WWE Presents SmackDown! & ECW Date: July 11, 2006 Time: 7:30 p.m. Venue: Target Center City/State: Minneapolis, MN On-Sale Date: On sale now! Ticket Information: Tickets available at the Box Office, www.Ticketmaster.com, all Ticketmaster outlets, or charge by phone: 651-989-5151. Ticket prices: $60 (first five rows), $40, $30, $25, $20 WWE presents two of the most exciting televised shows in sports-entertainment live under the same roof on the same night at Target Center. Don’t miss the most exciting show on network TV-SmackDown plus the most insane, the most intense, the most extreme show on cable TV-ECW!!! Both shows back-to-back on the same night in Minneapolis. (Source:wwe.com and ticketmaster.com)

Coming Thursday-   Fantasy Football Report- featuring an early look at the Tight end position.

-Also, if you haven't been to The JSMCafe lately, you can still check out past articles that are now featured on page 2.  Including an evaluation of the new ECW, 50 greatest pet peeves, and my "Express-o Shots" column.  

-Don't forget to send in any thoughts you may have on who you believe should be considered among the top 25 greatest American Icons in history.  Send in names and they will be considered.  Any comments are welcome.  The top 25 list will be posted the first week of July, so there is still plenty of time.  Again, all comments are welcome, but public comments are preferred.  I like all my readers to able to read comments when possible, though I will accept private, as well.

thanks, -J.S.M.80.  

J.S.M interviews "Angry Scott." ------------------------------ JSM: Tell me what's irking you today, Scott? You seem a little peeved about something, yet slightly morose at the same time. ANGRY SCOTT: First off, it's nice to be here. Thanks for having me at your fine cafe establishment. I feel just a little bit #$#ed off today, if I must say so. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Please Scott, remember this is a family site. Any way, what has you so p***ed off today? AS: Well J, I've been feeling awfully ornery lately. I've been lashing out at others a lot, telling them to go f#$k off and stuff like that. Don't really mean it, just blowing off some steam. I can't help it if no one understands where I'm coming from. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: What, exactly is the source of your outrage? AS: Well you see J, people like to pull me this way and that way, like I'm some kind of puppet or something. That's all well and good, you see, but when I try and be festive back, they pi** all over my ideas and give me this "holier than thou" responses, like their some kind of royalty (or President Bush) that doesn't have time to partake in my activities of choice. I've got to admit, that really @$#& me off. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Is this one person you are talking about? AS: No, you patty-wacker! It's a lot of people. Apparently many of them are too busy fixing their broken toilets, being sick, visiting with their grandfather, or watching "Desperate Housewives." The excuses come popping out of these people faster then their gas after an enchalada dinner. By the way, would you like to catch a game sometime? ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: No thanks, I have to do my poodle's hair, but I see your point. Are you upset because we have busy lives and don't think anything else is important? AS: No, you pregnant hippo! You are missing my point, completely. It's that if I can take the time to do what others want and listen to their banter, isn't it only fair that I receive the same in return? Or am I being selfish here? ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Both, I think. Your mistake is expecting anything from anyone else, friends and family or not. Truth of the matter is, either way you come out looking like the a%$-hole. If you complain, they will get offended, you will feel bad, you will attempt to be a man and initiate peace, they will likely act childish and ignore your attempt at a good gesture (like a text message)by doing their "predictable, stubborn and egotistical I-don't-care-what-you-think-act." Or otherwise they might get in your face and try to get in a shouting match (those that are gutsy). If you don't complain, well then everyone else is happy, but you end up kicking the cat when you get home, that is if you were the kind of person who kicked cats, which I know you're not. AS: So what are you saying, it sounds like you are trying to cover your a$$, with these answers you are giving me. Don't make me jump over this table and stuff that purple shirt down your &%#$^ throat! ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Relax Scott, what I am saying is very simple and it's been right under your nose the whole time. AS: I mean, people can't relate to something that they don't understand or haven't experienced. Some try harder then others and I don't always point that out. Then again, sometimes these same individuals, don't give a rat's $%#! ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: I said easy on the swearing. Can you relate to their issues, I mean when they whine to you, like you whine to them, are you able to empathise with them? AS: Well, most of the time. I can't say I always relate to their problems, but I do listen and try and offer perspective. I'm no pysch-major, but I do give it my best shot. I find that feedback to be quite useful? ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Do you ever get it? AS: Yes, on occassion. Sometimes quite a bit. But let's be honest, the ones that do are the ones that are still reading this interview I'm giving. The one's that don't are the ones that have skimmed down to the end or only made it to the second question, because their head started to hurt or their A-D-D kicked in. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Do you ever feel it might all be your own doing? AS: Sometimes, but I don't know if I should go to that extreme. Sometimes I feel like reverting to that old state of shutting myself out. Sometimes I just want to stay a way and just read your site. Maybe I should just do all my talking on your site for now on and shut everyone else out. Since no one really gives a flying f&^k, any way. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Right now you have problems, right? No one wants to hear them, so why bother? Just keep to yourself and speak your mind here. You've already tried it the other way. You were the good listener, but did anyone do you the same? No. Maybe they tried at first, but only half-heartedly. Most of them anyway. AS: There are some things I would miss, though. There were some good times. But what's the point? They all think I'm selfish and combustible. Maybe it is time? ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: So what are you going to do? AS: I don't know yet, I have some serious thinking to do. Or drinking. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; JSM: Well good luck then, whatever you decide. My readers and I will check back with you later to see what decisions you've made. AS: Thank you. I have suddenly lost the urge to cuss. Maybe that's a sign. I'll have to see. Let's finish this interview at a later time. (Angry Scott leaves the table and shuts the door behind him.)

(You can read the 1st half of this article on page 3.)

***This article evaluates some of the greatest and controversial political ad campaigns of the past half century. The thesis of this article was the use of scare tactics, in order to garner or sway votes for specific candidates. With mid-term elections just a few months a way, now may be a good opportunity to revisit past examples and explore what it was that made them so effective and memorable and in some cases, infamous. -JSM

...These campaigns valued votes by diminishing their opponents with extreme claims, like the one used in Nixon’s campaign slogan that the voters should “Vote like the whole world depended on it.” The premonition of doom that this alluded to was that the voter must make the right choice in order to avoid a world catastrophe. Notice how reminiscent this was to the Johnson slogan.

With the values of these ads established, the next step is applying a principle that effectively supports the use of these scare tactics in politics. In the case of the 1968 ads, Nixon’s campaign could claim that they were working under Mill’s principle of utility: “Seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” If they rationed that Nixon was stronger on crime and more equipped to settle the war in Vietnam than a candidate who had served under an ineffective administration, as did Humphrey, than the fear ads could be seen as warranted, because it benefited the voters and allowed them to see who was best fit for the position of high office.
Under this principle, the Johnson ads could be justified for similar reasons. After all, if Goldwater did feel the use of nuclear weapons was a viable option it wouldn’t take much convincing to prove that the Johnson ads were providing valuable insight into Goldwater’s extreme views that may have gone against the will of many Americans who did not support a nuclear war with Vietnam or the Soviet Union.

Ultimately, though the loyalties lie with the candidates themselves. The emphasis is placed on limiting the choices for the voters by instilling fear in the alternative. By making the opponent seem unelectable it presents their own candidate as the steady hand and the voice of common rationality. The ploy of fear works to their advantage and is highly effective so they are utilized, because the main loyalty in every campaign is to the candidate not to the voters or those looking for accurate insight on political polices.

Going beyond the potter box, and examining these ad methods closely, one ethical principle that could be applied in hopes of presenting the viewer with concise and meaningful information; yet maintaining the agenda and intent of the ads would be the use of Aristotle’s mean: “Moral virtue is a middle state determined by practical wisdom.”

By following the guidelines of Aristotle’s principle, political ads would maintain a level of ethical decorum; the voter watching on television would be free of deceiving messages, and a candidate’s stand on issues would be at the forefront of these ads. There would be fewer attempts to generate negative emotions such as fear, distrust or anger toward the opposing candidate; only a distinguishing of views would be presented. Unrealistic, though it may be; a political campaign that managed to abide to the Aristotle principle would likely provide people with greater depth and allow them the ability to compare two candidates based on their policy.
The key, of course to the effectiveness of this principle is finding a mean between two extremes. One mean might be limiting the number of airings of the negative ads rather than eliminating them all together, or toning down the doom-like theme of the message, instead providing more realistic information aimed less at scaring the audience.

Perhaps a structured universal code of ethics in political advertising would encourage more truth and accuracy in campaign ads. One example of such a code is The Texas Election Law, which requires certain disclosures and notices on political advertising in the state. It also prohibits many forms of misrepresentation in campaigns. The Texas code of ethics took effect in 2003 and has already brought about a change in the way political advertising is conducted in the state. The detailed code elaborates on what the definition of Political Advertising is and what it says. It also defines what should and shouldn’t appear in state political ads.
One interesting law under the heading of misrepresentation states that a candidate may not “misrepresent the source of political advertising or a campaign communication or misrepresent the identity of his or her agent in political advertising.” In the 1972 presidential campaign, many ads portrayed negative depictions of democratic nominee, George McGovern. They were created under the slogan of “Democrats for Nixon.” The slogan was deceiving, as the ads were actually sponsored by the Republican Party. Under the new Texas law, this type of campaign deception would not be allowed.

Until some improved level of a national code of ethics in political advertising is established, the voters will have to be aware and alerted to deception and false statements made in campaign ads. This is particularly true in presidential elections. The public citizen must decipher between truth and the fear in ads and not allow the distortion of reality. The ethical stakes are too high not to.


Works Cited

Boller, Paul F, Jr. Presidential Campaigns.
Oxford University Press; New York, NY. 2004. (P.308-341)

Christians, Clifford G. Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning.
Boston. Pearson Education, Inc. 2005. (P.3-21)

“The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign Commercials.”
American Museum of the Moving Image. 2004. http://livingroomcandidate.com

“Political Advertising- What You Need To Know.” May, 2004.
Publication of the Texas Ethics Commission.

Guilty as Charged? An Honest Perspective-

Two issues ago, I wrote an article under this column that spurred a lot of response among readers on this site. It was titled: “What's the Difference?” (article can found on page 4)I think now would be an appropriate time to expand on my thoughts from that article, but with a new perspective.

First of all, I want to make clear that I still stand by the comments and beliefs I stated in that previous article. My assessment on that subject hasn't dwindled or changed in the passing weeks, however, my perspective has been reshaped ever so slightly—to the point that I failed to notice or perhaps didn't want to notice something that had been a blind spot for me until very recently. It is something that I am not proud of, yet its something that I needed to come to grips with or otherwise, risk wallowing in a pool of denial and bitterness. The hard, sad truth of the matter is that I am equally (if not more) guilty of those same offenses that I charged others with.

I,too am guilty of failing to accept others as they are, and I make no excuses for it, because, frankly there aren't any to give. If attempting to make “square pegs fit into round holes” is an attempt to make changes for one's own liking, than I must come clean and admit my own guilt. I too, must stand in line and accept my own responsibility in these acts of selfishness.

You see, I have made the same mistakes that I have seen others make before, largely because we fail so often to see what is right under our own noses that we tend to miss it. My fixation has centered on frustration over why others can't see things as I do. I have d welled on these differences rather then embrace points of similarity. By ignoring my own advise, I have fallen into a repetitive pattern of angst and hostility that have produced a wave of negative energy within me and those around me.

Because, in large part of my unwillingness to accept others for their differences, I have alienated myself from many of whom I accused of the very same offense. That offense being to not accept and respect those for who they are. I can't make proper amends for that mistake, I can only hope to improve and widen my perspective of others. To change myself for the benefit of others or to try and prove myself would be the wrong path to take and expecting others to do the same would be equally wrong. To improve upon oneself is never wrong, however. But such improvements must be left to the individual to determine. It cannot be forced upon them by others, even if they have the best of intentions.

In the end all we can do is be the best person that we can be. If one is sensible, then only that one person can decide what “being the best person” really means. I am guilty of neglecting that thought on many occasions. I am as guilty of this offense toward my family and friends as anyone. As this reality sets in it becomes slightly easier to cope with. Many thoughts race through my mind at once. The saying that “Nobody's perfect,” comes to mind. The guilt over my display of intolerance rushes in and I begin to realize that I too, take some things for granted on occasion as others do, perhaps due to errors of human nature. I, unfortunately am no different in this regard. This, despite my efforts.

The only advise I could give is to not let it happen to you. Don't over play on the negative. If those we surround ourselves with are truly good, then we should take them as they are, despite whatever differences might exist. Encourage them to be the best they can , rather then force them to be what they can't. I have a deep appreciation for what I have, yet sometimes when it comes to not accepting things at face value, I too, am guilty as charged. Sometimes even this writer's perspectives need reflecting.

I've come to the understanding that to be a better person I have to first be accepting and open to compromise. It can be a challenging endeavor to admit to one's errors, but it is a necessary first step in correcting one's mistakes. Now I must begin in correcting mine.
-J.