BRAND LOYALTY AND INVESTMENT BANKING

A guy wrote recently about the loyalty of the  New England Patriot fans when it applies to accusations of cheating. He claims that similar to a parent and their kids - if someone accused your favorite team or kid of cheating or cutting corners  - it's just like them accusing you.

His reasoning was that once you buy the game tickets, the ridiculously high priced garments depicting your team favorites,  the signs for decorating your vehicles, lawn , and basement, you are invested in your team both figuratively and literally.

His analysis suggests "We will not be convicted by a jury of ourselves that our team has cheated."

I see this occur down here in sunny Florida where even in our 408 home development, folks from the New England area refuse to accept that their team would do anything wrong. Clearly, they are in denial.
The theory is that if you are a true fan - you support your team through thick and thin. 

So, then why is it that as a Pittsburgh Pirates fan of over 70 years I can't allow myself to get excited about the fact that for the third year in a row our Bucs  will make the playoffs?

Is it perhaps because I'm more convinced this excellent 2015 squad will need only one change of clothes with them when they head to their winter home after the game?

Where is MY "brand loyalty?"

I guess I'm just a lousy Pirate fan who has used a lot of reverse logic through his years of fandom.

Like the guys in the beer commercials on TV who remind us to never change our seating position during a tight NFL game, my contribution to baseball superstition is to never get too optimistic about the outcome of either a game or the season as a whole. 

It's sort of a "not counting your chickens before they hatch" approach, but it's even more than that.

It's as if I believe, like the fans in the commercials, I also have been given the power to change the favorable outcome of a game by my actions - or absence thereof. 

You see, in my fantasy world it is not my physical power - but my mental prowess.

I do not speak favorably about the projected outcome of a contest involving my Pirates lest the baseball Gods come down and punish all of us, including me, with a resultant bad outcome.

So, perhaps this is why I'm forced to be pessimistic about how many games my Pirates will participate in this year.

This is despite the fact, that on another level, even I will admit it would take an idiot not to recognize and applaud the records the Pittsburgh team has set this year  both offensively and even via "some" fielding plays in the outfield, that become weekly highlights on ESPN.

Despite that, I remind myself as your favorite pessimist that the operative word here is "some" and one doesn't know what the fielding team will do in a Wild CARD GAME. 

I will to continue to exercise my freedom to be pessimistic as to the number of errors my team has committed or will while in the field. Last time I checked, the Pirates were leading both leagues in the number of miscues recorded by them.

The team is exciting in many ways: Batting, Pitching, and Pedro.

Like Dick Stuart before him, even Vegas can't predict how he'll conjure up an error during the the next play  when the ball heads his way from a variety of sources. His saving grace - like Stuart - is Pedro hits a lot of home runs - (26 and counting) - some even when there are players on base.

My concern now is that the young and coming Pirate outfielder Polanco is too close to him position-wise and has apparently concluded that "to error is human" if you play on the right side of the field.

A Pirate right fielder scooping the ball ON THE RUN is an acceptable and efficient way to field and possibly throw someone out - if your Hispanic last name is Clemente.

However, with Roberto this feat  first required having a reasonable "in the ball park" knowledge of the location of the walls as well as the struck ball,  when you began "the scoop" and were therefore free to look at the runners locations on the field.

He'll get better - as will the Pirates as a whole.

They are an exciting team and breaking the good records in the process too. Looking for the results of the previous nights game in my online version of the Post-Gazette, first thing in the morning, sets my mood for the day - and I've been a pretty satisfied senior as a result. .

I have mostly enjoyed this baseball season, particularly if I compare it with the 20 years of under.500 baseball my favorite team gave us prior to recent years.

But, until the leagues decide to make the wildcard game a "best out of three" series, I fear my Buccos will  continue to frustrate the fans and themselves; unless they can come up in a one game series with a pitcher who is odds-on to beat the other guy.

This particularly holds true this year as it did last year - when it's pretty clear the opposing wildcard pitcher in 2015 will be the the same guy who one-hit them the other night, and got a couple of hits in the process.

Barring catastrophic injury to him (and even as a Pirate fan, we hope not) or we received the Pope's blessing between masses in Philly, or some other religious experience happened to us, like in the movie "Angels In The Outfield" - this match-up is sure to send the Pirates home early, one more  time.

Despite the Pirates excellent year, winning and losing percentages apparently impress the owners, only if you are his investment banker.

WHO DECIDED WHAT YOU WANTED?

NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT.

The media - and even some of his Republican opponents- were upset recently because Trump didn't correct some guy at his political rally who stated he didn't like Muslims and he also believed President Obama was not a citizen.

Some of the polls I've followed would suggest this "Trumphite" is not alone in his beliefs, but that's besides the point. The guy was no more a threat than a cartoonist in France - until the media told us otherwise.

Those of you who are enjoying "The Trump Show" had to also enjoy the irony the media used to prove Trump was wrong by not defending Obama. 

They opted to run over and over an old clip of McCain taking a different tact when he faced a person during the last campaign - making the same allegation -and he Did defend Obama.

So, "How did that work out," I wondered. 

Trumps paraphrased response to the criticism was "Hey, if folks are critical of me, do you think Obama is going to defend Me?" 

Made sense to me, even though his retort was again clearly "thinking out of the box.' 

However, it went well with his response to CBS's Scott Pelley who later raised the question once more and insisted to Trump that he had an obligation to respond and  Trump's reply was: "You Don't Know That!" 

Why shouldn't Trump say what he really felt? He's a maverick. We've seen a few of them in our day.

 How long did it take before you stopped allowing your mom to pick out your clothes - you maverick - you.

As I recall , it also took me a while to get used to Clint Eastwood's portrayal of "Dirty Harry", as a definitely non-stereotypical detective. Somehow I survived the shock and realization that all detectives didn't act like Charlie Chan or Miss Marple.

Despite my positive reaction - albeit possibly temporary - to celebrate someone willing to take on the media BS, it would appear there are many more who disagree. 

It seems to boil down to the uncomfortable conclusion for some that Trump is outrageous and he refuses to act like what we've come to  expect from politicians.

For years we've  been told and were willing to accept what political commentators told us was acceptable, expected, and necessary, if  a candidate was to  have any real hopes for election success in this country.

That irony also fails to escape me.  Seriously, is "more of the same" what America really wants served up on the politics plate? (It's a yes or no question.)

Even the Pope is speaking up about our political gridlock.

Isn't it about time for us to file under Q - "questionable"  - or "quaint "- what we've been told is right all these years?

Or, are you willing to keep in those same mental folders all the old saws we learned as a child?

 How bout the alleged truism: No swimming after eating because you'll drown ?

So we didn't. But, miraculously, in it's place, we discovered how to almost achieve the same result  by insisting on drinking eight glasses of water, 365 days a year, because we were assured by somebody, whose name has long been forgotten, that this was the only way for us to be properly hydrated?

Would you not agree that we've allowed the media and scientific experts to dictate to us "what's important, what's not",  as well as, "what's appropriate and what's not?"

These so-called experts seem to have become self-appointed resource replacements for a triage of  Emily Post, Miss Manners, and Mr. Wizard. 

Personally, I wished they had stopped with their advice and warnings right after they informed us which side of the plate to place the soup spoon. 

I also believe it's not just the politicians who need a shake up.

I think we should  consider locating one of those "go fund me" sources and raise enough money to purchase an hour or so of air time, then find a really tenacious interviewer as well as an excellent research source.

The purpose of this exercise would be to question some of our most obnoxious media members using  both personal and political hardball questions - not the ones they are asked to answer on Sunday morning in a controlled and friendly environment?

Such an approach might have answered the question why did it take the actions of  veterans whose plane may have really been under attack to expose Brian Williams  - instead of the media?

I believe it was Pataki who recently questioned one debate interviewer as to why all the questions he had asked the former New York Governor were about Trump - and not about him. 

It was a question I've asked myself several times. and I believe we need to ask more of them of the media, even though it didn't appear to do much for Pataki.

I'm convinced it's not just disenchanted voters who are elevating Trump's poll numbers. They've had help from a love-hate relationship the media has with Trump

The media may hate  his obstinance and failure to abide by their rules, but they love what he's doing for their finances.

Fortunately, when they're through pushing this Trump story, similar to how they foisted Sarah Palin and Michele Backman on us in the past, they will inevitably  find another topic or person with whom they are more enamored, and we can go back to watching Seinfeld re-runs - instead of the 6:30 national news. 

Hey, it's the American Way!

The media's sincerity is only matched by that of the political rhetoric of those who employ them or the folks who have learned how best curry their favor by granting exclusive interviews. 

The problem for our society presently is that for too long ,and for the most part, we've become acclimated to politicians who are so careful what they say so as to not risk offending either the media or any potential voter, via a slip up and interviewers who are content to let them slide.

As a result, by the time Election Day is almost near, both the candidates AND the media will have managed to make brussel sprouts look exciting by comparison, as we try to decide who has the leadership qualities we seek to support.

It's just something that every four years we've come to expect  similar to knowing what day we can expect the Social Security deposit will appear in our bank balance -(assuming, those same politicians will allow this hard earned benefit to continue.) 

Politicians really have only two goals. The first is to be elected. The second is to be re-elected.

Meantime , like the courtroom artist at Brady's hearings, we continue to rely on the media to tell us which candidates are the right ones and then allow the rest to look like bad guys by carefully selecting the photo on the front page that best exemplifes and supports the text in the two or three columns below the picture.

Who knew Hillary, or Cosby for that matter could look so different depending on what point of view or opinion the media wanted to make about them?

Perhaps we're better served by relying on the late night show hosts for their political expertise. 

You laugh but  Bill Maher has been getting away with it for years - and nobody makes fun of HIS hair - or, as far as I know - demands that He has successfully run for office in order to obtain the requisite expertise he claims to have.

Dare to break the stereotypes! It's not my optimistic belief that anything much is going to change unless we do.

But, in the meantime, I believe we all have an obligation to start thinking for ourselves and use the good brain God gave us, before making such an important decision.

In 2012, 42.5% of us chose not to exercise that option. Who's willing to argue that a .400 hitter can't help the team?

Oh, what a difference we might have made 4 years ago by deciding "on our own" who was the best choice and and then following up at the polls with our vote. 

All of the above is why I love the special license plate that asked the question:

"Since Most People Don't Agree With What's P.C. - Who Actually Decided That It's Correct?"  

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Reading the Friday papers can be a real trip - particularly if what you're
reading is on the op-ed section of the editorial pages.

After finishing each op ed piece yesterday, I wondered what the writer's
connection might  be to the party or people they're defending and what prejudice
they may be bringing to the table in the name of  financial gain.

It's not a question we ask ourselves often enough.

Does Michael Wear, the writer who criticized the police unions, have
any connection to "Black Lives Matter?" Is he really surprised that most
Fraternal Order of Police unions are defending ALL of their brethren -
regardless of whether or not they were accused of being guilty of
the "Murder" of a suspect?

Does he see any distinction between what the FOP is doing from that
of the doctors who will refuse to turn in another doctor who forgot the
part of the oath that states; "Above all else - do no harm"?

What about the bar association members or elected judges and
politicians who look the other way despite the obvious malfeasance
of members of their chosen profession and having signed an oath of
office requiring them to do so?

How about the thousands of the execs at GM who had to know what
was going on with the faulty ignition switches that killed and maimed
so many,but chose to sit back and accepted their profit incentive laden
bonuses each year?

What about all those so-called white activists in the entertainment industry
who are pleading for our contributions to defeat the genocide in a place
called Darfur,but who apparently had neither concern nor knowledge as to
what one of their highest respected black peers was doing to helpless
women right here in their own country?

Is op-ed contributor Wear also critical of  those teachers unions who
support their teachers despite the fact they concentrate their instructional
efforts primarily on educating their students as to how they can pass
national exams, solely in order to keep from being fired for incompetence?

Would he include in his magnifying glass all the neighbors,eye witnesses,
and/or community civil rights leaders who know who killed whom in their
neighborhood - but refuse to come forward?

Does he recognize that to take responsibility for doing the right thing
would require someone with a mission to make a positive change that
others have deferred for years but who is a person willing to take a risk in
order to make a difference?

Does he also know that to be that person requires no prior political
experience  -as opposed to what another writer, Windsor Mann, strenously
argued while pontificating on the same page as Mr.Wear?

That brings us to our second subject. - the CNN debates - which
was also an op-ed piece.

Does it bother anybody, that with 11 candidates at the debates - all
available for questions  and one of whom could possibly end up leading
this nation that the CNN panel refused to dig in with the really tough but
meaningful questions?

What prompts national personalities on the CNN panel to ignore the
opportunity to really demonstrate their journalistic skills by refusing to
continue asking follow-up questions until they were satisfied they had
received an honest and definitive answer from all the candidates.

One excellent choice would have been whether or not the GOP was
going to shut down our government in the near future over a matter
that has not yet been proven to be accurate?

What were they afraid of?

How many journalists can really fit in the Lincoln Bedroom on any
given night or any given year simply by going the route of asking
softball questions of the potential White House occupants?

The only candidate facing them who appeared to be able to go 7 innings
without having a mitt was cancer survivor, non politician - Carly
 Fiorina.

While watching with your spouse, significant other or family, tell me you
weren't really curious as to whether some well placed follow-up hardball
questions couldn't have shed more light on Trump's positions:

Had Trump really never filed for bankruptcy? Had he never made a 50K
gubernatorial contribution to Bush in the hope of getting gambling
introduced in that state?

The approach chosen by the interviewers to insist the candidates ask their
opponents stupid questions of each other, suggests CNN clearly needs
a new editor in the "Situation Room".

These questions reminded me so much of being a young kid playing
football on the playground. After either delivering or receiving a hard hit
during a pickup game one of us was invariably egged on by some kid with
zero athletic ability, to start a retaliatory fight with the other guy - who
often was our best friend.

And, like the feckless immature children we were - we did! You're free
to draw your own analogies here.

Seriously, if CNN had made a decision to put the entire 3 hour debates
on a Blu-Ray disc for distribution - and you were desperately interested
in acquiring one  - my best shopping tip would be for you to look for it
in the "Easy Listening"or "Entertainment"section; because you sure as
hell wouldn't find it filed under "Self Help".

It was nice to hear everybody singing the praises of Ronald Reagan.

It would have been even "nicer" when all were so busy praising his
negotiating tactics with House Speaker Tip O-Neil if one  -or all - of
the candidates had been asked if they believed the "Gipper" would  have
ever signed the Grover Norquist "No Tax Increase" pledge,.

This was clearly a tactic demanded by someone who none of us ever
voted into office, that was clearly designed to preclude any meaningful
compromise on the important issues of today, in the spirit of
bipartisanship..

Final question: Why is it that - only in courtrooms - are folks who have
taken an  oath - required to provide yes or no answers to the really
significant questions - other than politicians, of course?

P.C = "PARTIALLY CORRECT?"

WHAT DOES P.C.  MEAN - AND FOR WHOM?

ANSWER: Depends on who (whom?) you ask. 

Loosely translated, and per my research - it means:  if you're a conservative- you probably most likely hate it. 

If you're a liberal , you probably have no real problem with it and consider it to be the courteous and correct thing to do - (sometimes).

Here's one liberal's anti-conservative definition: 

"Conservatives and reactionaries who have used the "P.C." term (in a derogatory fashion) did so in an effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination - such as racial, social class, gender and legal inequality."

Short version: "The conservatives are against people whom the right wing do not consider part of the social mainstream."

HOW LONG HAS P.C. BEEN AROUND?

ANSWER: Possibly before many of us were born.

One pundit claims, that in his 1949 book, "1984",  George Orwell stated:

"The whole idea of  Newspeak -'political correctness' is to narrow the range of thought. Every year, fewer and fewer words and the range of consciousness always (become?) a little smaller."

However, many folks claim P.C. really stemmed from the early 20th century Communist party and Joseph Stalin, it's leader (which probably was Orwell's reference point). Supposedly, after the revolution Stalin stated:

"A political thought can be 'politically correct' - only if it is 'scientifically painstaking'."

(Yeah, I'm struggling with that one, too)

Apparently, Stalin , during a post-revolutionary period, was upset that all people - primarily socialists - did not agree with his proclamations as to how to achieve "perfection". (And no, I'm not comparing Stalin with Trump)

PC is something that has been promulgated by various religious sects, religious leaders, despots, criminals, and most narcissists, presumably since the beginning of time. It's also had it's critics - and, also for some time even now in recent history.

In a graduation speech in 1991 at Michigan University, President George Herbert Walker Bush railed against "certain topics that were deemed 'off limits', certain expressions 'off limits' and certain gestures 'off limits.'"

Whether that had anything to do with Jeb's decision to run is still unknown.

Those who opposed P.C. blame much of it on the "college experience".

They claim that we appear to have transferred our "helicopter" parents theory on raising kids to a similar philosophy that is college faculty inspired - it is based on a weak minded conclusion that the true aim of college should be to protect our students from the vagaries of life  - as opposed to encouraging them to make choices on their own.

You may struggle with this analysis, if only because of the perceived irony that what these folks are offering requires the acceptance of an absolute that is almost identical to the PC that spawned their rebuttal.. 

More than likely, these P.C. critics are guilty of rehashing the theory that ALL college faculty members are liberals - and the rest go to Hollywood and write screenplays.

The University of Chicago is busy right now defending their administrative position that what we need is less P.C. on campus - and more willingness to expose our college students to the reality of life.

Oddly enough, the biggest critics of their policy are the co-editors of their student publication, who argue that this is a dangerous policy because it potentially allows hate speech to flourish.

Apparently their theory is that the subject of  free speech has now become an "either/or" proposition - which, many might conclude is also a fairly accurate and workable definition of P.C. 

WHY IS P.C. SO BIG TODAY?

Some would say it's because we live in a world where our perceptions are basically black and white with little to no"gray"encouraged  in our lives; but that theory would appear to ignore the popularity of a recent best seller book series. 

This latter ,but also popular, P.C. theory owes it's breath to a conclusion that inductive reasoning has replaced deductive reasoning.

In other words, we only support what we have already decided is correct and will blindly quote any examples that appear to confirm our conclusions - a sort of "cliff-notes" approach to rational thinking - sort of like watching Fox or CNBC.

Perhaps, it's because I've been around for so long that I remember  Psychiatrist Eric Berne's "feel good" concept of "Transactional Analysis" from back in the 50's - better known as, "I'm OK - You're OK.". ( Admittedly, you don't hear  a lot of that anymore except at political conventions or church.)

One of Berne's key arguments was that all people need "positive" strokes and will, in most instances, respond favorably depending on "how they are presented to them".

Presumably, declaring while dancing with a full figured partner, you offer a compliment such as : "For a fat woman - you really don't sweat much" -  that probably won't cut it.

However, it's possible that in some time frame I may not be around to witness, we may get back to the "honey versus vinegar" theory. But, judging from our current gridlock strategy in politics, it's probably going to be a while before we're hearing:

"Well, I'll give you this - part of what you say makes perfect sense." (The theory of "Partial Correctness.")

Until that train returns to the station, I'm going to rely on this carrot from an anonymous source:

"The proverbial line in the sand that determines which words and ideas are acceptable as civil discourse and which ones are deemed to be beyond the pale, is constantly shifting over time".

Sort of a, "what goes around - comes around " approach  which - like P.C - doesn't require the overuse of our dormant brain cells.  As a matter of fact, I think I saw this on "Twitter." 

And, of course,  I sent it right on to my friends and neighbors.