Are ya'll ever gonna pay this man, or are you waiting for him to start turning magic tricks?
I really can't understand what more Mike Woodson needs to do to get some support (the financial kind) from the Atlanta Hawks. In between Billy Knight trying to throw him under the bus to save his job and Rick Sund signing him to two-year deal (that's his way of saying, "we're giving you just long enough to get yourself fired,"), Mike Woodson has taken this team from a joke of a team to the second round of the playoffs. In 2009, they're one of the top teams in the league (record-wise).
And he did it in four years and some change. The team's record got better every season. They pushed the eventual-champion Boston Celtics to seven games. They got out of the first-round for the first time since 1999. I'm thinking he must not be kissing the right amount of ass for them to favor him, even though successful organizations typically just want their head coach to win basketball games. And keep from getting choked by his players.
All he's ever done is his job, without complaining about Josh Smith's bad shot selection or how Billy Knight waited until he was about to get fired to bring in a real point guard. No, we can't have that. Who care that the Hawks are improving? They must want a master showman, full of witty soundbites, like Phil Jackson. Well, too bad, Atlanta Hawks. Every coach can't be Phil Jackson. If you wanted him, you should have tried to hire him. I'm sure he would have stopped laughing at you eventually, but it can't hurt to try.
Instead of complaining about what he isn't, why not look at the facts?
1. He got this team to commit to playing defense. You know, because Woodson understood that if your team can't score, maybe you should see about keeping the other team from scoring, too. So he gave this team an identity: Defense and rebounding.
Sure, some people thought, "Yeah, let's let these high school kids with no real point guard or actual scoring threat just run and gun. It's the best way for them to learn," but those people have no business coaching a team, like Mark Bradley. Sure, they'll be entertaining, but they'll lose. A LOT. Most recently, "the Sonics" won about 13 games using that strategy, and they had Kevin Durant. The Hawks had Antoine Walker and Al Harrington at the time, and they couldn't win using that strategy BEFORE Woodson got there.
2. He turned Josh Smith into a productive player. When Josh Smith came out of high school, he was just a tall guy who could jump really high. He couldn't shoot, he couldn't dribble, and he didn't play defense. He only got drafted because Billy Knight was forever enthralled by Bilas Buzzwords, like "potential," "wingspan," and "athleticism."
And look at Josh Smith today. Averaging about 20 and 9, consistently leading the league in blocks, and one of the team's anchors. Sure, some of that was going to happen anyway, but Josh Smith does some dumb stuff out there sometimes, like throwing up three-pointers that he can't make. Like trying to make passes on the break. And even though he is one of the stars of the team, Woodson has been willing to go to the mat with Josh Smith, which is almost unheard of in the NBA today.
Take on one of your stars? Are you kidding me? I don't care how many bad shots Mo Williams takes, I bet Mike Brown isn't gonna call him out. Josh Smith needed that. He needed someone to say, "Hey, you suck as a three-point shooter. How about you stand closer to the paint. You know, a place where you have the advantage?" And since he never played for Bobby Knight, Mike Woodson had to be that guy.
Yeah, he still takes bad shots, but he's cutting back. I watched a game last week where I didn't see him take a single ill-fated three pointer. Now, that's progress.
3. He thrived as a coach despite being saddled with Billy Knight. That alone should get him an award of some kind. Nobel should start handing out a sports award, because the stars were lined up for yet another first-time head coach to get fired at the start of his third season. Just look at the situation: A poorly run franchise hires a first-time head coach and sticks him with a roster of high school players. That exact same situation has killed tons of coaches, many of them right here in Atlanta. Terry Stotts never did really catch on, did he?
4. He turned the team into something that doesn't embarrass the city. Or was I mistaken when I saw that sold out Philips Arena during the playoffs the last two seasons? It wasn't like so many nights when the Lakers would come to town to play at Staples East. No, these people were actually cheering for the Hawks.
What more could you possibly want? Angels singing his names from the heavens? That won't happen; he's not Tony Dungy. Maybe they're so blinded by the success of years' past that they can't see the good thing sitting in their laps. That happens sometimes when you have such a storied history. Other than the Clippers, how many teams can say that they have THAT MANY consecutive losing seasons?
I get that Rick Sund is kinda new around here, and that General Managers usually like to have their own people in place, but they shouldn't ever listen to Mark Bradley or Jeff Schultz. They've got a really good coach in a league where so many teams fall apart because they don't have one. Not to keep harping on them, but look at the Clippers. Even when they're good, they're a disaster waiting to happen, and Mike Dunleavy doesn't exactly strike me as the captain to lead them through the storm. The only reason why he hasn't been fired is because Donald Sterling doesn't want to have to hire another coach while he's still paying this one.
Now, if the Hawks don't want to pay the man, I'm sure someone will gladly take him off their hands and Atlanta can get back to the days where sadsack coaches could always find a place to hang their hats. But Atlanta deserves better than that, and for the first time since the mid 90s, right before Pete Babcock destroyed it all, it actually has it.
Just give Mike Woodson his extension. No one can say the man hasn't earned it.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
...then what was the Civil War about?
Sure, the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Right. You keep telling yourself that.
To tell you the truth, I've never read a book about the Civil War in my life. Personally, I was satisfied with what the American Public School System indoctrinated me with. So everyone that calls the war by it's other made-up names, like "The War of Northern Aggression," or "The War of Southern Independence," could be absolutely correct. And I'm not going to try to correct them. Plus, I think it's cute how they try to make themselves the heroes.
Thing is, changing the name of the war doesn't make it NOT a civil war. "The North vs. the South" is the definition of a Civil War. And it's not like anyone recognized your secession. You couldn't even come up with an original name. "Confederate States of America" sounds like a less-desirous knock off, like "Velvet Revolver" compared to "Guns N' Roses."
So what if you change the name or say the war was about something else? All of the people fighting for the South were still slaveowners, so no one gives a shit about their other problems. That's like saying the Nazis were killing the Jews because of high-interest loans AND because they were Jewish. Like other people who were crippled by finance charges are going to suddenly start defending the Nazis.
See, the slavery part is all we care about, mostly because it was a fucked up part of our past. Who really cares about states' rights, anyway? The only people who care about states' rights are the people who really want to do something crazy, but the Federal Government won't let them. It's not like the government is keeping them from doing something positive, like rescuing orphans from fire-breathing dragons. They're mad because the Feds are keeping them from doing something like bringing back slavery in some states, where "Nigger Hound" would be a glorious job title.
Yet, some folks barely want to admit that slavery was even a factor. They dress it up by saying, "The North was trying to tell the South that it couldn't run its economy how it wanted." And that would sound pretty good if the North was trying to tear down your low-emission, green factories that run on hydrogen and love. But no, the lynchpin of your economy was INVOLUNTARY HUMAN LABOR, so it had to come down at some point, even if the slaves were horrible genetic mistakes, like German people. And if you didn't have the foresight to prepare for the end of that sweetheart deal after 400 years, then you deserve losing everything. With financial preparation like that, I can only imagine how they would have handled the Great Depression.
Just be glad that things changed this way instead of at the hands of a group of slaves, tendering their resignation by choking white people with their shackles.
So, why SHOULD we care about any other possible factors? They all sound like justification for continuing slavery to me, and at this point, it's should be pretty obvious to all involved that Black folks thoughts on the matter are pretty much concrete. Not that they really care about what Black people think, because let's face it, these folks are either racists or bigots. Anyone arguing in favor of the South during the Civil War can probably count all the Black people they've met.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why I should even listen to the argument. It ain't like I'm gonna suddenly gonna hang pictures of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis next to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. And it's possible that they were good men, but I don't really care, because in the end, they were fighting to keep my people enslaved. I guess if you wanted me to hear you out, you should have fought a little bit harder when Sherman was burning down Atlanta.
To tell you the truth, I've never read a book about the Civil War in my life. Personally, I was satisfied with what the American Public School System indoctrinated me with. So everyone that calls the war by it's other made-up names, like "The War of Northern Aggression," or "The War of Southern Independence," could be absolutely correct. And I'm not going to try to correct them. Plus, I think it's cute how they try to make themselves the heroes.
Thing is, changing the name of the war doesn't make it NOT a civil war. "The North vs. the South" is the definition of a Civil War. And it's not like anyone recognized your secession. You couldn't even come up with an original name. "Confederate States of America" sounds like a less-desirous knock off, like "Velvet Revolver" compared to "Guns N' Roses."
So what if you change the name or say the war was about something else? All of the people fighting for the South were still slaveowners, so no one gives a shit about their other problems. That's like saying the Nazis were killing the Jews because of high-interest loans AND because they were Jewish. Like other people who were crippled by finance charges are going to suddenly start defending the Nazis.
See, the slavery part is all we care about, mostly because it was a fucked up part of our past. Who really cares about states' rights, anyway? The only people who care about states' rights are the people who really want to do something crazy, but the Federal Government won't let them. It's not like the government is keeping them from doing something positive, like rescuing orphans from fire-breathing dragons. They're mad because the Feds are keeping them from doing something like bringing back slavery in some states, where "Nigger Hound" would be a glorious job title.
Yet, some folks barely want to admit that slavery was even a factor. They dress it up by saying, "The North was trying to tell the South that it couldn't run its economy how it wanted." And that would sound pretty good if the North was trying to tear down your low-emission, green factories that run on hydrogen and love. But no, the lynchpin of your economy was INVOLUNTARY HUMAN LABOR, so it had to come down at some point, even if the slaves were horrible genetic mistakes, like German people. And if you didn't have the foresight to prepare for the end of that sweetheart deal after 400 years, then you deserve losing everything. With financial preparation like that, I can only imagine how they would have handled the Great Depression.
Just be glad that things changed this way instead of at the hands of a group of slaves, tendering their resignation by choking white people with their shackles.
So, why SHOULD we care about any other possible factors? They all sound like justification for continuing slavery to me, and at this point, it's should be pretty obvious to all involved that Black folks thoughts on the matter are pretty much concrete. Not that they really care about what Black people think, because let's face it, these folks are either racists or bigots. Anyone arguing in favor of the South during the Civil War can probably count all the Black people they've met.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why I should even listen to the argument. It ain't like I'm gonna suddenly gonna hang pictures of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis next to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. And it's possible that they were good men, but I don't really care, because in the end, they were fighting to keep my people enslaved. I guess if you wanted me to hear you out, you should have fought a little bit harder when Sherman was burning down Atlanta.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Don't ruin the dunk contest, LeBron
The word is that LeBron James is going to enter this year's dunk contest. Well, allow me to be the first to ask LeBron to sit his ass in the stands.
See, everyone automatically assumes that LeBron is gonna light it up. That we're going to see the second coming of Vince "Dr. J" Jordan. Legendary performances, fireworks, backflips and shit. And I just don't see it happening. Now, if it was some other player, it probably wouldn't matter. But it's LEBRON JAMES. The most famous athlete in the world today. That's only gonna raise expectations that I'm not sure LeBron can fulfill unless he can dunk while still sitting his throne.
Physically speaking, yeah, he's capable of doing probably every dunk you can think up. But he hasn't really demonstrated that ability in games.
Look, there are dunkers and then, there are guys who can dunk. Larry Bird could dunk, but he was too busy dominating the Three-Point Shootout. Tim Duncan can dunk. Hell, it's in his name.
But dunkers think about dunking from the time they cross the half-court line. They are always trying to put themselves in position to dunk. And if someone's in front of them, they're trying to go over the hapless soul who thought that blocking this shot was a good idea. A dunker is the kind of person who wants the defender to be in his highlight reel. Vince Carter was a dunker. Kobe Bryant was a dunker. These are the kinda guys who give you a taste of what you'll see All-Star Weekend...by cramming the ball down someone's throat.
LeBron James just isn't that guy. Most times, if he's going towards the basket, he's likely to avoid contact in the air and lay the ball in. He rarely, if ever, dunks on anyone. And his dunks are all generally the same.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that, because let's face it: Dunk contests don't get you into the Hall of Fame. Dunk contests don't even get you respect. If that were the case, there would be a statue of Harold Miner somewhere. And it's not like there's a process to get in. Doug Christie has been in the dunk contest. Jamie Watson has been in the dunk contest. They're not exactly critical about this sort of thing. And when it comes to things that matter, like titles, LeBron James is likely to get his share. In the end, this really isn't a big deal.
But if you're going to be in the dunk contest, you should be showing us glimpses all along. J.R. Rider told us on Draft Night that he would win the contest, then dunked on Hakeem Olajuwon at the start of the following season. They resurrected the contest for Vince Carter, because his highlight reel was that spectacular. Guys like Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, and Shawn Kemp did their dunk contest dunks in games. In the lane. Going baseline. On fast breaks.
But none of that is to say that LeBron CAN'T do something spectacular. I don't think anyone saw Dwight Howard's performance in 2008 coming. All of that creativity was hiding in there. Who knew? I certainly didn't. I was thinking we were gonna have a Larry Nance sighting. But he showed his ass. LeBron might have some creativity hiding in there that he just hasn't shown us.
But why put yourself through all that, LeBron? After all, the dunk contest has historically been used to establish players. Michael did it for three of his first four years, back when dunk contests still meant something. I believe the only reason he did it in 1988 was because it was in Chicago. Kobe and Vince both got in once, then didn't even bother defending their titles. The last Hall of Famer to even participate was Dominique Wilkins when he won in 1990. Since then, the only potential Hall of Famers to participate since were Kobe Bryant (1997), Ray Allen (1997), Vince Carter (2000), and possibly Dwight Howard (2007-2009). Most of the guys who show up these days aren't even the leading scorers on their teams. I don't even think Gerald Green (2007, 2008) was a starter.
You don't need the stress, LeBron. You're already established. If you were going to do it, your rookie year would have been the time. You and Dwyane Wade could have brought the house down instead of Fred Jones (2004). Is he even in the league anymore? Who he play for?
Just watch it like the rest of us instead of artificially inflating the importance by BEING LEBRON JAMES. Especially when there's a good chance you can't live up to the hype.
See, everyone automatically assumes that LeBron is gonna light it up. That we're going to see the second coming of Vince "Dr. J" Jordan. Legendary performances, fireworks, backflips and shit. And I just don't see it happening. Now, if it was some other player, it probably wouldn't matter. But it's LEBRON JAMES. The most famous athlete in the world today. That's only gonna raise expectations that I'm not sure LeBron can fulfill unless he can dunk while still sitting his throne.
Physically speaking, yeah, he's capable of doing probably every dunk you can think up. But he hasn't really demonstrated that ability in games.
Look, there are dunkers and then, there are guys who can dunk. Larry Bird could dunk, but he was too busy dominating the Three-Point Shootout. Tim Duncan can dunk. Hell, it's in his name.
But dunkers think about dunking from the time they cross the half-court line. They are always trying to put themselves in position to dunk. And if someone's in front of them, they're trying to go over the hapless soul who thought that blocking this shot was a good idea. A dunker is the kind of person who wants the defender to be in his highlight reel. Vince Carter was a dunker. Kobe Bryant was a dunker. These are the kinda guys who give you a taste of what you'll see All-Star Weekend...by cramming the ball down someone's throat.
LeBron James just isn't that guy. Most times, if he's going towards the basket, he's likely to avoid contact in the air and lay the ball in. He rarely, if ever, dunks on anyone. And his dunks are all generally the same.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that, because let's face it: Dunk contests don't get you into the Hall of Fame. Dunk contests don't even get you respect. If that were the case, there would be a statue of Harold Miner somewhere. And it's not like there's a process to get in. Doug Christie has been in the dunk contest. Jamie Watson has been in the dunk contest. They're not exactly critical about this sort of thing. And when it comes to things that matter, like titles, LeBron James is likely to get his share. In the end, this really isn't a big deal.
But if you're going to be in the dunk contest, you should be showing us glimpses all along. J.R. Rider told us on Draft Night that he would win the contest, then dunked on Hakeem Olajuwon at the start of the following season. They resurrected the contest for Vince Carter, because his highlight reel was that spectacular. Guys like Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, and Shawn Kemp did their dunk contest dunks in games. In the lane. Going baseline. On fast breaks.
But none of that is to say that LeBron CAN'T do something spectacular. I don't think anyone saw Dwight Howard's performance in 2008 coming. All of that creativity was hiding in there. Who knew? I certainly didn't. I was thinking we were gonna have a Larry Nance sighting. But he showed his ass. LeBron might have some creativity hiding in there that he just hasn't shown us.
But why put yourself through all that, LeBron? After all, the dunk contest has historically been used to establish players. Michael did it for three of his first four years, back when dunk contests still meant something. I believe the only reason he did it in 1988 was because it was in Chicago. Kobe and Vince both got in once, then didn't even bother defending their titles. The last Hall of Famer to even participate was Dominique Wilkins when he won in 1990. Since then, the only potential Hall of Famers to participate since were Kobe Bryant (1997), Ray Allen (1997), Vince Carter (2000), and possibly Dwight Howard (2007-2009). Most of the guys who show up these days aren't even the leading scorers on their teams. I don't even think Gerald Green (2007, 2008) was a starter.
You don't need the stress, LeBron. You're already established. If you were going to do it, your rookie year would have been the time. You and Dwyane Wade could have brought the house down instead of Fred Jones (2004). Is he even in the league anymore? Who he play for?
Just watch it like the rest of us instead of artificially inflating the importance by BEING LEBRON JAMES. Especially when there's a good chance you can't live up to the hype.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Spitting in the eye of the Apocalypse
You'd think I would have become more afraid the closer we got to 2012, but that hasn't happened.
In 2004, I read a book called "Fingerprints of the Gods," handed me my first concrete prediction of the end of the world. Until I read that book, I thought end of the world predictions were bullshit; they were vague and hazy at best, predicting any period of time that could be made to fit the clues. And Y2K was still fresh in my mind, when I watched people less intelligent than I am clear store shelves of duct tape, batteries and bottled water. I don't know what that stuff is supposed to prevent from happening, but it's a universal sales item during all potential disasters.
So when my eyes traveled across the date "Dec. 12, 2012," I was scared to the bone. I didn't even sleep that night. I thought to myself, "It must be true. They gave an exact date. And look at all this professional-sounding evidence." It took me a week to move past knowing when the world would end. I didn't know what to do. Should I inform people? Is the government preparing for this?
But over the years, after doing more reading on the subject, it dawned on me: No one knows what the hell is going to happen. One night in the library, I read no less than 25 separate theories on what's supposed to happen on that date. Yeah, we don't have a clue.
And even if we did, what can we actually do about it? Seriously, think about it. It's not like we can send Bill Pullman and a ragtag group of snowboarders on a race against time to save us ("Wicked Heroes!"). And since it's still a Herculean effort to get 10 people to the fucking moon, our chances of evacuating the earth or loading up arks are pretty slim. So if the world IS going to end, there's NOTHING we can do to stop it. If the world IS going to end, then we are all going to die. Violently and painfully.
No more Super Bowls. No more Pixar movies. Jay Leno will FINALLY get off the air. Looking at it like that is actually pretty liberating.
So, really...why even bother discussing it? The people in movies like this ("2012," "Deep Impact") always try to keep this stuff a secret, because they know how ya'll are. Panicking, randomly killing people, mass hysteria, or as Billy Bob Thornton said in "Armageddon," "Basically, the worst parts of the Bible." You people really don't know how to act during times of crisis.
When I was in college in Jackson, MS, one day, the news said that an really bad ice storm would be coming through the area. The entire city of Jackson shut down for three days. And the storm never came. Three days over rumors of fucking ice. Even if the government knew we were all gonna die, they shouldn't tell anyone. Why should the general public be entrusted with news of their own potential extinction? That's exponentially worse news than ICE. You're not going to handle it well.
But nothing's gonna happen. Or maybe it's all 100% true. I really don't know. Why waste time worrying, though?
Think about it: The scale of apocalyptic events predicted is GLOBAL. GLOBAL EARTHQUAKES. GLOBAL FLOODING. POLE REVERSAL. CONTINENTAL SHIFTING. SUPER-VOLCANOES. INVISIBLE PLANETS HITTING THE EARTH. No amount of preparation will be able to save you from that. I don't care how many rolls of duct tape you buy.
And there will no about be people doing stupid shit all year, because they believe there won't be any consequences. The amount of dumb shit that's likely to happen in 2012 could cause a resurgence of the newspaper industry. Every day, there will be a story of a guy who drove his car off of a parking deck or someone lighting themselves on fire in the middle of the street. And we won't even have to go to Iraq to see this. You telling me you want to miss that by hiding out in your Apocalypse-proof bunker? Trust me, you want to be there on Dec 13. 2012, when your buddy tells you he "banged the hot chick with AIDS" because he thought he was going to die. That story's gonna be really funny over a beer.
So just stop it. Stop it and just go have a beer with your friends. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
In 2004, I read a book called "Fingerprints of the Gods," handed me my first concrete prediction of the end of the world. Until I read that book, I thought end of the world predictions were bullshit; they were vague and hazy at best, predicting any period of time that could be made to fit the clues. And Y2K was still fresh in my mind, when I watched people less intelligent than I am clear store shelves of duct tape, batteries and bottled water. I don't know what that stuff is supposed to prevent from happening, but it's a universal sales item during all potential disasters.
So when my eyes traveled across the date "Dec. 12, 2012," I was scared to the bone. I didn't even sleep that night. I thought to myself, "It must be true. They gave an exact date. And look at all this professional-sounding evidence." It took me a week to move past knowing when the world would end. I didn't know what to do. Should I inform people? Is the government preparing for this?
But over the years, after doing more reading on the subject, it dawned on me: No one knows what the hell is going to happen. One night in the library, I read no less than 25 separate theories on what's supposed to happen on that date. Yeah, we don't have a clue.
And even if we did, what can we actually do about it? Seriously, think about it. It's not like we can send Bill Pullman and a ragtag group of snowboarders on a race against time to save us ("Wicked Heroes!"). And since it's still a Herculean effort to get 10 people to the fucking moon, our chances of evacuating the earth or loading up arks are pretty slim. So if the world IS going to end, there's NOTHING we can do to stop it. If the world IS going to end, then we are all going to die. Violently and painfully.
No more Super Bowls. No more Pixar movies. Jay Leno will FINALLY get off the air. Looking at it like that is actually pretty liberating.
So, really...why even bother discussing it? The people in movies like this ("2012," "Deep Impact") always try to keep this stuff a secret, because they know how ya'll are. Panicking, randomly killing people, mass hysteria, or as Billy Bob Thornton said in "Armageddon," "Basically, the worst parts of the Bible." You people really don't know how to act during times of crisis.
When I was in college in Jackson, MS, one day, the news said that an really bad ice storm would be coming through the area. The entire city of Jackson shut down for three days. And the storm never came. Three days over rumors of fucking ice. Even if the government knew we were all gonna die, they shouldn't tell anyone. Why should the general public be entrusted with news of their own potential extinction? That's exponentially worse news than ICE. You're not going to handle it well.
But nothing's gonna happen. Or maybe it's all 100% true. I really don't know. Why waste time worrying, though?
Think about it: The scale of apocalyptic events predicted is GLOBAL. GLOBAL EARTHQUAKES. GLOBAL FLOODING. POLE REVERSAL. CONTINENTAL SHIFTING. SUPER-VOLCANOES. INVISIBLE PLANETS HITTING THE EARTH. No amount of preparation will be able to save you from that. I don't care how many rolls of duct tape you buy.
And there will no about be people doing stupid shit all year, because they believe there won't be any consequences. The amount of dumb shit that's likely to happen in 2012 could cause a resurgence of the newspaper industry. Every day, there will be a story of a guy who drove his car off of a parking deck or someone lighting themselves on fire in the middle of the street. And we won't even have to go to Iraq to see this. You telling me you want to miss that by hiding out in your Apocalypse-proof bunker? Trust me, you want to be there on Dec 13. 2012, when your buddy tells you he "banged the hot chick with AIDS" because he thought he was going to die. That story's gonna be really funny over a beer.
So just stop it. Stop it and just go have a beer with your friends. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Gospel According to Thad Ochocinco 11/20/09
Sometimes, I have thoughts on things that I can't or don't want to stretch into a full length blog post. So because I don't have Twitter, those thoughts will wind up here. Just random observations about the world at large.
What do I think about...
...holding the 9/11 trials in New York? "Like there's any chance of KSM getting off or screaming any political statements. Please. They know going in what's about to go down. This will be a show trial and those men will be made into examples of how not to attack the United States."
...Oxford Dictionary making "unfriend" its Word of the Year? "I don't think putting made up words into the dictionary is going to increase circulation. How often do people buy dictionaries?"
...Allen Iverson getting waived by the Grizzlies? "Oh, so Mike Conley and OJ Mayo were better options than Allen Iverson? Please. But don't let him stand in the way of Memphis getting back to losing in front of the arena staff."
...Allen Iverson not getting signed by the Knicks? "Yeah, getting blown out night after night is doing wonders for your young players' self-esteem."
...Ravens/Browns as the Monday Night game? "Just in case you were watching too much entertaining football..."
...the Tila Tequila uStream meltdown? "I don't know why she didn't just leave it up. It's not like we're looking at Tila Tequila as a model of respectability. What, does she think she has something left to hide after "A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila?"
...Eric Mangini? "How is it that he's a bad coach now when three years ago, he was 'Mangenius?'"
...the Carrie Prejean sextapes? "It's your only hope of staying in the public eye. Like anyone gives a shit about your book. The only respected pageant winner EVER was Vanessa Williams and we'd all be lying if we said we remembered anything she ever said about anything."
...the Klan's rally at Ole Miss on Saturday? "These are people bitching about others 'attacking their way of life,' which consists solely of attacking others way of life. Like I need another reason to say 'fuck you' to the Klan."
...the reviews for "New Moon?" "It's a movie based on a book by an author so bad, she's doing her college a disservice by admitting that she went there. I hope you weren't expecting high art."
..."New Moon's" record-setting midnight box office? "Never underestimate the power of teenage girls in large groups. Oh, and inflation. Can't forget that."
...Sarah Palin's book? "So I'm supposed to believe that a person who admittedly doesn't read and has tried to ban books from the library when she was still mayor of Wasilla has actually written a book? With substance in it? I'll never believe that. She couldn't even fend off Katie Couric."
...the Swine Flu? "Maybe it'll be dangerous next year. This year, the 4,000 deaths from swine flu are a 1/9th of the total number of deaths from real flu. Calm the fuck down."
...the kids on the burning bus in New York? "Look, I'm glad they're okay, but you have to admit, it sounded like a headline that would include Spider-Man in some way. '35 Kids Rescued From Burning Bus on Verrazano Bridge.' I was looking for a 'Daily Bugle' logo above it."
What do I think about...
...holding the 9/11 trials in New York? "Like there's any chance of KSM getting off or screaming any political statements. Please. They know going in what's about to go down. This will be a show trial and those men will be made into examples of how not to attack the United States."
...Oxford Dictionary making "unfriend" its Word of the Year? "I don't think putting made up words into the dictionary is going to increase circulation. How often do people buy dictionaries?"
...Allen Iverson getting waived by the Grizzlies? "Oh, so Mike Conley and OJ Mayo were better options than Allen Iverson? Please. But don't let him stand in the way of Memphis getting back to losing in front of the arena staff."
...Allen Iverson not getting signed by the Knicks? "Yeah, getting blown out night after night is doing wonders for your young players' self-esteem."
...Ravens/Browns as the Monday Night game? "Just in case you were watching too much entertaining football..."
...the Tila Tequila uStream meltdown? "I don't know why she didn't just leave it up. It's not like we're looking at Tila Tequila as a model of respectability. What, does she think she has something left to hide after "A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila?"
...Eric Mangini? "How is it that he's a bad coach now when three years ago, he was 'Mangenius?'"
...the Carrie Prejean sextapes? "It's your only hope of staying in the public eye. Like anyone gives a shit about your book. The only respected pageant winner EVER was Vanessa Williams and we'd all be lying if we said we remembered anything she ever said about anything."
...the Klan's rally at Ole Miss on Saturday? "These are people bitching about others 'attacking their way of life,' which consists solely of attacking others way of life. Like I need another reason to say 'fuck you' to the Klan."
...the reviews for "New Moon?" "It's a movie based on a book by an author so bad, she's doing her college a disservice by admitting that she went there. I hope you weren't expecting high art."
..."New Moon's" record-setting midnight box office? "Never underestimate the power of teenage girls in large groups. Oh, and inflation. Can't forget that."
...Sarah Palin's book? "So I'm supposed to believe that a person who admittedly doesn't read and has tried to ban books from the library when she was still mayor of Wasilla has actually written a book? With substance in it? I'll never believe that. She couldn't even fend off Katie Couric."
...the Swine Flu? "Maybe it'll be dangerous next year. This year, the 4,000 deaths from swine flu are a 1/9th of the total number of deaths from real flu. Calm the fuck down."
...the kids on the burning bus in New York? "Look, I'm glad they're okay, but you have to admit, it sounded like a headline that would include Spider-Man in some way. '35 Kids Rescued From Burning Bus on Verrazano Bridge.' I was looking for a 'Daily Bugle' logo above it."
The Gospel According to Thad Ochocinco: Mostly NBA Edition
Sometimes, I have thoughts on things that I can't or don't want to stretch into a full length blog post. So because I don't have Twitter, those thoughts will wind up here.
What do I think about...
...Byron Scott's firing? "I'd be lying if I said I was on top of what's going on with the New Orleans Hornets, but I guess it can't hurt to fire your coach instead of getting a reliable shooting guard and frontcourt help for your team. Anything's possible."
...LeBron's promise not to talk about free-agency? "I understand that you're used to people doing whatever you say, but reporters are a different breed. They have no problem with making you angry OR being ignored."
...Stephen Jackson? "You're not portrayed as a "bad guy," you ARE one. Like the media needed to work at ruining your image. It's pretty easy to figure out when someone's sabotaging their own team. So congrats on speeding the trade process along, Stack Jack. I bet teams are lining up to get you on their team."
...Antoine Walker's gambling debts? "I guess $110 million dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to."
...LeBron and D-Wade playing together? "Whoever signs them should be able to afford as many as two other players to fill out the roster, before resorting to D-League players for the entire season."
....The NFL's $20,000 fine of Chad Ochocinco? "He got fined $20,000 for holding a dollar that wasn't even his. The NFL is about as humorless as Michael Wilbon. That shit was funny."
...Ron Artest's chances of flipping out this season? "If it does happen, look for it to happen against the Denver Nuggets. Two teams that don't like each other, one of which is really physical and they have Kenyon Martin? It's like God wants to see a repeat of what happened in Detroit."
...Shaq playing for the Cavaliers? "I said in June that it wasn't smart to saddle a team that's DYING to run with another big, slow center. That was before the trade even happened. I also said that bringing back Ricky Davis would have been smarter, before comparing them to an guy dating a girl out of his league. I stand by my words."
...the Yankees winning the World Series? "At least for one year, that joke about the eight year old kid in New York who's never seen a Yankees' championship will stop."
...the Denver Nuggets? "I just think it's funny how everyone completely wrote them off as title contenders this season, even though they gave the Lakers their toughest test in last year's playoffs."
...a possible Saints/Vikings NFC Championship game? "The Saints better hope that Adrian Peterson dies before kick-off, because the gash he's gonna run through their defense will leave porn stars in awe."
...UFC 106? "I thought Brock Lesnar had mono. Shouldn't they have stopped promoting that fight weeks ago?"
...the NBA's rule that players on the bench must stay seated? "Everyone knows that the people who sit courtside are there for the photo op. Like I'm supposed to believe that "Random Starlet No. 34" cares about seeing the game."
...the start of the NBA season? "We're nine games in and I've already seen three of the nastiest dunks I've ever seen in my life."
...the Patriots loss to the Colts? "I'm pretty sure ESPN is lobbying Congress to make all criticism of Bill Belichick illegal."
...the Atlanta Falcons? "They're like the Elixir of Life for dead offenses. Your team having problems with their timing? The Falcons will fix it...the experience of live game speed, without the size of fully grown defensive backs."
...the Oklahoma City Thunder? "Who? I don't recognize that name or city. You better call them by their real name."
...the Chiefs win over the Raiders? "Beating the Raiders shouldn't even count as a full win. They should only get like, half a win for that. It's like beating someone at 'Madden,' but they're not actually holding the controller, because you locked them outside and they can only scream the controls through the glass."
What do I think about...
...Byron Scott's firing? "I'd be lying if I said I was on top of what's going on with the New Orleans Hornets, but I guess it can't hurt to fire your coach instead of getting a reliable shooting guard and frontcourt help for your team. Anything's possible."
...LeBron's promise not to talk about free-agency? "I understand that you're used to people doing whatever you say, but reporters are a different breed. They have no problem with making you angry OR being ignored."
...Stephen Jackson? "You're not portrayed as a "bad guy," you ARE one. Like the media needed to work at ruining your image. It's pretty easy to figure out when someone's sabotaging their own team. So congrats on speeding the trade process along, Stack Jack. I bet teams are lining up to get you on their team."
...Antoine Walker's gambling debts? "I guess $110 million dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to."
...LeBron and D-Wade playing together? "Whoever signs them should be able to afford as many as two other players to fill out the roster, before resorting to D-League players for the entire season."
....The NFL's $20,000 fine of Chad Ochocinco? "He got fined $20,000 for holding a dollar that wasn't even his. The NFL is about as humorless as Michael Wilbon. That shit was funny."
...Ron Artest's chances of flipping out this season? "If it does happen, look for it to happen against the Denver Nuggets. Two teams that don't like each other, one of which is really physical and they have Kenyon Martin? It's like God wants to see a repeat of what happened in Detroit."
...Shaq playing for the Cavaliers? "I said in June that it wasn't smart to saddle a team that's DYING to run with another big, slow center. That was before the trade even happened. I also said that bringing back Ricky Davis would have been smarter, before comparing them to an guy dating a girl out of his league. I stand by my words."
...the Yankees winning the World Series? "At least for one year, that joke about the eight year old kid in New York who's never seen a Yankees' championship will stop."
...the Denver Nuggets? "I just think it's funny how everyone completely wrote them off as title contenders this season, even though they gave the Lakers their toughest test in last year's playoffs."
...a possible Saints/Vikings NFC Championship game? "The Saints better hope that Adrian Peterson dies before kick-off, because the gash he's gonna run through their defense will leave porn stars in awe."
...UFC 106? "I thought Brock Lesnar had mono. Shouldn't they have stopped promoting that fight weeks ago?"
...the NBA's rule that players on the bench must stay seated? "Everyone knows that the people who sit courtside are there for the photo op. Like I'm supposed to believe that "Random Starlet No. 34" cares about seeing the game."
...the start of the NBA season? "We're nine games in and I've already seen three of the nastiest dunks I've ever seen in my life."
...the Patriots loss to the Colts? "I'm pretty sure ESPN is lobbying Congress to make all criticism of Bill Belichick illegal."
...the Atlanta Falcons? "They're like the Elixir of Life for dead offenses. Your team having problems with their timing? The Falcons will fix it...the experience of live game speed, without the size of fully grown defensive backs."
...the Oklahoma City Thunder? "Who? I don't recognize that name or city. You better call them by their real name."
...the Chiefs win over the Raiders? "Beating the Raiders shouldn't even count as a full win. They should only get like, half a win for that. It's like beating someone at 'Madden,' but they're not actually holding the controller, because you locked them outside and they can only scream the controls through the glass."
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Un-Reality of Activist Expectations
There comes a time when activists should just back up and take the "L" on some things.
I get that they want to save the whales, birds, trees, puppies, harp seals, each and every person (except for corporate CEOs and Arab warlords, because they're of Satan), and the earth itself. I commend their efforts. Someone's gotta do it, and I can't, because I've got way too much football to watch right now.
But some things just can't be done like they want. Everyone isn't willing to give up their fur, so throwing paint on it is just going to get your ass kicked. Everyone isn't going to buy a Prius or start recycling overnight, and trying to force it on people is going to make them react in one of two ways: Resentment or riotous laughter. Because let's face it, no one ever feels intimidated by the kind of people they see at environmental rallies.
So don't get butthurt because our President isn't willing to walk into China and start demanding that they start their people on a hugging regimen. We're not in the war-mongering mood these days and that kind of attitude is usually followed by slapping someone across the face. With missles.
See, just because we're America, it doesn't mean that we can just get up in anyone's shit and tell them what to do inside their own borders. If that strategy worked so well, someone would have tried it on us back in the 1960s. Or maybe they'd have convinced us not to wage war on a third world country.
Politically speaking, we can't dictate to too many folks right now, especially when they have something we want or need. Like good credit. So what can we really say to China? "Stop kicking your people's asses or we'll run up our national debt with someone else?" If the Chinese really cared what we thought, they'd stop putting lead and ebola in all the foods that they sell to us.
It's not that I think China's human rights violations are okay, because I don't. Yeah, it's messed up that people are rounded up like cattle for the crime of disagreeing, then held in secret prisons every time someone important comes to visit. It really is. It's also messed up that they believe that we can't figure out how this game works. That shows how stupid they think we are. They think we're like fucking babies: If we put the keys behind our backs, they don't exist anymore, even if we can still hear their screams of pain and anguish.
But let's be realistic about our powers of influence: We can't even stop Israel from shooting people armed with rocks, and we actually give them money. Based on that level of control, if we start preaching to China (and by now, they own 17 states), they'll probably have us invading Taiwan by the weekend.
And that's with almost no relationship with China, outside of money changing hands. How often do you listen to the Homeowners' Association President when she tells you that you can't paint your house lavender pink or replace your front lawn with weed plants? You don't know this chick (because it's always a woman) and if you cared what she thought about anything, you would have worn pants when you came to the door. Yet, China's supposed to take a tongue-lashing from us? That's the part where they say, "Yeah, but you elected Bush twice."
Our government just doesn't have the kind of pull that activists think it does. Not with a country that powerful. And they're not even fully aware of their power yet. They're still at a stage where they're pretending to be humble, like when you were still learning to play "Street Fighter." Yeah, you can beat your friends, because you can luck up and bust out the Dragon Punch from time to time, but you're not good enough to do it at will yet, so you're gonna keep your fucking mouth shut when Tony Pham comes into the arcade.
We're just not that swinging dick these days, and it's funny, because I always thought it was economic pressure that got South Africa to end apartheid, anyway. South Africa would have laughed at the US Government if they had come at them all high and mighty in the early 90s. "What, you started playing rap on MTV and now you think you can talk shit us? Aren't your kaffirs rioting right now?"
Economic pressure is they key, because money is what they want. They're perfectly okay with letting us think we're still the only superpower in the world, and at the rate we're going, once they buy us completely, we'll still be able to say that.
But if you want to do something, stop buying Chinese goods. You shouldn't be putting a biohazard in your mouth, anyway. Just because they're all over the place doesn't mean you have to buy them. Why not keep pressuring companies that run Chinese sweat shops? That one kills two birds with one stone, and since both of them probably had bird flu, that's actually THREE birds.
Being critical of OUR government for not stamping out the scourge of human rights abuses isn't gonna solve anything, because it's outside the realm of their powers. All the government is really good at is invading shit, not changing hearts and minds. That's why they arm our military with guns instead of the Care Bears.
I get that they want to save the whales, birds, trees, puppies, harp seals, each and every person (except for corporate CEOs and Arab warlords, because they're of Satan), and the earth itself. I commend their efforts. Someone's gotta do it, and I can't, because I've got way too much football to watch right now.
But some things just can't be done like they want. Everyone isn't willing to give up their fur, so throwing paint on it is just going to get your ass kicked. Everyone isn't going to buy a Prius or start recycling overnight, and trying to force it on people is going to make them react in one of two ways: Resentment or riotous laughter. Because let's face it, no one ever feels intimidated by the kind of people they see at environmental rallies.
So don't get butthurt because our President isn't willing to walk into China and start demanding that they start their people on a hugging regimen. We're not in the war-mongering mood these days and that kind of attitude is usually followed by slapping someone across the face. With missles.
See, just because we're America, it doesn't mean that we can just get up in anyone's shit and tell them what to do inside their own borders. If that strategy worked so well, someone would have tried it on us back in the 1960s. Or maybe they'd have convinced us not to wage war on a third world country.
Politically speaking, we can't dictate to too many folks right now, especially when they have something we want or need. Like good credit. So what can we really say to China? "Stop kicking your people's asses or we'll run up our national debt with someone else?" If the Chinese really cared what we thought, they'd stop putting lead and ebola in all the foods that they sell to us.
It's not that I think China's human rights violations are okay, because I don't. Yeah, it's messed up that people are rounded up like cattle for the crime of disagreeing, then held in secret prisons every time someone important comes to visit. It really is. It's also messed up that they believe that we can't figure out how this game works. That shows how stupid they think we are. They think we're like fucking babies: If we put the keys behind our backs, they don't exist anymore, even if we can still hear their screams of pain and anguish.
But let's be realistic about our powers of influence: We can't even stop Israel from shooting people armed with rocks, and we actually give them money. Based on that level of control, if we start preaching to China (and by now, they own 17 states), they'll probably have us invading Taiwan by the weekend.
And that's with almost no relationship with China, outside of money changing hands. How often do you listen to the Homeowners' Association President when she tells you that you can't paint your house lavender pink or replace your front lawn with weed plants? You don't know this chick (because it's always a woman) and if you cared what she thought about anything, you would have worn pants when you came to the door. Yet, China's supposed to take a tongue-lashing from us? That's the part where they say, "Yeah, but you elected Bush twice."
Our government just doesn't have the kind of pull that activists think it does. Not with a country that powerful. And they're not even fully aware of their power yet. They're still at a stage where they're pretending to be humble, like when you were still learning to play "Street Fighter." Yeah, you can beat your friends, because you can luck up and bust out the Dragon Punch from time to time, but you're not good enough to do it at will yet, so you're gonna keep your fucking mouth shut when Tony Pham comes into the arcade.
We're just not that swinging dick these days, and it's funny, because I always thought it was economic pressure that got South Africa to end apartheid, anyway. South Africa would have laughed at the US Government if they had come at them all high and mighty in the early 90s. "What, you started playing rap on MTV and now you think you can talk shit us? Aren't your kaffirs rioting right now?"
Economic pressure is they key, because money is what they want. They're perfectly okay with letting us think we're still the only superpower in the world, and at the rate we're going, once they buy us completely, we'll still be able to say that.
But if you want to do something, stop buying Chinese goods. You shouldn't be putting a biohazard in your mouth, anyway. Just because they're all over the place doesn't mean you have to buy them. Why not keep pressuring companies that run Chinese sweat shops? That one kills two birds with one stone, and since both of them probably had bird flu, that's actually THREE birds.
Being critical of OUR government for not stamping out the scourge of human rights abuses isn't gonna solve anything, because it's outside the realm of their powers. All the government is really good at is invading shit, not changing hearts and minds. That's why they arm our military with guns instead of the Care Bears.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Sexism in politics? Yeah, but...not this time.
According to the most important of sources, the political cartoonist, the most hated politicians today are women, and because people aren't imaginative at all in 2009, of course people had to ask if sexism was involved in that.
The four women listed were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin.
Now I'm not gonna say that sexism doesn't exist in politics. Let's be real: Politics has historically been a closed-door club run by rich white men. Claiming that politics is sexism free would be giving these men entirely too much credit. The political arena is about as sexism-free as it is racism-free.
But when you're looking to hand down charges of sexism, can't you come up with better examples than these four? It's like using Glenn Beck as your reason for why we should listen to conspiracy theories.
Yeah, women are always judged on a different standard than men. During the election cycle, Hillary's hair and clothes were commented on, like we were preparing for the swimsuit competition. And being men, we don't like for our women to come off as combative or challenging to our manhood. Is that sexist? A little bit. Having politicians doubling as sex kittens never works, or else we would have seen the John Edwards/Stormy Daniels ticket in 04.
But to claim that sexism is the reason why people don't like these women is like claiming that we don't like Rush Limbaugh because he's addicted to pain pills. No, my friend, Rush gives us all the ammunition we need to hate him on his own merits.
Look, Sarah Palin is an idiot. For all of that talk about her "energizing the party," it doesn't change the fact that Katie Couric tripped her up by asking her what newspapers she read. I don't care what she does for the rest of her life, she'll always be "that lady" to me. Sure, it's an old story, but no one can put a positive spin on that one. And the idea that she came as close as she did to being Vice-President is horrifying.
Michele Bachmann only gets in the news for saying something insane. I don't have to give examples. Just Google her. She has never made headlines for making sense.
As far as Pelosi and Clinton go, I've just never liked the look of either of them. Even when she was still First Lady, Hillary Clinton just seemed shifty to me. Like she was up to something. That has nothing to do with sex, because it's the same reaction I had to George W. Bush when I saw him for the first time, and that reaction turned out to be the correct one. Pelosi comes off like a nag, and no one likes listening to a nag. I've cut off friends for that.
Some might look at that as being sexist. I look at it as hating a perceived quality in a person. While it might be unfair to see Nancy Pelosi as "shrew-like," I also see Dick Cheney as a "soulless demon from the depths." No one ever says that I'm generalizing old white men. They just say, "You know what, you're right."
Better yet, people judge male politicians all the time for cheating on their wives, like that has anything to do with job performance. I'm of the mindset where I expect them to lie about cheating on their wives, because we don't live in a society filled with people who are honest about their infidelities. Some people aren't even honest about condom size, so I'm not gonna hold politicians to some moral standard about this.
The idea that we're even discussing this is a double standard. It's always been said that in politics, people have to develop a thick skin, and in my time paying attention to politics, I haven't heard anything that I'd consider "sexist." I haven't heard anyone telling these women to "get back in the kitchen" or to "know their place," although I won't rule out that Rush Limbaugh probably has.
My point is, aren't we doing women a disservice to constantly come to their defense with these "gender issues" that aren't really there? Is that any different than when people supposedly "play the race card?" Even Sarah Palin said that this is a bad practice that doesn't help women gain acceptance and we all know how much credibility she has.
Then again, there's big money in victimization. Just look at the Republican Party.
The four women listed were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin.
Now I'm not gonna say that sexism doesn't exist in politics. Let's be real: Politics has historically been a closed-door club run by rich white men. Claiming that politics is sexism free would be giving these men entirely too much credit. The political arena is about as sexism-free as it is racism-free.
But when you're looking to hand down charges of sexism, can't you come up with better examples than these four? It's like using Glenn Beck as your reason for why we should listen to conspiracy theories.
Yeah, women are always judged on a different standard than men. During the election cycle, Hillary's hair and clothes were commented on, like we were preparing for the swimsuit competition. And being men, we don't like for our women to come off as combative or challenging to our manhood. Is that sexist? A little bit. Having politicians doubling as sex kittens never works, or else we would have seen the John Edwards/Stormy Daniels ticket in 04.
But to claim that sexism is the reason why people don't like these women is like claiming that we don't like Rush Limbaugh because he's addicted to pain pills. No, my friend, Rush gives us all the ammunition we need to hate him on his own merits.
Look, Sarah Palin is an idiot. For all of that talk about her "energizing the party," it doesn't change the fact that Katie Couric tripped her up by asking her what newspapers she read. I don't care what she does for the rest of her life, she'll always be "that lady" to me. Sure, it's an old story, but no one can put a positive spin on that one. And the idea that she came as close as she did to being Vice-President is horrifying.
Michele Bachmann only gets in the news for saying something insane. I don't have to give examples. Just Google her. She has never made headlines for making sense.
As far as Pelosi and Clinton go, I've just never liked the look of either of them. Even when she was still First Lady, Hillary Clinton just seemed shifty to me. Like she was up to something. That has nothing to do with sex, because it's the same reaction I had to George W. Bush when I saw him for the first time, and that reaction turned out to be the correct one. Pelosi comes off like a nag, and no one likes listening to a nag. I've cut off friends for that.
Some might look at that as being sexist. I look at it as hating a perceived quality in a person. While it might be unfair to see Nancy Pelosi as "shrew-like," I also see Dick Cheney as a "soulless demon from the depths." No one ever says that I'm generalizing old white men. They just say, "You know what, you're right."
Better yet, people judge male politicians all the time for cheating on their wives, like that has anything to do with job performance. I'm of the mindset where I expect them to lie about cheating on their wives, because we don't live in a society filled with people who are honest about their infidelities. Some people aren't even honest about condom size, so I'm not gonna hold politicians to some moral standard about this.
The idea that we're even discussing this is a double standard. It's always been said that in politics, people have to develop a thick skin, and in my time paying attention to politics, I haven't heard anything that I'd consider "sexist." I haven't heard anyone telling these women to "get back in the kitchen" or to "know their place," although I won't rule out that Rush Limbaugh probably has.
My point is, aren't we doing women a disservice to constantly come to their defense with these "gender issues" that aren't really there? Is that any different than when people supposedly "play the race card?" Even Sarah Palin said that this is a bad practice that doesn't help women gain acceptance and we all know how much credibility she has.
Then again, there's big money in victimization. Just look at the Republican Party.
Shouldn't you worry about your own house first, Christians?
Note: This was written before a Muslim decided to shoot up a military base, but I still stand by it. Every Muslim you see isn't crazy and deranged. They don't all want to kill "non-believers."
There's no way in the world any Christian can claim that Islam is a religion of violence. Not while they're still a Christian, anyway.
Sure, if you interpret your God to be bloodthirsty, then yeah, you're gonna go around killing people in his name. But if you believe your God is a peaceful one, then you'll be a peaceful person. That's why every religious-based loon believes the scripture told him that he was doing the right thing.
The Klan uses the exact same Bible as everyone else to justify their hatred of other races. The job of the Christian Science Monitor is to back up the bigotry. So do the Skinheads. The Mormons. Fred Phelps. Even that little storefront minister in Arizona who wants the President to die. And that's without even bringing up historical atrocities, like the Crusades or American slavery.
It's laughable to be a Christian and accuse someone else's religion of being violent.
Yet, that's exactly what happens. Christians call Islam a violent religion all the time, in addition to calling it "false," as if that's going to hurt Islam's recruitment numbers. I don't know what makes a religion "legitimate," because it's not like there's a notary office for religions. If there was a some sort of verification process involved before priests could get their "faith license," then we wouldn't have half of the religions that we have. Like the Scientologists would have made it through.
And I assume that the people who call Islam "violent" don't actually know any Muslims. I do know a few Muslims and not one of them ever called me an "infidel." Not only that, they're 100% less explosive than the people seen on the news. They've never tried to take down a plane I've been on or driven any cars into markets. I don't even think they know the first thing about building a bomb. Like all sane people, they just wanna live their lives and be left the hell alone.
Islam isn't any more or less violent than Christianity is, but like Christianity, there are a group of dangerous and violent Muslims who are bound and determined to be a problem for everyone else. No different than the group of dangerous and violent Christians who kill in the name of God. If one is violent, then the other one is violent.
Christians will quote the Qur'an as proof of it's inherently violent ways, meanwhile ignoring the violent passages in their own book, the Bible. And really, without knowing the Bible inside and out, I can say with confidence that it's probably just as violent. The Old Testament alone is filled with stories of people getting killed by God and his followers. And I'm almost certain that at some point, followers are encouraged to kill non-believers. It's not a stretch, considering that everyone is to be stoned to death for almost every infraction. Christians spread their love through the power of rocks at high velocities.
People always invoke the example of Jesus when it suits them, as if the fact that he was a good man will outshine everything else. Let's be real: Jesus was a nice guy. The rest of the Bible is all messed up.
So Christians, let's not act like your book or your faith are sterling examples of peace that the rest of the world should follow, and you're certainly not in a position to call anyone else out. The Muslims I've met in MY life are all non-judgmental, peace-loving people, but I can't say the same thing about all the Christians I've ever met. Those same people who are always talking about loving God are quick to find a reason to kill someone else. Killing abortion doctors or politicians or Jews or Black people or whoever.
Does the Bible reference "hypocrisy," or better yet, "projection?" I'm just asking.
There's no way in the world any Christian can claim that Islam is a religion of violence. Not while they're still a Christian, anyway.
Sure, if you interpret your God to be bloodthirsty, then yeah, you're gonna go around killing people in his name. But if you believe your God is a peaceful one, then you'll be a peaceful person. That's why every religious-based loon believes the scripture told him that he was doing the right thing.
The Klan uses the exact same Bible as everyone else to justify their hatred of other races. The job of the Christian Science Monitor is to back up the bigotry. So do the Skinheads. The Mormons. Fred Phelps. Even that little storefront minister in Arizona who wants the President to die. And that's without even bringing up historical atrocities, like the Crusades or American slavery.
It's laughable to be a Christian and accuse someone else's religion of being violent.
Yet, that's exactly what happens. Christians call Islam a violent religion all the time, in addition to calling it "false," as if that's going to hurt Islam's recruitment numbers. I don't know what makes a religion "legitimate," because it's not like there's a notary office for religions. If there was a some sort of verification process involved before priests could get their "faith license," then we wouldn't have half of the religions that we have. Like the Scientologists would have made it through.
And I assume that the people who call Islam "violent" don't actually know any Muslims. I do know a few Muslims and not one of them ever called me an "infidel." Not only that, they're 100% less explosive than the people seen on the news. They've never tried to take down a plane I've been on or driven any cars into markets. I don't even think they know the first thing about building a bomb. Like all sane people, they just wanna live their lives and be left the hell alone.
Islam isn't any more or less violent than Christianity is, but like Christianity, there are a group of dangerous and violent Muslims who are bound and determined to be a problem for everyone else. No different than the group of dangerous and violent Christians who kill in the name of God. If one is violent, then the other one is violent.
Christians will quote the Qur'an as proof of it's inherently violent ways, meanwhile ignoring the violent passages in their own book, the Bible. And really, without knowing the Bible inside and out, I can say with confidence that it's probably just as violent. The Old Testament alone is filled with stories of people getting killed by God and his followers. And I'm almost certain that at some point, followers are encouraged to kill non-believers. It's not a stretch, considering that everyone is to be stoned to death for almost every infraction. Christians spread their love through the power of rocks at high velocities.
People always invoke the example of Jesus when it suits them, as if the fact that he was a good man will outshine everything else. Let's be real: Jesus was a nice guy. The rest of the Bible is all messed up.
So Christians, let's not act like your book or your faith are sterling examples of peace that the rest of the world should follow, and you're certainly not in a position to call anyone else out. The Muslims I've met in MY life are all non-judgmental, peace-loving people, but I can't say the same thing about all the Christians I've ever met. Those same people who are always talking about loving God are quick to find a reason to kill someone else. Killing abortion doctors or politicians or Jews or Black people or whoever.
Does the Bible reference "hypocrisy," or better yet, "projection?" I'm just asking.
Friday, November 13, 2009
...only if Bill Russell's number gets retired, too.
Why the fuck should the ENTIRE NBA retire Michael Jordan's number?
Look, I like Michael Jordan probably a little bit more than most. I've spent more money on his merchandise than anything else I've shown an interest in. I saw "Space Jam." If I wasn't so damned lazy, I would have been arrested more than once for stalking, and if he decided to go gay and wanted a piece of me, I probably wouldn't turn him down. Yes, he can have my anal virginity just because he's the GREATEST BASKETBALL PLAYER I'VE EVER SEEN.
And even I think NBA shouldn't retire his number.
Michael Jordan's not some revolutionary, transformative figure. Not for anything that matters, anyway. Yeah, if you work in marketing, he and David Falk probably wrote the book on sports marketing in the modern age. Yeah, if you work at Nike, you owe MJ and MJ alone for continued employment. David Stern, shoe collectors, and let's not forget how we owe baggy shorts and bald heads to Michael Jordan.
But this is a guy who wouldn't even comment on rush hour traffic in Chicago because it was too controversial for his image. The man jumped really high and threw a ball in a hoop real good. He didn't change the fucking world. Other than his dad being murdered and having to deal with Juanita's lawyer, he's never had hardships during his career. He's never rescued anyone from a bear or caught a plane on his back. There are no stories about him getting spit on by racists on his way to the games. And unless I'm forgetting the time he gained acceptance for Earth Creatures in the Congress of Space Monsters, he wasn't breaking any barriers. He didn't open up any lunch counters or blaze any social trails. It's not his fault that he played in the 1980s, but he's not exactly Jackie Robinson.
In my mind, for Jordan to get his number retired everywhere, he needed to do something revolutionary besides driving the price up on sneakers. His number's already retired in two cities, one of which he didn't even play for. I'd probably support baseball retiring Fernando Valenzuela's number before I'd support this. A statement like THAT says that HISTORY is not going to allow you to forget this person. "He might not have been the greatest, but he's still a big deal." Jordan is never going to be forgotten, because the NBA's marketing machine won't allow it. And it's not because he's a great guy, it's because he fed his nuts to Patrick Ewing in the playoffs each year.
Besides, who's to say that Russell's 6 (THE FIRST BLACK COACH) or Wilt's 13 isn't worthy of leaguewide retirement? What about Magic's 32 or Bird's 33 (two numbers worn by about 40% of the league)? The NBA might not have been there for Jordan if not for Magic and Bird. Maybe if Jordan had died while he was at the peak of his powers. MAYBE.
LeBron beating the drum on this, because everyone thinks of Michael Jordan when they see 23 (except for the fact that LeBron himself has already worn it for seven years) is decent of him, but of course, that's a new jersey everyone has to go buy. Pretty shrewd idea, and he comes off smelling like a rose because he's giving props to Jordan. Kobe just looked like he wanted to get over on people.
Still, I don't see it happening. If it does, that's cool, too. I don't want anyone to think I'm upset about the prospect. I just think it's a bit much. I thought the NBA was done nuzzling his balls after his Hall of Fame acceptance speech.
Look, I like Michael Jordan probably a little bit more than most. I've spent more money on his merchandise than anything else I've shown an interest in. I saw "Space Jam." If I wasn't so damned lazy, I would have been arrested more than once for stalking, and if he decided to go gay and wanted a piece of me, I probably wouldn't turn him down. Yes, he can have my anal virginity just because he's the GREATEST BASKETBALL PLAYER I'VE EVER SEEN.
And even I think NBA shouldn't retire his number.
Michael Jordan's not some revolutionary, transformative figure. Not for anything that matters, anyway. Yeah, if you work in marketing, he and David Falk probably wrote the book on sports marketing in the modern age. Yeah, if you work at Nike, you owe MJ and MJ alone for continued employment. David Stern, shoe collectors, and let's not forget how we owe baggy shorts and bald heads to Michael Jordan.
But this is a guy who wouldn't even comment on rush hour traffic in Chicago because it was too controversial for his image. The man jumped really high and threw a ball in a hoop real good. He didn't change the fucking world. Other than his dad being murdered and having to deal with Juanita's lawyer, he's never had hardships during his career. He's never rescued anyone from a bear or caught a plane on his back. There are no stories about him getting spit on by racists on his way to the games. And unless I'm forgetting the time he gained acceptance for Earth Creatures in the Congress of Space Monsters, he wasn't breaking any barriers. He didn't open up any lunch counters or blaze any social trails. It's not his fault that he played in the 1980s, but he's not exactly Jackie Robinson.
In my mind, for Jordan to get his number retired everywhere, he needed to do something revolutionary besides driving the price up on sneakers. His number's already retired in two cities, one of which he didn't even play for. I'd probably support baseball retiring Fernando Valenzuela's number before I'd support this. A statement like THAT says that HISTORY is not going to allow you to forget this person. "He might not have been the greatest, but he's still a big deal." Jordan is never going to be forgotten, because the NBA's marketing machine won't allow it. And it's not because he's a great guy, it's because he fed his nuts to Patrick Ewing in the playoffs each year.
Besides, who's to say that Russell's 6 (THE FIRST BLACK COACH) or Wilt's 13 isn't worthy of leaguewide retirement? What about Magic's 32 or Bird's 33 (two numbers worn by about 40% of the league)? The NBA might not have been there for Jordan if not for Magic and Bird. Maybe if Jordan had died while he was at the peak of his powers. MAYBE.
LeBron beating the drum on this, because everyone thinks of Michael Jordan when they see 23 (except for the fact that LeBron himself has already worn it for seven years) is decent of him, but of course, that's a new jersey everyone has to go buy. Pretty shrewd idea, and he comes off smelling like a rose because he's giving props to Jordan. Kobe just looked like he wanted to get over on people.
Still, I don't see it happening. If it does, that's cool, too. I don't want anyone to think I'm upset about the prospect. I just think it's a bit much. I thought the NBA was done nuzzling his balls after his Hall of Fame acceptance speech.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Did Hip-Hop Ruin the NBA?
"Did hip-hop ruin the NBA?"
Well, it's a valid question in the same way that "How many dildos does it take to rupture the anal wall?" is a valid question. Sure, it has a question mark on the end, but it was an in-depth mystery only those with low IQs needed to know the answer to. After all, you're never going to need to know how sturdy your anal wall is...unless you're stupid enough to try to jam multiple objects in there.
That's kind of how I view the theory that hip-hop somehow damaged the NBA: It's pretty stupid to assume that a genre of music destroyed a form of sport. It makes about as much sense as saying that breakfast cereal caused the South to lose the Civil War. The blockade, manufacturing base, and general ass-kickery of the Union had nothing to do with it. It had to be Cap'n Crunch's fault.
Still, some people insist that hip-hop had some kind of effect on the NBA. After all, when you go back and watch recordings of 80's basketball games, there were almost no tattoos, no one wore baggy clothes in any setting, and guns weren't as prevalent among pro athletes. Also, players could beat on each other all day and still not fight each other. Nowadays, all it takes is one hard foul to touch off a riot. It's all hip-hop's fault.
But down here on Earth (actually maybe not Earth; the stupid outnumber the intelligent down here. "In reality?" We'll try that.), we realize that part of the problem is cultural change, unless evolving fashion trends is proof of the downfall of society. "The Greeks knew that the end was near when people started wearing shorter and shorter togas." No, sometimes things just get popular, like tattoos and baggy clothes.
No one ever considers, though, that the world has changed since the 1980's. People have changed. They're not like they used to be, because they're quicker to rob, shoot, and kill folks these days. I'd blame Reaganomics before I'd blame hip-hop, but that's too well thought-out, and as Americans, we've always gotta jump on the bullshit answer. So yeah, let's blame hip-hop. Because tattoos, baggy shorts, and senseless violence didn't exist before rap music.
Personally, I always thought that Michael Jordan was to blame for baggy shorts, just like he was to blame for bald heads, and $160 sneakers being part of a viable business model. As for tattoos, I blame pirates.
And that whole "nigga" mentality that seems to have infected the league, well...that's just a lack of strong male guidance. Hip-hop is a reflection of the changing world, not the cause of it. I personally grew up listening to hip-hop and I've never shot anyone that wasn't a zombie or Nazi inside the television. I don't call women "bitches," and I don't have numerous "baby mamas" to be rotated throughout the week. If it made sense for me to be like my musical influences, then why do country music fans buy cars when there are perfectly good horses out there? They wouldn't even have to put the whiskey away before mounting up.
If that line of thinking made sense, we'd have drive-bys at the stadiums, Ron Artest would have been busted for selling coke at his house, and someone would have tried to play through a game with gold fronts. It's really not as bad as people think. Yeah, the tattoos are a bit much, but that's what happens when a trend takes hold: People wear it the fuck out.
Even the NBA has overreacted, by trying to remove all of the physicality from the game, because a fight broke out between two teams that HATED each other. In the 80's, there were times when fights would happen during the game and people wouldn't even get ejected. Now, players can get ejected if the foul just looks like it could have hurt, and they can't leave the bench without signed permission slips.
True, players now react differently to physical play, but wouldn't you if you were used to playing in a non-physical game? If football suddenly said, "quarterbacks can't be touched under any circumstances," and one got hit, don't you think he'd be ready to fight, too? Yeah, in LeBron's generation, they've probably got thinner skin, but the league's not even giving the players a chance to prove that they're not mindless thugs.
People just need to accept that things change. Players aren't gonna look the same as they did in the 80's, and thank God for that, because personal grooming has come such a long way since then, and our government is finally seeing the results of hormone treatments in our food. For better or for worse, the game has changed. The environment around the game has changed. If folks don't like the pace of the game or tendencies of the players; they don't play as hard or they're too flashy, then so be it. But don't blame music because you don't recognize the face of the game any more.
If anything, blame David Stern for some of those stupid rules.
Well, it's a valid question in the same way that "How many dildos does it take to rupture the anal wall?" is a valid question. Sure, it has a question mark on the end, but it was an in-depth mystery only those with low IQs needed to know the answer to. After all, you're never going to need to know how sturdy your anal wall is...unless you're stupid enough to try to jam multiple objects in there.
That's kind of how I view the theory that hip-hop somehow damaged the NBA: It's pretty stupid to assume that a genre of music destroyed a form of sport. It makes about as much sense as saying that breakfast cereal caused the South to lose the Civil War. The blockade, manufacturing base, and general ass-kickery of the Union had nothing to do with it. It had to be Cap'n Crunch's fault.
Still, some people insist that hip-hop had some kind of effect on the NBA. After all, when you go back and watch recordings of 80's basketball games, there were almost no tattoos, no one wore baggy clothes in any setting, and guns weren't as prevalent among pro athletes. Also, players could beat on each other all day and still not fight each other. Nowadays, all it takes is one hard foul to touch off a riot. It's all hip-hop's fault.
But down here on Earth (actually maybe not Earth; the stupid outnumber the intelligent down here. "In reality?" We'll try that.), we realize that part of the problem is cultural change, unless evolving fashion trends is proof of the downfall of society. "The Greeks knew that the end was near when people started wearing shorter and shorter togas." No, sometimes things just get popular, like tattoos and baggy clothes.
No one ever considers, though, that the world has changed since the 1980's. People have changed. They're not like they used to be, because they're quicker to rob, shoot, and kill folks these days. I'd blame Reaganomics before I'd blame hip-hop, but that's too well thought-out, and as Americans, we've always gotta jump on the bullshit answer. So yeah, let's blame hip-hop. Because tattoos, baggy shorts, and senseless violence didn't exist before rap music.
Personally, I always thought that Michael Jordan was to blame for baggy shorts, just like he was to blame for bald heads, and $160 sneakers being part of a viable business model. As for tattoos, I blame pirates.
And that whole "nigga" mentality that seems to have infected the league, well...that's just a lack of strong male guidance. Hip-hop is a reflection of the changing world, not the cause of it. I personally grew up listening to hip-hop and I've never shot anyone that wasn't a zombie or Nazi inside the television. I don't call women "bitches," and I don't have numerous "baby mamas" to be rotated throughout the week. If it made sense for me to be like my musical influences, then why do country music fans buy cars when there are perfectly good horses out there? They wouldn't even have to put the whiskey away before mounting up.
If that line of thinking made sense, we'd have drive-bys at the stadiums, Ron Artest would have been busted for selling coke at his house, and someone would have tried to play through a game with gold fronts. It's really not as bad as people think. Yeah, the tattoos are a bit much, but that's what happens when a trend takes hold: People wear it the fuck out.
Even the NBA has overreacted, by trying to remove all of the physicality from the game, because a fight broke out between two teams that HATED each other. In the 80's, there were times when fights would happen during the game and people wouldn't even get ejected. Now, players can get ejected if the foul just looks like it could have hurt, and they can't leave the bench without signed permission slips.
True, players now react differently to physical play, but wouldn't you if you were used to playing in a non-physical game? If football suddenly said, "quarterbacks can't be touched under any circumstances," and one got hit, don't you think he'd be ready to fight, too? Yeah, in LeBron's generation, they've probably got thinner skin, but the league's not even giving the players a chance to prove that they're not mindless thugs.
People just need to accept that things change. Players aren't gonna look the same as they did in the 80's, and thank God for that, because personal grooming has come such a long way since then, and our government is finally seeing the results of hormone treatments in our food. For better or for worse, the game has changed. The environment around the game has changed. If folks don't like the pace of the game or tendencies of the players; they don't play as hard or they're too flashy, then so be it. But don't blame music because you don't recognize the face of the game any more.
If anything, blame David Stern for some of those stupid rules.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
How To Beat Hate Crime Laws
Let's say you're a white guy; a born and bred, red-blooded, heterosexual, God-fearing American male. You're doing all the right things, working, fucking women, being white, hating Obama, because he's a socialist whose goal is to destroy America. You know, all the stuff God wants you to do. By God, you've even got blond hair. You're just fucking perfect.
You're walking down the street one day and you see these two queer motherfuckers holding hands, and it just fills you with rage, by God. These fucking faggots can't just keep that shit to themselves? It's just enough to make a man sick.
And they're everywhere these days. It's getting to be so a man can't walk to the mailbox without tripping over two men sucking each other's cocks in the front yard. And we can't say anything about it, because it's a PC-gay-friendly world we're living in now. We're a Christian nation and we can't even call out abominations like that. What the hell has happened to our country? We're turning into goddamn Europe. Might as well just start eating es cargo for breakfast. Socialist es cargo.
"Well, not me, goddammit," you think to yourself. "I've fuckin' had enough of this bullshit." And you walk up to those cocksmoking homos and beat the ever-lovin' shit out of them. And it feels good.
While you're stomping them, you're preaching to them, too. The real and pure Word of God. Sure, it's got a few more cuss words in it, but that's okay, because you're doing God's work. You're getting the Satan out of them. And besides, they're faggots. Ain't like they're real people. They're influencing our children by being that way. Now, we got more gay kids than any time in history. That's weakening our national defense, because how's some limp-wristed sissy supposed to hold up a rifle if the Krauts or the Russians get out of line again? No, you're doing the right thing here. Stomp that girly one a couple more times. It'll make a man out of him.
A couple of days later, the cops have the nerve to arrest you for assault. Then you start hearing some shit about being charged with a "hate crime." A hate crime? What kinda liberal commie bullshit is that?
Turns out that you calling them "faggots" and "abominations" while you were kicking their asses convinced people that you were violating their personal liberties. Well, that and the fact that they were minding their own business when you came out of nowhere with a cinder block to the back of their heads. They're saying that you wouldn't have attacked them at all if they weren't gay and that their love of cock is what made you attack them.
"You're goddamn right," you're thinking. "If they weren't gay, there wouldn't have been no reason to get after 'em." And that right there is the problem.
You can dislike gay people all you want. You can say whatever you want about gay people. You can call them abominations before God, you can say that they'll burn in Hell forever unless they repent their sinful ways. You just can't try to send them there personally.
Now, it would be different if you just beat up a feller and it just so happened that he was gay. Say you two got to tusslin' outside of a Waffle House because he accidentally scratched your truck. Say you beat the fuck out of him. That there is just plain ol' assault. It wasn't the "gay" in him that set you off. It was the fact that he's a clumsy motherfucker, which is acceptable in the eyes of the law.
Same thing if he was black. Or Mexican. Or Muslim. Or whatever you crackers are angry about these days.
What they're trying to tell you these days is that just because you hate somebody doesn't mean you have to take all your wrath out of them. But there are some good Republicans left who still think: "Not stomping gay ass = acceptance of gay people." Turns out that's not true. In 2009, gay people have the right to be as gay as they want to be and not get beat up for it, no matter how much him wearing that spandex dress brings up conflicting feelings inside of you. Those Washington politicians are always trying to change our way of life.
Yeah, it's a crazy world we live in where people can be allowed to have as much pounding ass sex with other men as they want and we can't say anything about it. Or be black. Or be "people of terrorist descent." Can't say shit to none of 'em. They want you to go through life believing that everyone has a right to just be what they are, but that's just silly. They don't have to be gay ALL the time. Everyone knows that it's a choice.
So you got two options here: You can either stop beating on people for being different (which is so unfair, I know), or you can still beat their hellbound asses...but it has to be for another reason.
Next time you see some nigger who's actin' all uppity and thinking he can come inside the restaurant, instead of going around to the back door, like in the good ol' days, trick him into punching you first. If you can get past the fact that this mongrel sumbitch just touched your white skin, you can tear into his ass all you want, then. Just be sure you don't call him "nigger" during the fight, even if it is his real name.
Yeah, you're still gonna go to jail, but not for as long as you would have if you had done it the old way. What's important here is, that nigger still learned his lesson. He won't be eyeballing no more white women.
You're walking down the street one day and you see these two queer motherfuckers holding hands, and it just fills you with rage, by God. These fucking faggots can't just keep that shit to themselves? It's just enough to make a man sick.
And they're everywhere these days. It's getting to be so a man can't walk to the mailbox without tripping over two men sucking each other's cocks in the front yard. And we can't say anything about it, because it's a PC-gay-friendly world we're living in now. We're a Christian nation and we can't even call out abominations like that. What the hell has happened to our country? We're turning into goddamn Europe. Might as well just start eating es cargo for breakfast. Socialist es cargo.
"Well, not me, goddammit," you think to yourself. "I've fuckin' had enough of this bullshit." And you walk up to those cocksmoking homos and beat the ever-lovin' shit out of them. And it feels good.
While you're stomping them, you're preaching to them, too. The real and pure Word of God. Sure, it's got a few more cuss words in it, but that's okay, because you're doing God's work. You're getting the Satan out of them. And besides, they're faggots. Ain't like they're real people. They're influencing our children by being that way. Now, we got more gay kids than any time in history. That's weakening our national defense, because how's some limp-wristed sissy supposed to hold up a rifle if the Krauts or the Russians get out of line again? No, you're doing the right thing here. Stomp that girly one a couple more times. It'll make a man out of him.
A couple of days later, the cops have the nerve to arrest you for assault. Then you start hearing some shit about being charged with a "hate crime." A hate crime? What kinda liberal commie bullshit is that?
Turns out that you calling them "faggots" and "abominations" while you were kicking their asses convinced people that you were violating their personal liberties. Well, that and the fact that they were minding their own business when you came out of nowhere with a cinder block to the back of their heads. They're saying that you wouldn't have attacked them at all if they weren't gay and that their love of cock is what made you attack them.
"You're goddamn right," you're thinking. "If they weren't gay, there wouldn't have been no reason to get after 'em." And that right there is the problem.
You can dislike gay people all you want. You can say whatever you want about gay people. You can call them abominations before God, you can say that they'll burn in Hell forever unless they repent their sinful ways. You just can't try to send them there personally.
Now, it would be different if you just beat up a feller and it just so happened that he was gay. Say you two got to tusslin' outside of a Waffle House because he accidentally scratched your truck. Say you beat the fuck out of him. That there is just plain ol' assault. It wasn't the "gay" in him that set you off. It was the fact that he's a clumsy motherfucker, which is acceptable in the eyes of the law.
Same thing if he was black. Or Mexican. Or Muslim. Or whatever you crackers are angry about these days.
What they're trying to tell you these days is that just because you hate somebody doesn't mean you have to take all your wrath out of them. But there are some good Republicans left who still think: "Not stomping gay ass = acceptance of gay people." Turns out that's not true. In 2009, gay people have the right to be as gay as they want to be and not get beat up for it, no matter how much him wearing that spandex dress brings up conflicting feelings inside of you. Those Washington politicians are always trying to change our way of life.
Yeah, it's a crazy world we live in where people can be allowed to have as much pounding ass sex with other men as they want and we can't say anything about it. Or be black. Or be "people of terrorist descent." Can't say shit to none of 'em. They want you to go through life believing that everyone has a right to just be what they are, but that's just silly. They don't have to be gay ALL the time. Everyone knows that it's a choice.
So you got two options here: You can either stop beating on people for being different (which is so unfair, I know), or you can still beat their hellbound asses...but it has to be for another reason.
Next time you see some nigger who's actin' all uppity and thinking he can come inside the restaurant, instead of going around to the back door, like in the good ol' days, trick him into punching you first. If you can get past the fact that this mongrel sumbitch just touched your white skin, you can tear into his ass all you want, then. Just be sure you don't call him "nigger" during the fight, even if it is his real name.
Yeah, you're still gonna go to jail, but not for as long as you would have if you had done it the old way. What's important here is, that nigger still learned his lesson. He won't be eyeballing no more white women.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Yeah, Atlanta being toxic is not a surprise
Atlanta being the most toxic city in America is about as big a revelation as finding out that (name the celebrity of your choice) was gay.
During the summer months, some people have to choose between walking around outside and breathing, and if you're in the right spot (the Wesley Chapel overpass in Decatur is a good one), you can see the yellowish-brown haze surrounding the city. I don't know all of the factors that went into Forbes' report on environmental cesspools in America (because I couldn't be bothered to read all of their facts), but the smog that we're suffering through now is really all I need to know about. What more needs to be said besides, "BROWN AIR?"
If the Metro Atlanta area didn't have the forethought to try to combat BROWN AIR, then I can only imagine what else people are turning a blind eye to down here. After all, DeKalb County is the only place I've lived where people have to pay extra to recycle. Even Biloxi, MS lets people recycle for free. You know, since we should be doing it, anyway.
But besides that, in a shocking development, we've got a lot of cars on the road. I know most people might not be aware of Atlanta's CRIPPLING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, but believe it or not, between the hours of 3 and 7 PM, folks are better off sitting at home than sitting in an 8-lane parking lot downtown. And legend has it that those cars sitting in traffic are producing tons of emissions that human beings can't breathe.
It's scary stuff, I know, since the auto industry has told us for decades that car exhaust actually cures emphysema and reduces stress (because you're high), but we've recently discovered that human beings aren't really supposed to breathe that stuff.
But since people here believe that trains are a tool of the devil, the problem of traffic has steadily gotten worse. People keep coming here because of our thriving industries, like night clubs and record labels. Since the train barely goes anywhere and no one has thought to build things in central locations (we really do love us some sprawl down here), they have to buy more cars and produce more of that sweet, brown, nectar.
Everyone knows that the non-expansion of the train system is the hallmark of cities that desperately beg to be recognized as a "world-class metropolitan area from the future." New York and Chicago have been getting it so wrong for years. What kind of idiot invests in mass transit when they could just as easily expand I-75 in Marietta to 11 lanes on each side? It does nothing for our traffic problems, while also doing nothing for our pollution problems! I mean, except "adding to them."
Yeah, Atlanta is blazing a trail into the future, if by "blazing" you mean, "engineering it's own collapse." Traffic is killing this city in more ways than one. Who wants to fight that traffic every day? Who wants to have a three-hour round-trip commute every day in the effort to avoid the traffic? Who wants to breathe smog? I know I don't. Atlanta has made me sick of driving.
Add to the train system. Build more lines. Expand into more counties. Build up instead of out. Screw the Good Ol' Boy Network and their backwards thinking. These are the same people that fought everything from abolishing slavery to higher emissions standards.
I mean, unless Atlanta likes being at the top of lists like this. If that's the case, keep doing what you're doing.
During the summer months, some people have to choose between walking around outside and breathing, and if you're in the right spot (the Wesley Chapel overpass in Decatur is a good one), you can see the yellowish-brown haze surrounding the city. I don't know all of the factors that went into Forbes' report on environmental cesspools in America (because I couldn't be bothered to read all of their facts), but the smog that we're suffering through now is really all I need to know about. What more needs to be said besides, "BROWN AIR?"
If the Metro Atlanta area didn't have the forethought to try to combat BROWN AIR, then I can only imagine what else people are turning a blind eye to down here. After all, DeKalb County is the only place I've lived where people have to pay extra to recycle. Even Biloxi, MS lets people recycle for free. You know, since we should be doing it, anyway.
But besides that, in a shocking development, we've got a lot of cars on the road. I know most people might not be aware of Atlanta's CRIPPLING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, but believe it or not, between the hours of 3 and 7 PM, folks are better off sitting at home than sitting in an 8-lane parking lot downtown. And legend has it that those cars sitting in traffic are producing tons of emissions that human beings can't breathe.
It's scary stuff, I know, since the auto industry has told us for decades that car exhaust actually cures emphysema and reduces stress (because you're high), but we've recently discovered that human beings aren't really supposed to breathe that stuff.
But since people here believe that trains are a tool of the devil, the problem of traffic has steadily gotten worse. People keep coming here because of our thriving industries, like night clubs and record labels. Since the train barely goes anywhere and no one has thought to build things in central locations (we really do love us some sprawl down here), they have to buy more cars and produce more of that sweet, brown, nectar.
Everyone knows that the non-expansion of the train system is the hallmark of cities that desperately beg to be recognized as a "world-class metropolitan area from the future." New York and Chicago have been getting it so wrong for years. What kind of idiot invests in mass transit when they could just as easily expand I-75 in Marietta to 11 lanes on each side? It does nothing for our traffic problems, while also doing nothing for our pollution problems! I mean, except "adding to them."
Yeah, Atlanta is blazing a trail into the future, if by "blazing" you mean, "engineering it's own collapse." Traffic is killing this city in more ways than one. Who wants to fight that traffic every day? Who wants to have a three-hour round-trip commute every day in the effort to avoid the traffic? Who wants to breathe smog? I know I don't. Atlanta has made me sick of driving.
Add to the train system. Build more lines. Expand into more counties. Build up instead of out. Screw the Good Ol' Boy Network and their backwards thinking. These are the same people that fought everything from abolishing slavery to higher emissions standards.
I mean, unless Atlanta likes being at the top of lists like this. If that's the case, keep doing what you're doing.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Roy Williams is catching T.O.'s "Diva Disease," idiots say.
Some people seem to think that complaining about your own performance in a team sport is selfish. After all, it's all supposed to be about the team. Terrell Owens is the devil himself for doing this, or at the very least, some sort of mythical figure of evil.
Roy Williams, Owens' "replacement" on the Dallas Cowboys, is likely to be the latest target of people who think like this.
He's disappointed with his performance throughout the season, and he should be. If it hadn't been for Miles Austin, Cowboys fans would have been wondering if it was too late to bring back T.O.
But there seems to be Ol' Roy's problem. From ESPN.com: "He gets the ball thrown correctly his way," Williams said of Austin. "I'm stretching and falling and doing everything. Everybody [else] who's been here's balls are there. Our footballs [from Romo to Williams] are everywhere right now."
And he's right. Romo and Williams just aren't on the same page. Romo is throwing behind Williams or Williams breaks off routes too early. And this is despite working out with Romo in the offseason, who believe it or not, actually worked out in the offseason. They were better when they were making it up on the fly last season.
Is he wrong for pointing it out, though? His team is 5-2, tied for first in their division, and can take the number one spot outright by beating the Philadelphia Eagles this weekend. Plus, he's rich, in shape, and plays football for a living. What the fuck could he have to complain about? Selfish prick. I'd sit on the bench and just be happy if they're paying me that kinda money.
See, that's what regular asshole sports fans say, not knowing the situation.
First of all, like always, a reporter asked the question and he simply answered it. He didn't call a press conference to announce that he sucks right now, because Fox is showing us that much for free. But most importantly, this has nothing to do with being selfish. He's happy his team is winning. In fact, ESPN.com said: "Williams stressed that he's pleased that the Cowboys are winning, but he's frustrated that he hasn't been more effective."
How hard is that to understand? Lemme put it in layman's terms.
Let's say you work in a warehouse, but you're just having a bad day. You're putting boxes on the wrong trucks, you're falling out of the scaffolding, and you just keep running over your supervisor's feet with the hand truck. But the company's still profitable. You just want to get through the day without injuring people. Including yourself. That's kinda where Roy is now. Everyone wants to be able to do their part for the team, unless they wash themselves with a rag on a stick. Those people just don't give a damn anymore.
Even T.O.'s drama came from that same line of thinking: "I just want to do my part." It's just that in his case, he believed that the best chance for anyone to win meant throwing him the ball. How was he supposed to know that he had hands of stone?
Not only that, what professional athlete do you know that doesn't want to play well every time out? These are competitive people who understandably get frustrated if they don't do well. What, do you think Michael Jordan punched Steve Kerr because of his geopolitical outlook? Getting angry at poor performances are part of what makes pro athletes into pro athletes, because if that anger is keeping you outside shooting jumpers in the rain, you're not calling into talk radio stations.
Pro athletes people are driven, trash-talking and obsessive, cheaters. Not to mention, bad losers and at times, generally bad people. We hate to see these qualities in people, but that's what makes them great. The only opinion that matters to them is theirs, not Nameless Sports Beat Reporter, who thinks he knows what they should be thinking. These people don't read the papers, anyway. Reading is for people who AREN'T living the dream. If I could run a 4.3, I'd have quit opening books in high school, too.
Maybe I'm crazy because it doesn't bother me to hear players talk like Roy Williams is doing now. Maybe I understand that sometimes, it's just not enough to be a part of the team, but a VALUED part of the team.
No, he's just being a diva. That must be it.
Roy Williams, Owens' "replacement" on the Dallas Cowboys, is likely to be the latest target of people who think like this.
He's disappointed with his performance throughout the season, and he should be. If it hadn't been for Miles Austin, Cowboys fans would have been wondering if it was too late to bring back T.O.
But there seems to be Ol' Roy's problem. From ESPN.com: "He gets the ball thrown correctly his way," Williams said of Austin. "I'm stretching and falling and doing everything. Everybody [else] who's been here's balls are there. Our footballs [from Romo to Williams] are everywhere right now."
And he's right. Romo and Williams just aren't on the same page. Romo is throwing behind Williams or Williams breaks off routes too early. And this is despite working out with Romo in the offseason, who believe it or not, actually worked out in the offseason. They were better when they were making it up on the fly last season.
Is he wrong for pointing it out, though? His team is 5-2, tied for first in their division, and can take the number one spot outright by beating the Philadelphia Eagles this weekend. Plus, he's rich, in shape, and plays football for a living. What the fuck could he have to complain about? Selfish prick. I'd sit on the bench and just be happy if they're paying me that kinda money.
See, that's what regular asshole sports fans say, not knowing the situation.
First of all, like always, a reporter asked the question and he simply answered it. He didn't call a press conference to announce that he sucks right now, because Fox is showing us that much for free. But most importantly, this has nothing to do with being selfish. He's happy his team is winning. In fact, ESPN.com said: "Williams stressed that he's pleased that the Cowboys are winning, but he's frustrated that he hasn't been more effective."
How hard is that to understand? Lemme put it in layman's terms.
Let's say you work in a warehouse, but you're just having a bad day. You're putting boxes on the wrong trucks, you're falling out of the scaffolding, and you just keep running over your supervisor's feet with the hand truck. But the company's still profitable. You just want to get through the day without injuring people. Including yourself. That's kinda where Roy is now. Everyone wants to be able to do their part for the team, unless they wash themselves with a rag on a stick. Those people just don't give a damn anymore.
Even T.O.'s drama came from that same line of thinking: "I just want to do my part." It's just that in his case, he believed that the best chance for anyone to win meant throwing him the ball. How was he supposed to know that he had hands of stone?
Not only that, what professional athlete do you know that doesn't want to play well every time out? These are competitive people who understandably get frustrated if they don't do well. What, do you think Michael Jordan punched Steve Kerr because of his geopolitical outlook? Getting angry at poor performances are part of what makes pro athletes into pro athletes, because if that anger is keeping you outside shooting jumpers in the rain, you're not calling into talk radio stations.
Pro athletes people are driven, trash-talking and obsessive, cheaters. Not to mention, bad losers and at times, generally bad people. We hate to see these qualities in people, but that's what makes them great. The only opinion that matters to them is theirs, not Nameless Sports Beat Reporter, who thinks he knows what they should be thinking. These people don't read the papers, anyway. Reading is for people who AREN'T living the dream. If I could run a 4.3, I'd have quit opening books in high school, too.
Maybe I'm crazy because it doesn't bother me to hear players talk like Roy Williams is doing now. Maybe I understand that sometimes, it's just not enough to be a part of the team, but a VALUED part of the team.
No, he's just being a diva. That must be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)