Eileen Weir has crossed the line. ENOUGH!!! If she had nuts: NUTHOOKS!

[TinyEvel]

Someone please tell me who I can write to in order to express my utmost disdain for Weir. Eleven paragraphs of crap and three paragraphs of stuff so obvious, someone who doesn't even follow our team would know it.

Can we please get a campaign together to evict her from KcChiefs.com? Completely useless. Give friggen GoChiefs the seat, or anyone! I appreciate intelligent op ed writing, but there's a time and place for it. And this stuff DOES NOT belong on a football site. It's lame that she uses up editorial space with this stuff. I really think there is some kind of foul play here. either someone owes her a favor, or SOMETHING. It's like she KNOWS and is TRYING to piss us off. She's like a friggen journalistic fillibuster.




WEIR: Looking For Leaders
Jun 18, 2007, 11:15:10 PM by Eileen Weir - FAQ

Perhaps the most fiercely defended American value is that of self-sufficiency. As a nation built on an appreciation for and celebration of individuality, citizens of these United States cling forcefully to their right to non-conform. Our personal sovereignty to self-create a uniquely personal way of life within socially acceptable guidelines is what makes our county the greatest on earth.

Regardless, we crave leadership. While we may bristle at attempts perceived to be intrusively dictating what we are and are not permitted in our society and rise up against policies and practices which threaten our inalienable freedoms, we are nonetheless on an endless quest for professional, philosophical, spiritual, and political guidance. The wealth of books, programs, workshops, seminars, and Web sites promoting leadership training and leadership development attest to our desire to cultivate qualities of effective leadership within ourselves as well as our willingness to follow others who inspire us.

Observers and participants in sports, politics, business and family life are adept in identifying the leaders among us. Some leaders attain the position by social appointment, by virtue of recognized cultural norms such as assigning men as the presumed head of the household. Others leadership roles are reached with greater effort, elevated to a position of power through dedicated service to corporation, institution or country. A rare few achieve esteemed respect through pure talent.

Theories on leadership development abound. Trait theories suggest that possessing certain personality attributes such as an ability to guide others through model behavior, a willingness to serve others, an entrepreneurial drive, charisma, optimism, self-awareness, and working well with others sets people up to become effective organizers and managers. Individuals who display these qualities are those we describe as “born leaders.”

Behavioral and social psychologist David McClelland proposed that leadership is derived not from a set of personality traits but from human needs and motivations. Identifying man’s primary psychological ambitions as the need for power, achievement, and affiliation, McClelland theorized that the most dominant leaders have a particular balance of motivations, seeking high levels of power and achievement and a low level of affiliation while exhibiting unusual self-control. Proponents of situational leadership theories contend that different situations call for different types of leaders. Under theories that evaluate circumstances as well as psychological profiles, the characteristics of the followers are as important as those of the leaders.

With the 2008 Presidential election already dominating the national news scene, voters are called upon to sift through the diversity of candidates to divine who will demonstrate the appropriate leadership skills and styles to serve as our Commander in Chief. Those toting the most experience also carry the heaviest baggage, while the fresh and charismatic are seen as lacking the necessary knowledge and understanding to govern an entire nation.

Harry Truman, who has become the 21st century’s poster boy for superior leadership style, earned no such acclaim during his reign. Modern day politicians and political commentators disbelievingly shake their heads that more than ¾ of the nation disapproved of Truman by the time he left office in 1953. From a contemporary perspective, it is tempting to look upon the population that levied a wholesale rejection of Truman as blind to the leader’s intellect and charms. But how can 77% of the people be wrong?

Post-war inflation, vetoing tax cuts approved by Congress, allegations of corruption within the administration, a perceived softening on Communism, the inability to bring closure to the Korean War, and an increasing alienation from liberal Democratic support decimated Truman’s legitimacy as a leader in the eyes of the American people, causing him to forgo seeking reelection in the 1952 race. History, however, has been kind to President Truman, heralding him, along with Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt, as among the greatest elected leaders of the 20th century.

Scholars and historians remembering Truman posthumously credit him with the courage to make unpopular decisions. The most average of any modern President, receiving little formal education and attaining the presidency quite by accident, Truman is regarded now as a fearless patriot, putting the interests of the country above polls and political agendas. Ending World War II by ordering the dropping of two atomic bombs over Japan, integrating the armed services, working to establish the NATO, the National Security Council and the CIA, aggressively combating Communism by creating the Truman Doctrine, and orchestrating the Berlin Airlift, among other achievements, Truman was indeed an active and productive administrator.

Only through the filter of time are historians able to applaud the accomplishments of Harry Truman, appreciating the lasting impact of decisions that were at the time ostracized. It is his character of frankness, guts, and the capacity to eschew political savvy that would have benefitted him as a career candidate that we can now admire.

As we now consider the political landscape as we march towards a new and unknown administration, we are searching for similar signs of leadership.

Looking over the new and unfamiliar names and faces that populate our Kansas City Chiefs roster, we experience a comparable quest. Parting ways with our veteran quarterback, bidding farewell to the offensive lineman who cemented our team for more than a decade, occasionally wondering if Priest Holmes will ever play football again, and welcoming recently acquired veterans and draft picks to the fold, we ponder where from where the leadership for this year’s team will come.

Oh, yes, there are some returning candidates. Brian Waters is respected around town as a top performer and quality person, but it is hard to be a recognizable team leader at left guard no matter how many Pro Bowls you attend. Larry Johnson, though arguably the best player on the team, has been accused by some media as lacking the personality or pleasantness to be embraced as a true inspiration to teammates or fans. Tony Gonzalez, now the consummate franchise player, has all the looks, credentials, and star power but has never emerged as a team spokesman.

As fans and outside observers, we have little on which to base our impressions and presumptions about who the leaders are. Those of us who aren’t around the players in an intimate way have no idea who commands profound respect inside the locker room. Leaders can come from the unlikeliest of places.

Like a Haberdashery on 12th and Baltimore.

[shaneo69]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

There should be some kind of punishment for the next person that posts one of her articles.

Now that you mention it, I don't think anyone posted her previous article...

WEIR: No Must, No Fuss TV
Jun 11, 2007, 9:04:23 AM by Eileen Weir

Add The Sopranos to the long list of defining moments in mass media that I missed. It, along with Sex and the City, Seinfeld, and The O.C., was a show I never watched.

Considering myself as a pop culture junkie, I dedicate myself to surprisingly few television broadcasts. When invited to a watch party for the final episode of Seinfeld, my husband astutely wondered aloud why we were going to a party for a show we’d never watched. Because our friends were there and they were serving cocktails, I explained.

In my single days, a “friend” set me up on a double date with a law student studying at the University of Missouri – Kansas City. On the first date I learned he was a struggling student, sharing a dreary apartment near campus, and didn’t have a car. He didn’t like to go to bars or clubs. For a second date he invited me to come to his apartment to eat spaghetti and watch Friends. Ummm… no. Chowing down a plate of noodles and Ragu and watching a sitcom I had never seen wasn’t my idea of a hot date. Doing it sober was out of the question.

This same “friend” also set me up on a blind date with an eager young professional that she had met at a Democratic political rally who asked me to stop by the ATM on my way to meet him for lunch. I declined lunch. My matchmaker buddy clearly misunderstood my priorities in my mid-20’s.

Certainly I have missed out on what are heralded as some of television’s best series by virtue of the fact that I don’t have cable. That means no Comedy Central, no CNN, no MTV, and no ESPN. We watch a lot of public television and churn our own butter. On the bright side, we have been spared The Anna Nicole Show, Jackass, and Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica.

Make no mistake; I have had my share of television loyalties. Addictions, even. Obsessions. My twenty-plus-year fixation with Johnny Depp has its roots in 21 Jump Street. In college my gang was devoted to thirtysomething. Studying had to be complete in time to tune in for the weekly drama between Michael and Hope Steadman, and their business partners and best friends Elliot and Nancy Weston. Michael and Elliot’s offices at the advertising agency were so cool, and we all dreamed of our post-collegiate careers in such slick steel and glass environs.

The early ‘90’s ushered in my compulsion with Northern Exposure and Twin Peaks, which was challenging since during that era I didn’t own a television. Luckily, the programs inspired such loyalty among fans that groups of people would gather to watch them, and as a groupie, I could always count on a weekly invitation for viewing.

I still look at Julianne Moore and think she’s Frannie (and Sabrina) Hughes from As the World Turns.

As the decade progressed, I developed a rebellious aversion to destination television. I scoffed at the notion promoted by the NBC network that its Thursday night lineup was “must-see TV.” With a steady date and a steady paycheck, staying at home watching television just wasn’t my gig.

My TV taste these days tends first towards sporting events, and a few select network programs. Without shame I admit my allegiance to American Idol once it gets down to the final twelve and beyond. I have no interest in slogging through the pool of untalented and deluded singers who show up by the thousands to humiliate themselves before a national audience, but I love witnessing the competition between the finalists, and I think there is nothing much more exciting than watching an unknown get a shot at stardom. For the same reasons, I found myself the last two years making an appointment to watch Dancing with the Stars. I became a viewer once they started putting athletes in the contest. And the athletes have ruled. I try hard not to miss Lost.

Even though I don’t have cable networks wired into my home, I do get Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes on DVD when they become available. I haven’t done the same with The Sopranos for some reason.

What does the series finale have to do with sports? That’s what I wanted to know as I was listening to local and national sports radio on Monday. Tuning in to find out what the day’s sports headlines were, I got lively banter about the ramifications of the long-running HBO drama.

So here’s what’s going on in the world of sports. The NBA Finals are turning out to be a major snore, unless you favor lopsided plasterings. Rafael Nadal won the French Open. Again. Justin Henin took home the French tennis championships from Roland Garros for a 4th time. The American League smoked the National League in interleague play. Tour officials are predicting par or over will win next week’s U.S. Open at Oakmont Country Club.

In other words, not much.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/06...st_no_fuss_tv/

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by shaneo69

In other words, not much.

Just like one of your boring columns!

[CoMoChief]

Wow, as usual, that article by Weir had NOTHING to do with football.