Thursday, September 24, 2009
But if anyone says the word "tax" people just lose it. They said "tax," not "sacrifice your virgin daughters to Chthulu." Not like most of you would have to worry about that anyway.
I understand that taxes has a pretty bad rep in America. After all, we fought Poppa England because we were paying a bunch of taxes, and got a catchy line out of it: "No taxation without representation." In fact, some people like to bring that line out anytime something happens in government that they don't like. Frankly, I'm shocked that President Obama hasn't had that one thrown at him more.
When it comes to taxing the stuff that has turned America into "Fat Bastard Nation," though, people are losing their minds before legislation can even be written. All they said was that they were thinking about it.
But if they did, would it really be that bad? I mean, calling it "socialist" right off the bat is kinda stupid, because the socialist thing to do would be to make everyone eat and drink the same thing, wouldn't it? "All foods are created equal."
Claiming that "government is telling you what to eat or drink" is wrong, too. They're not telling you anything. They're just saying they're going to charge a little more for MURDEROUS BURGERS, FRIES, AND DELICIOUS, DELICIOUS PEPSI. Doesn't change my life one bit. Mostly because I almost never drink soda, I don't eat fries at all, and when it comes to burgers, I stick to the dollar menu, because I'm cheap. And fat already.
But the tax...now that's the sticking point, isn't it? "NEXT THEY'RE GONNA CHARGE US FOR THE AIR WE BREATHE!!!" And that's silly, because it's not a rare commodity yet. But give it time. Our corporations are desperately trying to get it there.
Would the tax be so bad, though? Let's say they tax every 20 oz. bottle with an extra ten cents. Is that really gonna be the end of the fucking world? So, instead of $1.25, you're paying about $1.35, then sales tax on top of that? Grand total, maybe $1.42. Now, let's be honest: Is that ten cents really gonna break you? If you're that worried about ten cents, then maybe you should rethink how badly you need a lot of the things you're buying, let alone soda.
Not only that, if ten cents is the breaking point to the fragile house of cards known as "your financial situation," then where is this outrage whenever inflation drives the prices of EVERYTHING up? I was being generous with the $1.25 for the 20 oz. In some places, they're almost two dollars. There are vending machines at Six Flags that go as high as three. You're worried about ten cents when they're charging that much for a fucking soda without tax? It's the same soda as in the store, but you're paying for the convenience of having a soda at Six Flags! And they've got a policy where you can't bring in outside food, so unless you wanna risk catching a water borne disease from their water fountains, your only options are "pay the three bucks" or "risk dehydration, because it's August in Georgia." As some of my friends and family will tell you, I've gladly risked the dehydration.
But hey, that's okay...it's capitalism, right? Corporations can raise prices on their stuff on a whim, and that's cool, because the stockholders need their dividends, but the government can't tax anything without it being a huge problem. Ten damn cents. And that's likely a high-end estimate.
I'm not saying I agree with the tax, but we're fighting the wrong battle here. Coke added fifteen cents to their price and blamed it on gas prices. Now that gas prices have gone back down, logic would dictate that Coke prices would, too, but expecting that is like expecting Kanye West to be a positive image of black manhood. Sure, he hasn't gone to jail and doesn't have any outside kids, but he's the biggest asshole of all time.
Of all time.
I guess my criticism of Coke means that the greed centers of my brain are clearly underused. At least the government tax will stay consistent. All I'm saying is worse things are happening than a possible junk food tax, tubby. Fox News has really done it's job well, getting you mad at the wrong shit, because inflation has been fucking you over for way longer than that.
Former NFL star Herschel Walker, 47, has signed with MMA organization Strikeforce. I always thought that Ric Flair would be the first man I ever saw die in the ring, but it looks like it'll actually be Herschel Walker. Apollo Creed didn't learn his lesson, either.
Herschel Walker, who retired in 1997 because he was beat the fuck up, didn't catch on when Charles Barkley said that "you don't get better when you're retired." Maybe one of Herschel's other personalities heard Charles and neglected to tell him. But he'd have to be crazy to consider this move, because who retires from a violent contact sport after a long and injury-filled career, waits 13 years, then starts a career in a more violent sport? He's not putting on the pads again to get tackled, he's stepping into the ring with people who are going to actually punch him. In the face. Hard.
Sure, he's into martial arts (he competed in tournaments in college and is currently a fifth-degree black belt in tae kwon d0), but I wouldn't have recommended this to him while he was in his prime. I don't even watch MMA all that often and I can tell you that guys with that kind of fighting background don't do all that well in MMA. It's all about wrestlers, because all those jump kicks don't mean shit when a guy is on your back.
Speaking of wrestlers, people instantly started comparing the whole thing to Randy Couture, because he happens to be 46. Some key points, though: Randy Couture also happens to be getting his ass kicked a lot more (lost 5 of his last 9 fights), Randy Couture is a wrestler, which has allowed him to last this long, and Randy Couture isn't in his first fight. People were critical of Kurt Angle's rumored move into MMA at 37, and he's an Olympic Gold Medal winning wrestler. And Herschel thinks he's gonna take the MMA world by storm? Get the fuck outta here. It doesn't take long to get exposed as a joke in MMA. Just ask Kimbo Slice.
Chuck Liddell is 40. He's lost four of his last five. Ken Shamrock is 45 and has lost eight of his last 11. Tank Abbott is 44 and lost 7 of 9. These are once great fighters, getting smacked the fuck up. Shamrock and Abbott aren't even fighting against top competitors anymore, although to be fair, did Tank Abbott ever count as "great?"
People used to ask Goldberg about starting in MMA, too, and he was smart enough to give the following answer: "I'd love to, especially if I was 21 or even 29, but these guys are so far ahead of me in terms of experience." And that's not saying Goldberg can't fight, but Goldberg knows his limits. Bill, talk sense to your Bulldog Brethren. It's easy for tough guys to think that they can do it until you realize that a highly trained fighter is about to blast them in the face with the meathook attached to their wrist. They're not fighting crazy drunks anymore, although I'm sure Tank is willing to sign on the dotted line.
Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, because this is a sport that put a limbless man in the cage just a few months ago. For those wondering, he didn't win.
Some might say that Herschel is being brave by opening a new chapter of his life in this fashion; that it takes guts to do what he's doing. I don't know who those people are, but they probably all work for Strikeforce. They'll wipe their tears with the proceeds of the DVD of his debut fight.
Is that why he's doing it? For the money? After all, people accused him of this when he wrote his book about having multiple people living in his head, while never showing any outward signs of multiple personality disorder. I'm not saying that everyone who has it turns into a screaming green giant, but come on. Someone should be backing up that story. But his "crazy" dovetails nicely into his joining a sport where you have to be no less than halfway out of your fucking mind to get into. Look, Herschel, if it's for the money, you don't have to do this. We can take up a collection or something. Times just can't be that hard.
Dana White, for all of his dickishness, is completely right to rip Strikeforce for this signing. People can say all they want about letting Couture or Liddell continue to fight, but those are experienced fighters, and he practically forced Liddell into retirement since he's gotten older (and started taking more beatings). They're not making their debuts. And to let Herschel Walker start fighting in their rings at 47 is a black eye for the sport. This isn't George Foreman winning the heavyweight title at 45. This isn't the event that's finally going to put Strikeforce on the map.
I mean, unless something goes really wrong. I'm sure their execs will be okay with that, too.
Monday, September 21, 2009
It's not like it's 2002, when any criticism of "President" Bush got you labeled as "unpatriotic." I haven't seen the Obama Administration do any tarring and feathering like that. But why let a legitimate question ("Wait, what did Iraq do again?") stand in the way of maintaining favorable poll numbers?
But we'll just go ahead and say that criticism of the President wasn't allowed. But what is allowed is completely fabricating stuff and passing it off as fact. You can't go wrong there, because the average person doesn't worry about how credible a person is, which is why Wendy Williams has a television show.
We live in the internet age, where millions of people have blogs, just like this one, where we can tell people anything at all; from the "unsubstantiated reports that President Obama is actually Michael Jackson in disguise, and that's why Michael had to fake his own death," to "Swine flu is spreading AIDS, and that's why we need border control." And people will believe it, because we used a professional looking font. "I wasn't too sure about it, until I noticed that Times New Roman. Looks just like Cronkite."
So no one cares about truth. If they did, more people might question Rush Limbaugh when he says something like this:
“If homosexuality being inborn is what makes it acceptable, why does racism being inborn not make racism acceptable?” the talk show host asked. “I’m sorry — I mean, this is the way my mind works. But apparently now we don’t choose racism, we just are racists. We are born that way. We don’t choose it. So shouldn’t it be acceptable, excuse — this is according to the way the left thinks about things.”
If people cared about truth and fact, or even coherence, someone would have asked Rush Limbaugh what the fuck he was talking about. Thanks to my own research, I discovered that 100% of people he just made up were the only ones saying that racism was inborn, and this "left" that he's talking about never listens to them. Everyone knows that the "left" is always reading "liberal books" from those "gay elitist doctors," and all of them said long ago that racism was a learned experience.
Something that ridiculous could only come from someone who never finished high school, because it sounds like some shit that two guys drinking in the alley would make up. Then, they'd stumble into the barber shop and swear that "Clem said he saw it happen." Just like that, it's a fact, and none of those pesky "facts" were involved in the process.
What set Limbaugh off on that tangent about nothing was the hidden agenda that President Obama is making black people attack white people, because mind control is one of his Secret Socialist powers, genetically engineered by Muslims in Kenya to bring down America. Note to Fox News: If you're going to pass that paragraph off as news, make sure you give credit to ME, as the person who made the whole thing up.
Anyway, there's a video circulating of a black kid beating up a white kid on a school bus and the black kids are standing around cheering, which is something that has never happened outside of a boxing ring in America. Witnesses, or "people who were there," say that the fight came out of a disagreement about seating and was not racially motivated. Rush Limbaugh, who at the time of the fight, was anywhere else but at the fight, said this:
“I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.”
"You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering ‘yeah, right on, right on, right on.’ Of course, everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he’s white."And this guy is in no danger of getting his show cancelled. Yeah, no one's allowed to criticize the President. Not only are eyewitness accounts not good enough for this guy, but somehow, he brought up someone that no one was even talking about. How bitter do you have to be to tie everything that goes wrong into racism AND the President?
This shit never happened to Bush. People who didn't like Bush were very clear about why they didn't like him: He was the dumbest President in history and managed to steal an election. Not only was he wrong, but being outwitted by a complete idiot really stings.
But President Obama? Not only is he cleaning up Bush's messes (of which there are many), not only does he have Glenn Beck saying he's racist against white people (like his mother), or Michael Steele saying he's racist against BLACK people (what the fuck?), and a Socialist Revolution to get off the ground (whoops! I meant "free guns and Bibles!"), now the skyrocketing number of school bus fights in 2009 is his fault, too. Because Obama becoming the first black President is making black people feel good about themselves, so naturally, they're gonna start beating on white people. Of course. It couldn't have had anything to do with the chairs on the fucking bus.
Look, if you're going to claim that "no one can criticize the President," then maybe you shouldn't spend ALL four hours of your radio show not only criticizing him, but fabricating things about him. If no one's allowed to do it, then he must be really bad at enforcing it, because I don't recall hearing about his Gestapo taking anyone away for "protective custody." I mean, you're kind of killing your own argument. At least among people who have two brain cells to rub together.
They really confuse me on the whole thing, because they claim that Al Sharpton is a "master of race-baiting," but I just see a guy who's not taking shit off of these racists out here. He calls out injustice when he sees it, and he's willing to debate the issues in a calm and measured manner. He's not rude to his opponents and he gives them a chance to speak. Then again, I'm black, so I can't be seeing this guy clearly.
I'm not gonna say that Al is always right about everything he says, because there are times when he's backed the wrong horse. Let's face it, all of our people aren't exactly honest about something we've done, like that chick who accused the guys at Duke. I think he might wanna let that one go. Same with talking bad about Jews. That's a no-no in America, even if they are wrong. Any and all criticism of them is called "anti-Semitism."
But overall, I like Al and I think he's a good guy. I don't think comparing him to David Duke is correct or fair. But that's how guys like Al are always portrayed: They are the black analog to white supremacists. Same with Malcolm X. Same with the Black Panthers. If Martin Luther King were alive today, he'd be in the same boat, because how dare he talk about race during a police beating? Why, if the NYPD shot an unarmed guy 40 times while he was surrendering, then they must have had a reason, right?
But that seems to be what's thought of as "playing the race card," suggesting that if the cops arrest a black man, then it MUST be about race. That if any black person, anywhere who is told "no," it MUST be because they're black. And situations like that inevitably lead to someone like (name random right-wing commentator) saying, essentially that black people should just quit complaining and accept that our boy committed a crime. It's not about race, it's about the fact that he clearly did something wrong. Then, they throw in a comment about how if the person was white, we would have never heard about it. You know, because a white man just can't get a fair shake in America.
That's not considered "playing the race card," though. I don't get it. They victimized themselves, but we're "playing the race card."
Or back during the election, Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race was considered "playing the race card." His campaign was constantly accused of "playing the race card." And maybe it's because I wasn't able to catch all of Fox News' cleverly edited news clips to see the truth within, but I just wasn't able to see it. Meanwhile, supporters of Sen. John McCain were saying racist things all the time. Or maybe I'm just sensitive to one of my people being called a "monkey." Maybe I'm just touchy about "tar baby dolls" or "nooses." I guess I should really lighten up. "Barack the Magic Negro" was supposed to be funny, right?
Now, I thought the President handled those things brilliantly. He didn't even mention them, because he knew that some partisan hack was going to say, "You're playing the race card," and probably something about "white guilt." Turns out, that's exactly what happened anyway, because it's completely unthinkable that he could have won on his own merits.
Even up to this present day, we (black folks) are perceiving things as "racially motivated," but we're accused of "playing the race card." It's not even a term we use, unless we're defending ourselves against that accusation. Demanding that the President prove he's a citizen is racially motivated to us, because so many of us have been told that we have to prove that we're supposed to be where we are. That's not even counting the pictures of witchdoctors and shit like that, because that goes without saying. So, of course, we're going to speak out about it. How does that make us "race-baiters," when we speak out about it?
White people have been speaking out about perceived injustices against them since the Civil War ended. Why, not being in 100% control of the nation is a real kick in the teeth for them. Not being able to own black people is rough, too. And so, they formed the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and countless militia groups to stand up against what they see as the problem. But that's not "race-baiting." That's not "playing the race card." That's just good, ol' fashioned patriotism.
Don't get me started about the victimization of Christians in America, either. I fail to see how you're the victim in a country where 77% of the population are among your number.
But the Black Panthers were fucking evil. Providing school lunches and attempting to empower and educate their people? That's just deplorable. And socialist. Malcolm X? Marcus Garvey? Man, there's just no defense for people like that. How dare they actually point out white people as being the ones who wronged their people. What the fuck were they supposed to say, that the Vietnamese did it?
And it just continues to this day. Clearly, we're not allowed to complain police harassment and brutality. We can't talk about why the black President was called a liar on the floor of Congress. We can't talk things that affect mainly us, like the state of our schools, or our higher rate of unemployment, our high rate of imprisonment, or our high rate of teenage pregnancy. If we do, that means we want "special treatment."
But white people can. They can talk about what's wrong with us all day long. They can use their coded phrases about the "good ol' days," "the Constitution as originally written," or how "they're not like us," because they're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore. They want their country back, gawddemmit.
"Not like us?" "Their country?" No, that's not "playing the race card" at all.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Some things are just excessive, like a $400,000 car or whatever Michael Jackson did to his face. There comes a time when people need to reign in their wishes. Take me, for instance. I'm never going to be able to fly, because mutant powers aren't real. And I'm not going to jump out of a plane to try to shock my system into developing any. I recognize my limitations.
Guys like Jerry Jones, though, are only limited by what's in their bank account, and even though there was nothing wrong with the old Texas Stadium, he needed to make a statement and leave a lasting legacy on this earth. Because owning one of the most famous sports franchises in the world and winning multiple championships is for pussies, with no imagination. Anyone can do that. No, he needed a grand spectacle as a tribute to his own greatness, and (taxpayer) money would be no object. The only difference between what he had built and what the pharaohs of Egypt built is that his face isn't on the outside. I'm sure it crossed his mind, but then he wouldn't be able to lie about being humble. The JerrySphinx was also considered, I'm sure, but no one would have paid to see it, and so, the Jones-Mahal was born.
And he built the largest TV in the world inside of it instead, with ESPN and NBC practically begging to broadcast his face during every piece devoted to this giant metal monstrosity. I'm Jerry Jones thinks that's an even better idea.
And so what if the grand total turned out to be over $1 billion dollars? Ticket price hikes and overpriced food (a Kobe beef burger is $13.00, but for that price, Kobe better hand-deliver it) and parking ($75) will keep the money rolling in. And seat licenses. Oh, Allah bless the person who invented seat licenses.
For anyone who doesn't know what a seat license is, it's a document that gives season ticket holders the option to retain their exact seats from one season to the next. Think of it as a lease for your seat. Now, I know what you're thinking: Isn't that the point of buying season tickets to begin with? And they'd tell you that you're somehow not understanding the concept of season tickets, before showing off the marble tiles in the bathrooms.
Seat licenses last for 30 years, and range in price from $2,000 to $150,000. Dollars, not pesos. Oh, yeah...and they're required. Can't get season tickets without 'em.
Living in Atlanta, one thing I love about the Georgia Dome is that there isn't a bad seat in the place, as far as I know. I've been in the nosebleeds, I've been in the club level seats, I've been in the luxury boxes. Never had a problem seeing the field. But in the JerryWorld Domed Pleasure Palace, there have already been numerous stories done about seats where you can't even see the entire field. Your enjoyment of the seat depends on whether or not you're so spoiled that seeing the entire game is non-negotiable. The people in those seats can't even watch the game on the giant, $40 million TV, because there's a wall in the way. The price of those seats? Reportedly $75.
Yeah, it's a sight. I can't lie about that. It's unarguably the most extravagant stadium in the league (and possibly the world), which is piss in the corn flakes of the Arizona Cardinals, because no one's talking about their stadium anymore.
But it's expensive as shit. Needlessly expensive as shit. Jerry Jones himself said they could have built it for $850 million, which is still needlessly expensive, but not "$1.12 billion" expensive. And all that luxury will be paid for by football fans who don't even need all that shit. Because the truth is, football fans will watch football in whatever environment is out there. Giants, Jets, Packers, and Eagles fans are notorious for sitting in the fucking snow to watch their teams.
I'm not suggesting that Jerry Jones should have pared it down to an open-air stadium in the middle of Dallas, because on a hot day, in between the third-degree burns from the metal bleachers or the 110 degree days in August, people are going to DIE trying to watch the Cowboys. I mean, it's nice to have all of the bells and whistles, but the chairs could be covered in broken glass and fans would just find a way to make due. It's football. It's the manliest sport we have (because MMA is there to keep crazy motherfuckers from going in and out of jail). Do you really think your fans are that concerned about your $4 million sculpture in the lobby or how plush the seats are?
But the most disheartening thing about all of this to me is this statement: "With the choices people have, it is imperative for that in-stadium experience to be really special," says Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations. "Jerry Jones is responding to that need, with the bells and whistles in that stadium. He put it out there. Going forward, new stadiums will be challenged to duplicate what he's done to enhance the fan experience. He's a few years ahead of the curve."
The only enhancing of the "fan experience" that I see is "enhancing" the emptiness of your damn pockets. You're there to see the game, not the stadium, because if that was the case, why not just go up there on a day when nothing's happening and take a tour? So prepare yourselves for the next fifteen years of owners of all sports teams whining about how their stadiums just aren't good enough compared to what one of the other little girls has.
Then, he followed that statement up with, “Now, think about that,” because to his non-fully formed brain, that was a mind blowing statement. He continued with, “And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants! You know, that’s a good comment, it’s a good point, and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”
Now, I don't know what 11 year old boys he knows, but when I was that age, my mission in life was getting my hands on a Playboy magazine. This inconvenient erection I kept getting needed to be put to use and since I didn't know any easy girls yet.
In fairness, though, before he said any of this, he said, "But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it.” So I assume what he was getting at is, telling boys that porn is actually gay will make them want to stop looking at it.
Again, I don't know what 11 year old boys he knows, because when I was coming up, the threat of going blind and hairy palms couldn't keep boys from rubbing one out, and that was permanent physical disfigurement. I'm sure an 11 year old boy will take the risk when it comes to a shot at seeing a naked chick. Think about today's adolescents. Scaring them with "the gay" didn't work when we were trying to get their to pull their damn pants up.
Not only that, kids today (in fact, kids of all generations, ever) aren't as stupid as Michael Schwartz, despite the things that they watch on television.
Seriously, where's the logic in that? Think about it for a second. "Reading Playboy makes you gay." Just saying that with a straight face means that I don't have to respect you as a upright walking human being, because that's really, really, stupid. If you believe things like that, I feel as though I'm well within my rights to disrespect your intelligence. That combination of words doesn't even make sense, even if I'm joking. It's like being a Holocaust denier: While it's a talent to be able to make something that crazy make sense, it still doesn't add to your credibility.
I've known a lot of guys who look at porn, and none of them are gay. On the flip side, I've known a lot of gay guys, and the only porn they ever look at involves swordfights. If there was anything true about anything he said, wouldn't everyone I know be gay? And what does that say about my friends who have made their own porn? I guess they've gotten into bestiality by now, because the confusion of watching themselves have sex must make their brains shut off when their dicks get hard.
And the fact that Schwartz thinks that this was a keen observation says a lot about where he is in his mental development. I'm willing to bet that a good third of his brain doesn't get enough oxygen. Still, feel free to try to teach that to America's kids, Schwartz. It IS a good message to teach our young people, because even children need to laugh.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Little League World Series
First of all, if you're an analyst for Little League baseball, I'm gonna need you to stop spending so much time watching little boys in tight pants.
But really, I can't imagine that anyone is actually following little league baseball. The only time this stuff is relevant is maybe ten years after the fact, when we can look back on a vacant lot littered with the failed careers of little league stars. Yet, here we have a paid ESPN analyst every year, running down the pros and cons of these kids, like any of that is gonna matter when their twelve year old emotions get the best of them.
Also, these kids aren't even in their teens yet, so it doesn't make sense to me to closely follow sixth-graders in sports. I've been in sixth-grade. I wasn't good at shit back then. In middle school, they'll fill out teams with anyone willing to bring back the permission slips. Those teams are filled with kids whose dads are making them play because the reality that their kid got their athleticism from "mom's side" hasn't set in yet. Half of the kids that make up these little league teams will have given up baseball by high school. So you're not exactly seeing baseball played at its best.
Besides, it's baseball. It's not exactly the most exciting sport. But if Pop Warner football or AAU basketball doesn't get on TV, I don't see why kiddie baseball gets to shut down ESPN for two weeks. Pro baseball, I understand. Even the College World Series, if we must. These are people playing at the highest levels of the sport. But Little League is sub-minor league. I just don't get it. Why not the eighth-grader World Series? Why not the high school softball World Series? The advertising dollars must be really high for this crap.
Dammit, they're horses.
You know, part of the appeal of sports is watching someone do something that you can't do. Part of what makes LeBron James so amazing is that we have to go into our dreams to be able to do the things that he does when he's screwing around.
But I don't get impressed by horses, mainly because they're not people. I can't tell them apart and I don't know their pros and cons, because they all do the exact same things. They run fast. That's it. And they would have been that way even if there were no people on the Earth. It's not like they have skills to improve, like crossovers or reading coverages. They just keep right on running, then they get to have sex after they stop running.
To let ESPN tell it, though, we're talking about a sporting event on par with the Super Bowl or Wrestlemania. But I've NEVER stumbled across a conversation about who was gonna win the Belmont. I don't know a single person who can identify a jockey by name. I've never heard anyone start a sentence with, "Barbaro was the inspiration that started my career." The jockeys don't even think that way. They're all just short guys from Latin America who couldn't get yobs doing anything else, like Cuban lightweight boxers.
You have to step into one of those tax brackets that require gated communities before you hear anyone talk about horse racing. This doesn't capture the public's imagination, because we can't afford it.
Well, that and because no one gives a shit about horses. Just rich people, eight year old girls, and of course, PETA. Is that a group that the average person wants to associate with?
The game is played in like, 12 states, at only upper crust schools. It's like televising women's football. There can't possibly be a national following for it, because no one knows what it is. It's in the same category as Jai Alai. The idea that this is even televised is proof that we gotta fill the airtime with something, and American Gladiators got canceled already.
It's not that there isn't a lacrosse following, because there is. And unlike horse racing and baseball, it is an actual sport. It's just that there's only a few hundred people who care. I don't even think they play this game south of Duke University. Then again, reading hasn't taken this region by storm, either. But maybe one day, lacrosse will catch on and people will grow up admiring (name of future famous lacrosse player here). But until then, the majority of us will look at this game and think, "they're just playing hockey in the grass."
The World Series of Poker
All of the excitement playing cards, yet they managed to retain the seediness of an illegal, back-alley, high-stakes game! Some things just aren't meant to be televised, but we live in a world where multiple shows about women whose only talents are spending their husbands' money and making other women hate them are ratings successes. Turns out that playing cards jumped on at the right time.
Yes, this is still on TV. Cartoon Network is airing it, which says a lot about Cartoon Network these days. Then again, it also says a lot about Slamball. Mostly that no one gives a shit about it.
Lemme ask the owners of Slamball a question: If the excitement of dunking was actually the hidden gem that you were hoping it would be, don't you think the NBA would have figured that out already? People should stop trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to sports. The Arena Football League was actually an innovate and exciting spin on football, and even it folded. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone that taking all of the strategy out of basketball was never going to work. No one ever wanted to see a game of just dunking, because if we did, the NBA would have never had to retire the Slam Dunk contest. And that had actual world-class athletes in it, unlike Slamball, which is filled with athletes who failed at the sports that they really wanted to play, so they settled for jumping off of trampolines.
It would be like the paddles out of ping-pong and banking your entire future on this game you "invented." The creators of Slamball should really take notes on the life and times of Marc Griffin, the inventor of Bulletball. The only difference between you and him is that you managed to convince a stupider, yet richer person that your abortion of a game was a good idea.
The Westminster Fucking Dog Show
Much like horse racing, there are no people involved in it at all, but with 100% less competition. And it's the only "sporting event" where it's considered "cute" if one of the competitors pinches a loaf on the main stage. Sorry, Sid Vicious.
If anyone ever proved themselves to be out of touch with what the average person wants to watch, it would be the people who decided to televise this. There's no competition. There are no events. It's just all about whose dog has a better haircut and how well their paid trainer taught them to sit. You're selling this crap to an audience who doesn't even always let their dogs live in the house. Good fucking luck.
The dogs don't even compete against each other. They don't race. They don't wrestle. They don't do any of the things that make dogs interesting. Honestly, as violent and reprehensible as dogfighting is, I'd rather watch that. Sure, it's wrong, but it's exciting in the same way that UFC is exciting: Sometimes, you just need to see two people beat the shit out of each other. And if you think that watching people in suits issue basic commands to their dogs can fill that need, I hope you're not a television executive, because your boring ass is gonna pave the way for the World Scrabble Championships to get into prime time.
When will you learn, television executive? Things that rich people like are fucking boring.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
But how much further Kanye go; how much more he can embarrass himself? In the end, none of it will matter to him, because it's not gonna make his sales go down or stop people from coming to his shows. We don't live in a time when we have a discerning music audience. Let's face it: R. Kelly sleeps with little girls. It's not speculation, it's not holding tightly to something that was disproven. We saw the tape. Yet "Double Up" still went platinum, despite the fact that he's on there making monkey-fuck sounds.
So, if Kanye bitching about not winning an award because he spent a million dollars on his video or Kanye crying about not getting the main stage to perform didn't make a dent in his sales, then neither is this. Even the threats to his health by other music stars ("Twitter gangstas") won't faze him. It's all just boiling down to "Kanye being Kanye." Eventually, people won't even care anymore.
But Kanye's defenders (and Kanye himself) would have you believe that he's misunderstood, eccentric, and some sort of outspoken champion of what's right. A crazy genius. A tortured artist. He does these things because he won't back down from the corporate machine that's turned us all into sheep. He wants to turn the mirror of hypocrisy back into our brainwashed faces, then shatter that mirror over our heads so we can bleed our sins all over the ground. If his fans were more pretentious, they might say that.
The truth is, that motherfucker's just an asshole.
You kinda have to be to proclaim yourself "the voice of a generation." You kinda have to be to call the President a racist while you're supposed to be raising funds for Katrina victims. I'm sure that behind closed doors he does some positive things. I'm sure he donates money or gives shoes to children or whatever.
But when the cameras come on, the nigga comes out. And that's when you got a grown man throwing temper tantrums over music awards from a company that doesn't even play music videos.
There used to be a time when music artists would try to keep those moments under wraps. Prince makes people sign non-disclosure agreements when they come to Paisley Park. We still don't know who Michael Jackson was behind closed doors. But I guess you can't expect too much in the way of "image control" from a guy who's main contribution to fashion was wearing two Polo shirts on top of each other with the collars up.
So what's next for Kanye West? After all, there are still so many ways that he hasn't made headlines. He hasn't gotten naked in public yet. He hasn't hit anyone (paparazzi don't count because they're not real people). He hasn't spit in a kid's face then shoved his face into a birthday cake (but give it time). He hasn't driven a car into a single shopping center or public gathering of any kind. There is so much more territory to mine here. The possibilities are endless, like just when you thought porn couldn't take it any further than scat videos, along comes "2 girls, 1 cup." Kanye has yet to really "coon outside the box."
Being a cocky and arrogant black man is really old hat. The entire urban music industry hinges on it, seeing as how almost everyone with a record deal fits the description. If "cocky and arrogant black man" was a wrestling gimmick, then everyone in the industry would be "The Godfather." To really take it there, Kanye's gotta turn that "Godfather" gimmick on its ear. Instead of just being a wrestling pimp and being as flashy and misogynistic as possible, he needs to start carrying a mannequin's head that he talks to and cover himself in blood. Then tell the head that it needs to stop asking so many questions about where the blood came from. It's the only way that he's gonna make it into the history books.
He still hasn't even passed up Sinead O'Connor insulting the Pope or any number of things that Prince has done (namely, the assless chaps). Kanye's got a long way to go. Because the thing about Kanye is, he's not shocking or challenging. He's just fucking annoying.
No one can support him. No one can defend him. He doesn't represent any generation and no one would want to be represented by him, unless they're of a generation of spoiled, ignorant, self-indulgent, children who are all about flash without substan...uh, you know...
*looks around at the world today*
But right now, there's a movement against our democratically elected President, and it's filled with a hostility I haven't seen since about, oh...fourteen months ago, when people realized that
It defies logic. They've accused him of not being an American. They've said, "He's not like us." They've said that he's a socialist, a secret Muslim (as if that's a bad thing), openly racist towards white people (like his mother and grandparents), and most recently, a flat-out liar. And if that's not enough, his wife was called a "monkey." Then it's justified by people saying, "It's no worse than what was said about Bush."
If it was just politics, I think I could understand it, even if I don't agree. But it isn't. This is about race, plain and simple. It's to the point where white people are the main ones saying that it's about race. You know it's bad when that happens, because white people are always skeptical about these kinds of things. I know a white person who still think that the police who shot Sean Bell probably had a good reason, because she can't imagine that the police would do something like that. When it comes to matters of race, white people tend to be behind the curve. Black people should thank God every day that the video camera was invented.
Thing is, all this hostility against the President is being characterized as being a "fringe" element, just a handful of whackos who are operating far from the mainstream. Why, look at the 47 people nationwide who attended the first tea parties.
I don't think it's a fringe movement anymore. After all, now you've got people disrespecting the President in the halls of Congress. While he's talking. On television. The true colors are coming out and they aren't just kooks with tin helmets and misspelled signs outside of the local courthouse. These people are elected officials, backed by an organized network of supporters, funding, and a functioning media arm.
And they're not worried about being frowned upon, because they've found that they have supporters, not only in their communities, but in the halls of power. Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska and a Vice-Presidential candidate and she's talking about death panels. Almost every elected official in South Carolina has said or done something crazy to disparage the President's plans. Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, is trying to secede from the Union because of this. This isn't exactly your local militia who keep guns and money buried in the woods in case the government turns against the people.
This IS the government.
And on top of that, you've got a church leader praying to God that the President dies. Sure, it's just a storefront church, but whatever he's saying is working. Is it hateful? Sure it is, but all that means is that there's a lot of hateful people out there. They just don't live in the backwoods of Alabama anymore. Now, they're working in office buildings alongside the rest of us. Claiming that their country has been stolen. That they don't recognize it anymore.
Of course not, because it's multicultural, not monochromatic. You gotta read between the lines. We know what you're getting at.
A few years ago, some of us would joke about how some white people were secretly racist. How they'd say one thing and do another. How they'd try to be our friends and smile in our faces, while calling us "nigger" behind our backs for speaking out. Or "angry black man or woman." Like we couldn't see through that fake smile.
They knew all the right things to say in public, but behind closed doors, they'd say how they really feel. And that's nothing new. We all do that, because I'd be lying if I said I never talked badly about white people. But we believed that white people couldn't stand for a black person to be on top. That having a black person explain something to them burned them up. In our minds, white people hated the idea of a black person that was higher up the food chain than they were. They hated more than anything, having to call a black man "Mister." Felt like hot sauce was coming back up their throats to have to do it.
We always kept that to ourselves, though. We didn't tell white people about our theories because we never knew what kind of white person we were dealing with. Some white people were cool about everything. They understood that there were still race problems in America and that black people had a clearly different perspective on these things that needed to be heard.
Then, there were the ones who can't understand why they can't say "nigger." And thanks to all of this open anger and hostility, we know which is which. If you work with a white guy who took off to go to one of these rallies, you probably don't need me to tell you this, but don't try to date his daughter. His rebel flag tattoo will be the last thing you ever see.
That kinda guy is in a position of power now. He's probably got a radio show or a newspaper column, just saying all the right things to incite more anger. And while, ten years ago, there were whites who might have agreed, but never would have associated with them, they're standing united, publicly in 2009. They've spent the last decade reveling in their bigotry on websites and message boards, safe in their anonymity.
They're bold now, because they're supported by politicians and media forces who, ten years ago, never would have legitimized such a movement, despite their personal feelings. Now, they realize that there's money in being a bigot. And the people too unafraid to let their real feelings be known see that there's others out there just like them. They're like kids who think they want to fight, but no one wants to throw the first punch. But once it's thrown, though...all of a sudden, they're crazed cage fighters.
They want to fight back now, because the commute to the suburbs has gotten too long. Because NOW it's a problem that our country is in debt. NOW, borrowing money from China is a problem. NOW, we can't mortgage our children's future. NOW, we have to verify that the President is really an American.
They're all coming out of the woodwork now, determined to turn back the clock. "They've gone too far this time!" But not because of health care reform, fears of socialism, or any other the other half-ass reasons they've thought up on the fly. It's because a black man is President.
You think they're gonna be okay with that? They never got over having to call their black boss "Mister."
Friday, September 11, 2009
My creative writing teacher said she dreamed about him recently, including the night before. She was an old lady who was very spiritual and always laying down some wisdom for us. We talked about him for a good part of the class before she gave us our assignment: Journal writing.
Reading the journal now reflects how my viewpoint on the world changed in just two days. On Monday, I struggled for things to write about, talking about mundane topics like what my friends are doing and how I can't think of anything to write. Tuesday, I had no shortage of things to say.
I was so angry. I thought it was a joke at first.
There were five of us living in that two bedroom apartment with no furniture. I had my own room, where I slept on the floor. Three more slept in the living room, one more in the other bedroom. We had a futon in the living room that we drove across Jackson, MS, holding it onto the roof of my car through the sunroof and we had a television with no cable. In another week and some change, we'd all be homeless. But on this day, my own situation in life didn't seem to matter.
I don't remember what time it was (probably 9 or something, CST). I had gotten up and was headed to the living room when I encountered Shundra, who had just come into the apartment and was headed into Mike's room. She told me a plane had hit the World Trade Center.
Like I said, I thought it was a joke. Mike was full of jokes, all the time, and so I figured that this was something they'd come up with in the car on their way back here. So I laughed it off like a joke and went into the living room, where Mike had just come through the door. He repeated what Shundra said. "You're joking, right?" I said. Mike looked at me and said, "No, I'm serious." I looked at Shundra and said, "He's joking, right?" She said, "Nope." I laughed and didn't think anything of it. Mike said, "Alright, Thad." That was his way of saying that he wasn't gonna try to convince me, and with that, he walked out of the room.
When he did that, I knew that he was telling the truth, but I figured that it was something like the Corey Lidle situation sometime later, where a guy accidentally flew a small plane into a building. Not a huge deal. And their reactions didn't exactly express to me that this was something of deadly importance. It was more like, "Dude, you're never gonna believe what happened!" So I sat down on the floor, and looked at the TV. I don't remember if it was on or not and I don't remember who was there. All I remember is watching video of planes hitting buildings for the next two or three hours.
And I remember being angry. We're Americans. I always believed that no one would be stupid enough to bring the fight to our front steps. Yet, here we were, watching an irreplaceable part of the most recognizable skyline in the world collapse into rubble. Our people were screaming in the streets, running through giant clouds of dust, jumping out of buildings, walking from Manhattan to Brooklyn. Just plain insanity. When they showed how the attack happened, with almost no one getting video of the first plane, but the world watching when the second plane hit, I thought to myself that the execution was brilliant. It was like one of those movie villains planned this out, where everything has to happen with clockwork precision.
No one spoke. What was there to say? We were afraid that this was it. That the world was about to end. That the Doomsday Clock was about to strike 12. And it wasn't like we were able to reflect on things just yet. We didn't really know that it wasn't a nation attacking us, but a terrorist group. And this was before we thought about America's foreign policy history. It wasn't until days later that politics were even brought up. This is before Saddam's name was brought into it or Fahrenheit 9/11 told us how Bush snuck his bin Laden friends out of America. This was before conspiracy theories and whether or not Bush knew it was coming. Hell, we didn't even know whether or not it was over. Some really believed that maybe they'd strike the sprawling metropolis called Jackson, MS. That abandoned hotel downtown would go up right nice.
We loaded up my car and went over to Jackson State's campus, where we all attended school. Some of us had class that day, but we weren't gonna go. Good thing the school canceled class after the attack. For the rest of the day, students just wandered around campus and talked about what we had seen, considering our futures. I thought about people I knew in New York and how I couldn't call them, so I sent emails, hoping that they were alright and they'd get back to me soon. I thought about people I knew in the military and what would happen to them. I thought about the draft coming back and how we'd be invading Afghanistan soon, because that's where Osama bin Laden was. He was the guy CNN said set this up.
I was scared and didn't want to go fight World War III, but it was inevitable and I wouldn't run to Canada or try to get out of it. If I died, at least I knew it would be for something I actually believed in: Destroying Afghanistan.
Later that day, I sat down in the library and wrote in my journal. When I read it now, it's almost funny how little I knew about the world. But they were faceless terrorists who deserved to die in my mind. Eight years later, people still view people in the Middle East like that. I feel like I know better. After all, America isn't perfect and it does make mistakes. And sometimes, those mistakes have consequences. I believe that 9/11 was one of them. When I had time to really think about what would happen, I had hoped that this would change America for the better. Of course, we'd be invading Afghanistan, but I don't think anyone would see the course that we've taken coming.
There is more hate, anger, and fear in America than ever before and the last time we were truly united as a people was on September 11, 2001. Before it became a political tool or a graphic for the cable news stations, it was a real day when thousands died. There was no "us and them." No Democrats or Republicans. No black or white. "Patriotism" hadn't yet become swallowed whole by "politics." We were all just Americans and it's sad that something like that had to happen for us to come together like that. It would be nice if we could do it again without having to suffer any bloodshed or violent property damage.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Crazy question, I know, but it's one that seems to keep coming up. After all, it's something that has touched us all in one way or another, whether we've actually been involved in it somehow, we've talked to a friend or relative who's done it, or because celebrities just can't keep from punching each other. Everyone has a viewpoint on this. I don't think there's anyone in the world who doesn't have an opinion on whether or not it's okay to hit your girl with a ridge hand to the bridge of her nose.
I was raised to believe that you should never hit a woman. It wasn't anything that my dad and I talked about, because it's not like I had a problem with going around smacking women (except in eighth grade, when I kept smacking a girl I liked on her ass. He still doesn't know I did this, and mostly like won't, because he doesn't read me). But just through the power of observation, I learned not to do it. I never saw my dad hit my mother. I've never even seen my parents argue. The only person I ever saw him hit was us (his kids), it was with a belt, and we had it coming (Okay. I got it. I shouldn't drink water out of puddles in the street).
So, I believe that hitting women is wrong. Let's face it: Women, generally speaking, are not as strong as men, and for all that talk about women having a higher pain tolerance, you can play-fight with a woman and her knees will buckle like Mike Tyson blasted her across the face with a lead pipe. We can't hit women, for one, because it's about as fair as hitting a sleeping hobo.
Not only that, men are supposed to want to protect women. When you find someone you really love, when it goes down, you put that person before yourself. Now, if you're beating your woman in the face every night, the only way you can protect her is to stop hitting her. If you're a full blown abuser, you won't wanna do anything that fucking dumb. She might start feeling good about herself and leave. Then, what are you supposed to punch?
But there are those times when women are practically begging the man to punch her in the fucking face. I don't know why some women do those things. I know some women don't believe that their man will hit them, so that gives them free license not to shut the fuck up. They'll call the man a "bitch" if he doesn't hit her, but he's a "bitch" if he does. I know some women might want to get their man locked up and sully his name forever, because that's something that never goes away. Maybe the woman never learned that a man can break a woman's jaw without even knowing how to punch, and she won't ever see where she went wrong until she slaps her man across the face. Either way, these women are goading their men into doing it. I'm not giving them a pass or anything, because the man still shouldn't hit the woman...but something needs to be said to these women who are bringing it on themselves.
I'm not talking about the serial abuser who hits his girl "because he loves her." That dude's got anger management problems and will probably be found shirtless and tasered in his front yard at some point. I'm talking about the guy whose girl is purposely pressing his buttons until his frustrations overtake his common sense.
I say again, it's NEVER okay for a man to hit a woman (unless she's got a knife or a gun, in which case, if you think I'm wrong, fuck you). This is pretty much a common truth that can't ever be disputed.
What isn't a common truth is that women are fucking angels who a blameless in all fist-to-face situations. See, getting run over by a truck is wrong, too, but that doesn't mean that you should stand in front of one and dare it to hit you. That's what we're talking about here.
Despite the fact that women are good at shouting dissent into submission (not because the logic is air tight, but because men just want women to shut the fuck up), this simply isn't true. We really need to get past the idea that men are always at fault for everything. I remember hearing about some woman who stole thousands of dollars of her husband's money that was intended for their kid's private school, and when he decided to divorce and sue her, one of my idiot co-workers said that it wasn't stealing because they were married and it was her money, too. This is the same woman who once said that Central and South America are part of the United States of America because they all have "America" in the name.
Now, if that guy had punched his woman, I can't say that he was entirely wrong. I mean, he would have been wrong, but wrong in the same way that speeding or insulting BET employees is wrong. Sure, there was probably a better way to handle it, but it's not like they didn't have it coming. You'll say all the right things out loud, but in your head, you're thinking, "...but I understand."
We all know those women. The ones that we look at and think, "It's just a matter of time before some man tees off on her eye socket." And then, when it actually happens, we pretend to be shocked and condemn that man, all the while forgetting that eight-month transition period where she drove him to drink. Yeah, punching is wrong, but fuck me, so is nagging. It must be bad if even the Bible tells you that a man "would rather live on the roof than come home to a nagging wife." Yeah, women don't like getting punched, but nagging is like "verbal punching" to men. And since we don't use words too well, we resort to using fists. Think of it as "words that you can feel."
We don't think about that when a guy snaps. There's no TV show about guys who got fed up and heart punched his wife, unless you count "Cops." All we see is the pictures on TMZ.com. And just like that, he's gotta go through life hearing strangers preaching that he'll do it again. Meanwhile, the woman he used to be with is stressing out some other man until he's faced with that inevitable choice: Ruining his life by destroying his liver or ruining his life by making her swallow some teeth.
Situations take on a whole new perspective when they're looked at through that light. It doesn't let the guy off the hook, because HITTING WOMEN IS WRONG, but it does point out the woman's own role in her getting that ass whooped. Yes, ladies...he should keep his hands to himself, but next time he refuses to argue with you and leaves the room in protest, maybe you should just let him leave instead of following behind him. Being right isn't worth a broken orbital bone.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Why did he even put himself through it? What is he trying to prove? I understand his stated goals: He wants to bring the message of the Republican Party to black people. I get it. But you're wasting your time, Mike. When they coined the phrase "fool's errand," they had your current RNC campaign in mind.
I'm sure someone might read this and think, "Wow, he's being closeminded. If he just took a minute to listen to what the Republican Party has to say, he might hear a message that black people can relate to." And I have. I know what the Republican Party is all about, as it relates to its message, and there are things there I can agree with it or support.
Where I (and I assume, many other black people) disagree with the Republicans is when it comes to who's in their party. This has nothing to do with their message being irrelevant or anything like that. This has to do with the fact that so much of their leadership and supporters seem to be devoid of souls. All you have to do is watch Fox News to see the hatred. Observe the town hall meetings. Listen to the things that are being said on right-wing talk radio or by their own elected officials. Why would black people want to have anything to do with that?
These are people who apologize for or outright support blatant racism in our culture. These are people who want there to always be division between the races. These are the people who play the race card, then point at the black guy for daring to take offense to it. That's what's infected the Republican Party. Stop claiming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of your own, because he would have been run out a long time ago.
But let's say we would be welcomed with open arms. Let's say black people started joining the Republican Party in record numbers. Those same people who don't like us as Democrats will just keep not liking us as they abandon the party. Libertarian enrollment would explode if something like that happened. Either that, or the Klan would become a legitimized political party.
Why is Michael Steele so focused on recruiting black people, anyway? Is he tired of having to settle for hanging out with Alan Keyes at the convention? After all, we're only 12% of the population. 12% of the population that most of your current base doesn't like, anyway. Is losing 40% of the population worth gaining that 12%? Because as you well know, we can't elect anyone on our own.
After all, why change what's worked since the Civil Rights days? The Republicans haven't ever been interested in courting black votes, because they can get all of the votes they need by getting white folks mad. It's easy and it works. I can't say I blame them. And you wanna mess all that up by inviting black people to the party. Do you even know who's in your party? The state of Texas is trying to secede just because we have a black President! Gun sales are up just because we have a black President! White supremacist group recruitment is through the roof just because we have a black President! You want us to hug up with THEM? And you wonder why black people keep voting Democratic.
Michael Steele, the Republican base doesn't even like YOU and you're the chairman of the RNC, which is kinda like being on the prom committee, anyway. Your job isn't to mobilize anything, your job is to make sure the balloons and streamers are in place when Mitt Romney accepts the 2012 nomination. Rush Limbaugh has more influence than you, and he's just a racist pill-popper with a hearing aid drilled in the side of his head.
So just let this go and stop trying to convince us that the Republican Party is really interested in having us with them. They almost elected a mummy and an idiot just by making people afraid of the idea that they'd have to call a black man "Mr. President." Come on, man. And that anyone thought we'd listen to you is actually pretty insulting. You defend them, even when they say something racist. You don't have any credibility among black folks. I'm saying that and generally speaking, I like you.
They're setting you up for failure and in the end, you'll be a scapegoat for them. It's not too late for you, though. Just come on home, so we can stop being ashamed of your career choices. We'll just call you a "Blue Dog Democrat." Deal?
I'm sure it baffles some people why the WNBA hasn't caught on, because after all, women's basketball in successful in Europe, right? But we can't always compare our tastes to that of the Europeans, because after all, they also like soccer. And they sustain the music careers of our failed stars long after they should have faded all the way into obscurity. Plus, they're socialists.
I could come up with a ton of reason why the WNBA is failing, just like I could come up with a ton of ways to fix it. Unfortunately, 80% of those reasons and ideas revolve around the objectification and lack-of-objectification of women. But I do want to prove that I'm somewhat credible when I'm writing in this blog of mine, so I'll have to do better than saying, "Instead of high-fives, the players should be required to passionately kiss at midcourt."
Yes, the WNBA players are skilled and talented. Truly, 90% of those players could beat the brakes off of me (and anyone watching) in a game of one-on-one. I still believe that I could take the tall stiffs, much like their NBA counterparts.
But it's not always the most exciting thing to watch, and once you get past the inspiration of showing girls that they can also be strong and beautiful, it dawns on you that all you're doing is watching short people jog up and down the court. If I had a daughter, I would watch the games with her, because I'd want her to believe that she can do anything, but in reality, I'd just be counting the days until Oct. 30, when real basketball starts.
Basketball is a game of speed and athleticism, but the WNBA players are slower and not as athletic. And that's not their fault, it's just how we're built. Men are built for running, jumping, and drinking a 12-pack on Sundays during football season. Women are built for other stuff, like generally not being as athletic and walking in heels. Sure, they can run and jump, too, but men do it better. I know this because the Olympics told me so. And if they want, I feel that they should be allowed to compete against men. I just hope their fragile self-esteems don't cause them to cry all over the court.
I kid, women. I kid. But you guys know you can cry at the drop of a dime.
So how does the WNBA overcome this? After all, that's the main appeal of the NBA, watching really tall men do things that the rest of us couldn't imagine doing without it being a dream or an episode of Slamball. We want to see LeBron jump over people, or Dwyane Wade block shots, or Shawn Marion jumping over six other guys to secure a rebound. We love the "above the rim" aspect of the game. We love the idea that a man can be 6'8", 240 lbs. and still be the quickest guy on the court.
The WNBA doesn't show us anything that most of us don't believe we can't do ourselves. They don't jump particularly high or run particularly fast (except the really short players). Everything is below the rim without the "above the rim" stuff to balance it out. So how does the WNBA fix it?
Lower the rim to nine feet.
Really, what does the WNBA have to lose? It's burgeoning fanbase? Hell, it doesn't even want the one it has. It's extremely popular among lesbians, from what I understand, and a percentage of the league is likely carpetmunchers, anyway. Yet, the WNBA won't even acknowledge them. It still desires mainstream acceptance, despite the fact that they run in the summer time, when no one watches TV. It's been 13 years. The revolution isn't happening.
But if you can get these women in the air, you might see something happen. The novelty factor alone would get ratings up, I'm sure. Not only that, dunking at nine feet is an attainable goal for an athletic woman. Follow me on this.
When boys get to be about 14 or 15 years old, they spend hours just trying to reach the rim, inadvertently strengthing the muscles needed to jump higher. By the time they're 17 or 18, they're dunking with two hands. Women don't ever do this unless they're 6'4" or something, because, really....what's the point? If a girl is 5'6", she's never going to reach a ten foot goal, and with girls not being complete dumbasses (until they start dating, anyway), they're not going to blow out a knee trying to get there. But nine feet? She might be out there, trying to dunk for hours, just like the boys do. Her legs will get stronger, until she can dunk with ease, just like the boys do. Only it'll be on a nine foot goal.
Say she goes into the WNBA, where she dunks all over the competition on the regular, making highlight reels on ESPN every night, inspiring girls to go out and do the same thing, an actual female Michael Jordan. Ten years later, girls are throwing down all over the place and All-Star Weekend has a female dunk contest for us to ignore.
You trying to tell me you wouldn't watch that?
It was predicted when the WNBA (and the ABL before it) started play in the mid-90s, that dunking in women's leagues would become more commonplace as time went on. And it hasn't. Lisa Leslie and Candace Parker are about the only two players who can do it, and they're both well over six feet. It's not going to happen. And neither is the mass appeal that the WNBA is looking for. So why not engineer the conditions that would allow it to happen?
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
But because it's THIS President, the President that they never wanted, that they've fought on everything from health care reform to beer and condiment choices, it is a problem. That's the only way people can have a problem with a guy who wants to speak about education. "Don't read books, Mary, because Barack Obama is a socialist."
They're worried about the President brainwashing their six year old kid into joining "Obama's Thought Police and Re-Education Brigade" and taking up the cause of socialism. I'm just using their example...and I will continue with that when I point out to them that the oldest that their kid will get while Obama can possibly be in office is fourteen, when he will still be unable to join the military.
Even if he formed the "Youth Brigade" and came in the night for your children, the soonest he could get that off the ground, assuming he gets re-elected, is what? 2013? Remember...this is the inept government. The IRS is a bloated drain on resources, remember? These guys can't do anything right. Remember...six month waiting lists in the hospital for government run health care? How do you expect them to create a fighting force from our own lazy, unruly kids in time enough for him to see it and use it before he leaves office? You can barely get your kids to even go outdoors, and you think the President will trick them into taking over the nation?
You people are retarded.
He's not going to brainwash your kids, people. He's just gonna tell them to read books and stop playing so much XBox. Is that really such a bad thing? If you want brainwashing, go watch "Jesus Camp." I'm more afraid of that than I am of anything this President's gonna say.
Besides, the same people complaining about this are the same people who bitch about black people and our non-existant morals. Yet, here we have a black President who might inspire some of our black youth to stay on or get back on that positive path. We need this President to do what he's doing so our kids don't keep thinking that intelligence is a "white thing." So, I see this whole thing as positive.
Even when we had our last President struggling to get through "My Pet Goat," before spending the next 11 minutes pissing himself on 9/11, it was still a good thing, because that's a moment that these kids will remember forever. And that President was a self-proclaimed idiot. He told the world he wasn't a "reader" and people in his cabinet told us that he preferred the Cliff Notes version of everything, from domestic issues to terrorist threats. At least THIS President is an intellectual. Our kids need to see that and truthfully, yours do, too.
Your kids are just as dumb these days. I see them out in the world, or online, butchering the English language or making YouTube videos that are just compilations of people injuring themselves. Your kids could benefit from a story like his, too. Your kids could benefit from his words. They're about three degrees away from a book burning rally, because words are making them "too smart." But you don't see that because you're too busy calling him a "socialist." I appreciate your restraint, however, because you and I both know what you really wanna call him.
Just shut up and stop trying to turn everything into a political thing. The President just wants to try to inspire some kids to make something out of themselves, not plant the seeds for "Chairman Obama's Glorious Revolution of American Socialism."