Political Whack-a-Mole?

It's been amazing watching the media play "Whack-a-Mole" with the Republican candidates. For example, as I write this there are people on CNBC castigating Newt Gingrich over his history in congress and his history with Freddie Mac, and these same people couldn't remember his name two months ago. Now that his polling numbers have risen they can't talk about anyone else. You'd think Rick Perry was erased from history, and if you bring up Ron Paul they'd look like a deer in the headlights trying to figure out who you were talking about.

I find the process a bit bothersome. I understand the media trying to answer legitimate questions about the candidates that people want to know, but what I am hearing is media attacks on whoever happens to be ahead in the polls this week - hence my "Whack-a-Mole" characterization.

Rick Perry was lambasted for a week over not being able to recall - on the spur of the moment - which Federal agencies he had earlier said he wanted to eliminate. Herman Cain's comments about Libya were rebroadcast over and over and over ad nauseum while he was still a candidate. Heard anything about him lately? President Obama's mislabeling of Veteran's Day as "Memorial Day" and his repeated mispronunciation of "corpsman" were heard only on a Fox News piece about the lack of media coverage of his mistakes. I mean, can you imagine the coverage if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney said they had visited "all 57 states"...as President Obama did?! The point not being that saying "57 states" was all that big a deal, but that none of the other stuff they make such a big deal over is actually a big deal either. Everybody gets a word or two wrong now and then; everyone has trouble remembering the occasional detail at the spur of the moment. NONE of these are significant, but if CNN and others can be believed these things are the essence of what it required for someone to be qualified to be President...unless they are a Democrat. Then it's no big deal.

I'd rather decide who is President of the country by evaluating their stance on issues. Deciding if I agree with the Federal Agencies he would cut rather than basing my decision on whether or not he can list them alphabetically, or finding out more about what he will do for the country next year rather than rehashing what he did 15 years ago. I also know that President Obama doesn't actually think there are 57 states, and quite frankly I think Memorial Day and Veteran's Day are rather similar holidays myself.

The question is, why are any of these other trivial things so important in the eyes of the media?

'Nuff said.

Political Correctness in Sports has reached a new low...

Like millions of others, I watched the Superbowl this past Sunday, and even though I didn't have a dog in the fight, I was half-heartedly rooting for the Giants to win. Probably because they are the underdogs, and that's what we Americans do.

It was a pretty well called game and I don't expect perfection from referees who are just as human as I am, so I wasn't all that upset when at the 9:35 remaining mark of the fourth quarter, a pass interference foul by the Patriot's Moore went uncalled. The commentators took several looks at that play and it was pretty clear that Moore had grabbed Manningham's left shoulder with his left hand before the ball arrived, and he used that leverage to aid his reach over Manningham's right shoulder to break up the pass. It was clear enough that after the analysis one of the commentators referred to it as a "huge non-call". It was what happened later that made the issue interesting to me.

After the punt, fair catch and then a commercial break, the Patriots took over the ball on their own 8-yard line and started out with an incomplete pass on first down. THEN the commentators said, "Now, let's go back to that 'non-call'." I was literally amazed! I have watched many football games where there was something I'd have liked to see over that wasn't shown, but I can't recall any cases of going back to a play after an analysis via replay had been completed and everyone had moved on.

They proceeded to point out that the referees make their calls based on "real time" analysis of what goes on during the game, and to essentially completely reverse what they had said before the commercial break about it being a blown call. They completely ignored the fact that official review using slow motion and freeze-frame has been a part of the game for years now. They also completely ignored the fact that ONE OF THE COMMENTATORS HAD MADE THE PASS INTERFERENCE CALL OUT LOUD IN THE BOOTH WITHIN A SINGLE SECOND OF THE INITIAL PLAY, no instant replay required.

That they could ignore the reality of official review and the additional reality of one of them actually making the call in "real time" from the booth when it actually happened was enough for me be somewhat disgusted by the political correctness of it all. The simple fact was that the referee had blown the call - it happens - but they couldn't leave it there. They had to go back after the analysis had been concluded and, by ignoring all of the many facts to the contrary, justify the referee's lack of calling the penalty.

I am completely certain that someone during the commercial break told them that they had to undo the criticism of the referee implicit in pointing out the blown call.

I am also completely disgusted by that fact.