. Bay has done a VS ad before, but watching this sole creation made me think, is this supposed to make women be sold upon buying more lingerie or sold to men to drool over?
2. If sold to men:
a. Are we supposed to aspire to date/have sex/marry these women, who are deemed our "fantasy?"
b. And if so, should we feel bad about the women we currently are dating/have sex with/are married to?
c. Do I want to buy my special woman lingerie from VS because it makes them this sexy?
3. If sold to women:
a. Is this the only way to be sexy? Do I have to look this way?
b. Is it solely marketing, and the combination of beautiful women and beautiful lingerie means higher sales?
c. If I buy stuff from VS, I will be deemed sexy?
d. If I don't look like that, am I not some man's fantasy?


If the ad is solely supposed to be "These women are sexy," then that's that. But you know VS is a publicly owned company, a subsidiary of Limited Brands Inc., so they have to make a profit to stay a viable business. Are they just selling their lingerie? Could they sell their beautiful lingerie with unattractive models?

Which begs further questions:
The history of VS is simple: It was designed by men so that men could shop for lingerie for their special lady, or with a female companion and not feel awkward. They hired beautiful supermodels, deemed Victoria's Secret's Angels, and do an annual fashion show on CBS which garners high ratings.

Therefore is it fair to call these women sexual objections without feeling like you're degrading them? Isn't their career--modelling--utilizing their physique as a canvas for that sole purpose? Can we say it's fair they have a choice not to be lingerie models?

It's a slippery slope for sure. Shoot me some feedback on what you think. I'd love to see your opinions. I'm not here to bash VS, their marketing styles, their employees, or lingerie models in general, I just want to pose a bunch of questions that make you think.