Obama Continually "Plays Dumb" as a Defense Mechanism

I'm not going to dress this up, or even have an intro leading up to this point, I'm just going to come out and say it: I am bothered by Barack Obama's ability to "play dumb" any time there is some sort of scandal that arrives with someone either close to him, or that he has associated with in the past.

The most recent string of not knowing is in regards to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. As can be seen in this article from Bloomberg.com, Obama states “I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening."

Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe he is just avoiding it. However, Obama senior advisor David Axelrod states in a Fox News interview on November 23, 2008 that Obama had been in contact with the Governor (see this article from ABC News). Then the Obama camp says that Axelrod "mispoke" in regards to any conversation ever taking place between Obama and Blagojevich. I am sick and tired of these people saying one thing until problems arise and then immediately denying or denouncing anything that was said in the past.

It's also funny that magically, Tony Rezko's name seems to pop up once again in this scandal involving the Illinois Governor. There is another questionable Barry association that may or may not be linked to Obama, but people are just passing it off as if it's nothing.

How many associations does Barry have to continually cover up? When it was Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama claimed that he was never aware of any controversial teachings or sayings going on in that Chicago church which he attended for 20 years. (See this article from ABC News to reference, or just do a google search on the subject).

In regards to Bill Ayers, the story has changed numerous times...from a guy who just lived in the neighborhood, to just two guys serving on a community education board together, to even Ayers saying that Obama is a close family friend. There was a list posted from the AP in regards to Obama's questionable associations that mentions Bill Ayers and references when he said they hardly knew each other. Well? Which is it?

My point is that it seems very troublesome to me that Barry Obama continually just has no clue what's going on around him while he's in Chicago. If this guy is so unaware of everything that's going on in a city of around 2.9 million people, how in God's name am I supposed to hope that he will be able to effectively run the country? In regards to National Security, you can't just "not know" or be "unaware" of things going on in the world. You have to be one hundred percent on top of your game.

Once again, it seems as if there is stuff right in front of the American public's face, but the right questions are not being asked. How much more stuff does this guy have to be unaware of? Will he ever own up to knowing anything?

Now, I understand the Obama-maniacs will just dismiss this off as junk conversation, as their savior can do no wrong. However, I have said before (as you can find in earlier blogs on this site) that Obama's associations should without a doubt be questioned. I am not surprised at what's going on in the news, just saddened by the entire thing.

Playing dumb can only get you so far, eventually you will have to own up to your actions and associations - no matter who you are.

-The Rocker-

A Day without Responsibility is More of an Accurate Representation.

So, I have decided to ignore this issue for a long time, because in my mind, there are way more important things going on in the world. Currently, there are riots in Greece, a Governer of Illinois under arrest, tensions in the middle east, Russia's dealings with Chavez and other dictators...you name it, and there's a lot more worldly events going on.

However, I am finally so irritated by this issue, that I have to mention something about it. I don't want to dwell on it, I don't want to keep discussing it, but I think that something needs to be said.

The Associated Press reports that there is a movement to call in to work this Wednesday if you are gay. I find this idea not only lacking in common sense, but just overall irritating.

For starters, all of the mess of protests with people over Prop 8 should have ended when the bill was voted on. In the true democratic fashion, the issue was proposed, and voted upon, and all is said and done. For example - I am not happy that Barack Obama got elected. I will be crticial of his administration and I will have a watchful eye on the government, but I am not calling for his removal from office, or a recount of the vote or anything of the sort. So let's get that clear - it's time for the gay community to stop bitching about this.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying whether I agree with Prop 8 one way or another. Like I said, it's low on my priority list. If I remember correctly, in the state of California, domestic partnerships are still allowed - just not marriage. In essence, if you really want to look at it, marriage is a thing that typically takes place in the church, and I don't think at any time any church is going to change its stance on gay marriage.

Now, let's adress this idea of "A Day without A Gay." The economy is currently in hard times, and from any office I have been to or worked in, there hasn't ever been some sort of open discussion relating to whether or not anyone in the office is gay or not. Hell, even in my band we have a gay member (I won't say who), and it wasn't or never has been an issue. The point is that you should be keeping your personal life at home, and your work while in the office. The people who are really going to suffer from this sort of "protest" are the employer. The person who has given these individuals jobs, and let them come work for them. It can't be an issue with the employer if all of these people are currently employed. So, all they are doing is being irresponsible and hurting the business - a business in which they aren't persecuted in if they are currently employed.

Let me put it in these terms: it is not responsible under any fashion to just skip out on a day to work. For example, if we are playing a show or are on tour, myself, other band members, and management are not going to tolerate someone skipping out "just because," or for any reason that is against anything signed in a contract or against the good will for the band. A band is a business. You come to work, you do your job, and you make sure to help the sucess of all that are involved, including yourself. The same principles hold true in any workplace as well. Home and work are two seperate entities.

So, this is why I am speaking about this issue. I find it irritating, and very irresponsible. I will commend the organizer, Sean Hetherington for at least telling high school kids not to skip school and college students not to skip their exams. This shows at least some form of responsibility and that he is at least pondering the impact of how this may affect people's lives.

However, people are responsible for their own decisions, and nobody should complain if you are in trouble for a no-call-no-show to the office, restaurant, store, or wherever you may work. Keep in mind before you call into work that there are plenty of other hardworking Americans who are out of work right now and would love to be employed. It is okay to protest, it is okay to voice your opinion on a matter, but if you aren't doing it with any degree of civility or regards to those around you, then you aren't making the right kind of political statement at all.

-The Rocker-

RE: Sean Avery's Suspension - Restriction of Free Speech, NHL Publicity Stunt, or Justified Offense?

I am a lifelong Dallas Stars fan. I was happy when the Stars signed Sean Avery because he is a talented hockey player. I thought that the Stars had the leadership on the team from the coach and the veteran players to be able to handle Sean Avery. I was wrong. The team that did very well last year is playing like a different team this year, and the most obvious change is the addition of a player with a cancerous attitude. For that reason alone I would fire him.

As for the remarks that Sean Avery made. As previously discussed, I can not stand disrespect. It is my number one irritant. Sean Avery was extremely disrespectful to his ex-girlfriend and Dion Phaneuf. This is not what I would consider trash-talking. Trash-talking is saying that Dion Phaneuf is a weak player or that he has the first name of a Hannah Montana fan. Delving into the personal relationship of a player and his girlfriend is the same reprehensible disrespect as mocking the pregnancy of a Vice-Presidential candidate's 17-year old daughter. I feel a strong need to put a crowbar in between something like this and trash-talking. I played sports my whole life. I know that in the heat of competition that people talk about mom's, wives, girlfriends, and about anything that can be imagined. In my opinion, there is a difference between two athletes yelling these things during competition and one athlete bringing it up to the media outside of competition. It is similar to the differences between slander and satire. Sean Avery was not talking trash, he was disrespecting two people by discussing their personal relationship with the media.

As for the question of where we draw the line when it comes to people speaking their mind freely, that line is where Sean Avery signed his name to play for the Dallas Stars and the National Hockey League. Free speech is about the government preventing you from speaking your mind, but it has nothing to do with your employer. If one of the people that works in my bank says something that I feel is detrimental to my business, then I will punish them. Sean Avery is employed by the NHL and the Stars, they can terminate his employment as per his contract. And that is that. The NHL felt that Sean Avery's statement was bad for the image of the league and outside the realm of behavior they are willing to accept, so they punished him. Try telling the customers of the business that you work for that another employee enjoys picking up your "sloppy seconds", let some of the customers complain to your boss about what you said, and see what happens.

I think the indefinite suspension was a rare smart move by the NHL front office. They did not know how to punish Avery (mostly because they didn't know exactly how upset their sponsors would be) so they suspended him indefintely and set a date to review the suspension. So basically, they have for sure suspended him for 2 games (one of which was the Flames game he would have been killed in, which would have been bad for the league image) and gave themselves enough time to gauge the reaction to the comments so they could set an appropriate punishment. This was a smart move. Now the league can talk to Avery and hand out a punishment in accordance to how the situation has played out over the last couple of days.

I do agree entirely with the Rocker that as a society, Americans have become far too sensitive to things. Political correctness is a violation of our freedom of speech. While Avery can say whatever he wants, as long as he does not work for the NHL, the average American can not escape the prosecution of political correctness without removing himself from the society completely. I do think it is important that we act with respect for one another, but we must also keep the expectation of respect within reason. I say Merry Christmas because I celebrate Christmas, not because I am disrespecting the other holidays (or people that do not celebrate at all). But the politically correct thing to say is Happy Holidays and in some cases I would be chastised for saying Merry Christmas. That is a violation of my freedom to exercise my faith and express myself by select members of society.

Luckily, politically correct on this blog only means that you vote Republican, which is the correct thing to do politically.

-The Banker-

Sean Avery's Suspension - Restriction of Free Speech, NHL Publicity Stunt, or Justified Offense?

So, there's a few things about me that are just common fact:

a). I love music
b). I love politics
c). I love hockey

These are three of the main components to the genetic makeup of The Rocker. Now, not only do I love hockey, but my team is (and always will be) the Dallas Stars. So, while it totally doesn't fit in with the theme of the last few months, i'm going to leave Libs and Conservatives aside and analyze what is currently going on with Dallas Stars winger Sean Avery. You know, this guy:



Now, in case you don't pay attention to hockey, or are wondering "why in the hell is the rocker talking about Sean Avery," it's because he was recently suspended indefinitely for his remarks to TSN before Tuesday's game against Calgary. According to various news outlets, Avery's comments were as follows:

"I'm really happy to be back in Calgary, I love Canada. I just want to comment on how it's become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds. I don't know what that's about, but enjoy the game tonight."

The "sloppy seconds" Avery is referring to is most likely ex-girlfriend Elisha Cuthbert, who currently is dating Calgary Flames defenseman Dion Phaneuf. Apparently, this results in an indefinte suspension for Mr. Avery, pending a hearing on Thursday Dec. 4 with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. The question I have to ask is this: are they really serious?

Now, without a question, Sean Avery's comments are inappropriate. He is a public figure, and should know better than to get on camera and say something like that. However, he has been known as an antagonist, so this should come as no big surprise. What bothers me the most is that it's just trash talking. I find it really hard to believe that a guy like Todd Bertuzzi can maliciously slam someone's face into the ice and still be able to play hockey, yet Avery runs his mouth and is in huge trouble with the NHL. The National Hockey League is looking at everything under NHL By-Law 17 and Article 6 of the NHL Constitution, which basically states that his actions are inappropriate to the game.

My problem with this is that the punishment seems a little harsh. At what point do we draw the line when it comes with people's speech and actions? At what point is it not okay for people to speak their mind freely? Avery should be reprimanded in some fashion for acting like a child, but I don't think he should be banished from the game. This is where the "publicity stunt" theory comes into play. In the US, it's no big stranger that hockey takes a backseat to some of the more popular sports - football, baseball, and yes...even basketball. Something like this will dominate the sports news for at least a couple of days, and can maybe help bolster ratings.

Or, you could be of the opinion that Avery is getting what he deserves. If you are, my bet would be that you are also for complete government intervention and bigger government, and this sort of thing makes perfect sense to you. If so, then it's obvious we are going to disagree on a lot of things, not just hockey. If you are one of the people who voted for Obama and loves the Detroit Red Wings, then we will disagree on everything.

My point is that I really don't support restricting anyone's speech in such a fashion. I think we have become too oversensitive to everything in this country these days. Everyone is so worried about "political correctness" that you can hardly speak without offending someone. Besides, you don't think that these players say even worse things to each other on the ice? So the trash talking is purely acceptable, as long as it isn't in the face of the media, is that it?

I think a public apology is in order, but to suspend someone over this is stupid. That's as simple as I can put it - it's just stupid. We live in a world where everyone is so scared to offend someone that we over-react and behave in this fashion. Whatever happened to some good old fashioned trash talking, and then letting the players duke it out on the ice?

Here's the video of the comment in case you were curious:



-The Rocker-