YOU ARE A PAIN IN THE ASS...unfortunately most women won't see it that way. Being difficult, argumentative, unrelenting, and untactful aren't positive qualities. You make mistakes, but all hell breaks loose if I point them out. A mature woman knows that everything doesn't need to be her way and everything doesn't need to be said. These R&B chicks done got you fooled. Those are just songs, not a way to live your life. If you are proud to be a "handful," please don't ever darken my door...because you might get your feelings hurt.
Ladies, please...stop posting shit like that.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Never waste your time praying that God change someone's heart or mind or love you again. I know folks like to think that God can do anything, but if he could, wouldn't a power like that be better served ending murderous conflicts around the world instead of your love life? Just imagine, he's about to stop the standoff between North Korea and everyone, but he has to drop everything because you can't accept the fact that your significant other left you. I know lots of people say, "God is Good," but you don't know if God is good at multitasking.
And if he had the power to change hearts just like that, wouldn't you want him NOT to use it? A power like that surely counts as voodoo or witchcraft; tools of the Devil, and using them will condemn him to Hell. All because you can't get over the idea that you're going to be alone again.
And if he had the power to change hearts just like that, wouldn't you want him NOT to use it? A power like that surely counts as voodoo or witchcraft; tools of the Devil, and using them will condemn him to Hell. All because you can't get over the idea that you're going to be alone again.
Why do people who own pit bulls act like their dogs are the victims of a negative propaganda blitz at the hands of the Pomeranian/German Shepherd lobby? Let's just face facts: Studies show that no other breed has mauled more small children than pit bulls. Studies also show that no other breed makes grown men fill their boxers with logs than pit bulls, and that's not by accident. I don't care how sweet pit bull owners claim their dogs are, they are still VIOLENT AND SOULLESS KILLERS STRAIGHT FROM HELL.
If pit bulls are so unfairly portrayed, then why aren't there any other breeds who get painted this way. The only other dogs that I've ever heard of people being afraid of are dobermans, and that's because in the 80s (you know, before the rappers made everyone think they wanted pit bulls), those were the deranged, killer dogs of choice. Everyone was afraid of them because, well, they bit people. We sure had some kooky ideas back then, being afraid of dogs that we knew would bite us. What was wrong with people?
But you never hear about boxers or Jack Russell terriers ever having to be put down after acquiring a taste for human flesh. And that's because it never happens, since those dogs don't have a bloodlust. Or maybe they do and I've just never seen it. But the difference between those dogs and pit bulls is that the bloodlust isn't hovering so close to the surface. Pit bulls can go from zero to "killed everyone in the house" in seconds.
Pit bull owners claim that their dogs are the sweetest dogs in the world, they wouldn't hurt anyone, and that it's all about how your dogs is trained. To a degree, that's true, but you'll excuse me if I don't feel comfortable putting my life in your hands and your ability to break your dog's desire for independent thought. Most people can't even stop their dog from jumping on the couch or piddling on shoes, so you can see why I just don't believe you when you say that you've rid him of his natural urge to plunge his fangs into my jugular.
Seriously, I get that pit bulls can be sweet dogs. Doesn't mean everyone's gonna be comfortable around your dog, and that can be any dog. Everyone doesn't like dogs, especially ones that carry a history of being serial killers. So, pit bull owners, just cut everyone else some slack and understand that just because that cute puppy hasn't killed you yet doesn't mean that he won't ever do it. In the meantime, I'll be waiting safely outside, because as far as I know, pit bulls still can't open doors.
If pit bulls are so unfairly portrayed, then why aren't there any other breeds who get painted this way. The only other dogs that I've ever heard of people being afraid of are dobermans, and that's because in the 80s (you know, before the rappers made everyone think they wanted pit bulls), those were the deranged, killer dogs of choice. Everyone was afraid of them because, well, they bit people. We sure had some kooky ideas back then, being afraid of dogs that we knew would bite us. What was wrong with people?
But you never hear about boxers or Jack Russell terriers ever having to be put down after acquiring a taste for human flesh. And that's because it never happens, since those dogs don't have a bloodlust. Or maybe they do and I've just never seen it. But the difference between those dogs and pit bulls is that the bloodlust isn't hovering so close to the surface. Pit bulls can go from zero to "killed everyone in the house" in seconds.
Pit bull owners claim that their dogs are the sweetest dogs in the world, they wouldn't hurt anyone, and that it's all about how your dogs is trained. To a degree, that's true, but you'll excuse me if I don't feel comfortable putting my life in your hands and your ability to break your dog's desire for independent thought. Most people can't even stop their dog from jumping on the couch or piddling on shoes, so you can see why I just don't believe you when you say that you've rid him of his natural urge to plunge his fangs into my jugular.
Seriously, I get that pit bulls can be sweet dogs. Doesn't mean everyone's gonna be comfortable around your dog, and that can be any dog. Everyone doesn't like dogs, especially ones that carry a history of being serial killers. So, pit bull owners, just cut everyone else some slack and understand that just because that cute puppy hasn't killed you yet doesn't mean that he won't ever do it. In the meantime, I'll be waiting safely outside, because as far as I know, pit bulls still can't open doors.
I used to think that there was some kind of conspiracy in the music industry, that there was a dark, underhanded plot to subjugate the masses with ignorant music. That our people only listened to that stuff because there were no other options and that, given the chance, they would choose the more intelligent and creative fare that the recording industry is trying to extinguish, because the inevitable revolution against the rich is being derailed...by bad music.
Now, I realize how ridiculous that sounds.
Truth is, there is no conspiracy. No one's forcing folks to buy Yung Dro CDs. They buy it because they like it. To believe anything else is giving the average person entirely too much credit. Let's face it, if shows like "The Real Housewives of Lithonia" can be a hit, then it shouldn't shock us that chicks who wear meat dresses are music stars. There isn't a conspiracy against Little Brother videos. BET just knows their audience. And their audience doesn't care that Hurricane Chris was a complete embarrassment to black people.
I can understand blaming corporations for selling substandard food because it's cheaper to produce than the healthy stuff and ignorant people won't know the difference. After all, we have to eat that stuff. I can see blaming corporations for their oil prices or non-working brakes. Cutting corners on safety measures when throwing up a building. I get that. It makes sense. They won't spend money to make better stuff if they don't have to.
But music is different, because it's not vitally important that we have it; not unless you're an overly dramatic person who actually says things like, "I would DIE without good music." Then, you're probably an asshole. It's based on your personal taste and what you've been exposed to. I know that growing up, most black people were exposed to a lot of the same types of music, and yet, many of us still don't want anything to do with Lil Wayne. If it were an exact science, more black people would be into Metallica.
So, from that perspective, blaming the RIAA or RadioOne or ClearChannel for the decline in music isn't really accurate, because they don't shape peoples' tastes. If you don't like something, no amount of shoving it down your throat is going to make you like it. It's why rape victims never fall in love with the rapist.
Sure, the current music is cheaper to make and easier to mass produce than, say...giant bands with horn sections or artists who are trying to make colors emit from sound. Yes, it benefits the corporations for things to be like they are, but they're really just chasin' them dollars by giving the people what they want. And evidently, what they want includes a repetitive hook, a guest appearance from Nicki Minaj, and lots of Autotune.
Now, I realize how ridiculous that sounds.
Truth is, there is no conspiracy. No one's forcing folks to buy Yung Dro CDs. They buy it because they like it. To believe anything else is giving the average person entirely too much credit. Let's face it, if shows like "The Real Housewives of Lithonia" can be a hit, then it shouldn't shock us that chicks who wear meat dresses are music stars. There isn't a conspiracy against Little Brother videos. BET just knows their audience. And their audience doesn't care that Hurricane Chris was a complete embarrassment to black people.
I can understand blaming corporations for selling substandard food because it's cheaper to produce than the healthy stuff and ignorant people won't know the difference. After all, we have to eat that stuff. I can see blaming corporations for their oil prices or non-working brakes. Cutting corners on safety measures when throwing up a building. I get that. It makes sense. They won't spend money to make better stuff if they don't have to.
But music is different, because it's not vitally important that we have it; not unless you're an overly dramatic person who actually says things like, "I would DIE without good music." Then, you're probably an asshole. It's based on your personal taste and what you've been exposed to. I know that growing up, most black people were exposed to a lot of the same types of music, and yet, many of us still don't want anything to do with Lil Wayne. If it were an exact science, more black people would be into Metallica.
So, from that perspective, blaming the RIAA or RadioOne or ClearChannel for the decline in music isn't really accurate, because they don't shape peoples' tastes. If you don't like something, no amount of shoving it down your throat is going to make you like it. It's why rape victims never fall in love with the rapist.
Sure, the current music is cheaper to make and easier to mass produce than, say...giant bands with horn sections or artists who are trying to make colors emit from sound. Yes, it benefits the corporations for things to be like they are, but they're really just chasin' them dollars by giving the people what they want. And evidently, what they want includes a repetitive hook, a guest appearance from Nicki Minaj, and lots of Autotune.
As high school boys everywhere can attest, getting into a 16 year old girl's pants when she isn't really ready is a Herculean effort that requires no less than lies and emotional manipulation, otherwise it just ain't going down. For a grown man to take advantage of that is disgusting. But for a grown woman to do the same, well...boys just don't roll like girls.
Look, teenage boys spend all of their teenage years trying to put their crotches on things, and the saddest part about that is, being human isn't always a requirement. The mind of a teenage boy is a messed up place, which is why there are true-life stories of boys putting their dicks in anything from toilet paper rolls to scalding hot pies (I HAVE NEVER DONE SUCH THINGS). So if a grown woman wants to have sex with them, not a stitch of manipulation is required, because he would basically be living out 90% of his masturbation fantasies, anyway.
Simply put, sleeping with teenage boys is not the same thing as sleeping with teenage girls. Not even close. It's wrong both ways, but in one of those situations, the so-called victim is actively seeking for the sex to happen. There won't be any emotional scarring or mental setbacks for any teenage boy, no matter what the outcome is. I mean, unless he happened to be sleeping with another man.
So ladies, just bear with us if we don't share your same level of outrage when some hot female teacher gets caught sleeping with a student. To us, that kid is just living the dream.
Look, teenage boys spend all of their teenage years trying to put their crotches on things, and the saddest part about that is, being human isn't always a requirement. The mind of a teenage boy is a messed up place, which is why there are true-life stories of boys putting their dicks in anything from toilet paper rolls to scalding hot pies (I HAVE NEVER DONE SUCH THINGS). So if a grown woman wants to have sex with them, not a stitch of manipulation is required, because he would basically be living out 90% of his masturbation fantasies, anyway.
Simply put, sleeping with teenage boys is not the same thing as sleeping with teenage girls. Not even close. It's wrong both ways, but in one of those situations, the so-called victim is actively seeking for the sex to happen. There won't be any emotional scarring or mental setbacks for any teenage boy, no matter what the outcome is. I mean, unless he happened to be sleeping with another man.
So ladies, just bear with us if we don't share your same level of outrage when some hot female teacher gets caught sleeping with a student. To us, that kid is just living the dream.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Apparently, I missed the memo that "gangs" and "social activist groups" are interchangeable, but that's what Chicago's gang leaders want me to believe.
If you listen to what they've been saying in their press conferences (yes, they held a press conference. My mind is blown by this), they're not delinquents who shoot each other over colors and city blocks they don't even own, but an actually an outreach group for wayward youth, who have nowhere else to turn. Clearly, I've been blind all these years. On top of that, the Chicago's police are the real villains, and the gangs are actually helpless and voiceless victims who have no way of fighting back. They are harassed by the police FOR NO REASON AT ALL...other than being exceptionally well-coordinated. They're like a dance troupe, without the dancing. Or the gay.
But in their press conference, they actually got out there and said that the Chicago Police "weren't playing fair." They actually formed those words with their brains and allowed them to come out of their mouths. You know, because murderers and drug dealers really should be treated fairly.
What the hell is wrong with these people? Look, I ain't gonna sit here and say that the Chicago police are saints. Sure, they have a history of abuse. Sure, they don't get along with the people in the community. I get that. But what's that gotta do with y'all getting out here and selling drugs and shooting each other? What's that gotta do with all the senseless violence? Police abuse has been going on in a lotta places for a lotta years, and I've never heard anyone say, "Being abused by the police made me want to sell crack."
Let's just be real here, Chicago gangs...you're not exactly credible here. No one gives a shit what happens to you, because you're in gangs. When was the last time you heard anyone say anything positive about gangs being in their neighborhood? "You know, ever since Big ol' 6 took over around here, my property values have gone up." You can say whatever you want about the cops, and it can be 100% accurate, with video evidence, and no one will care, because no matter what the police do, people will still be more afraid of gangs than they are of the police. And the fact that you can't see that proves why you're stupid enough to be in a gang in the first place. What, did the gangs think that someone other than other gang members would rally to their defense?
See, all folks want is for their kids to be able to walk around outside without having to be bulletproof, and to have a minimum of crackheads in the area. And that's a problem that the cops don't cause. Police brutality is what the police can control. But two things...one, it's not like gangs will promise to stop selling drugs if the cops stop beating their asses, and two, when it comes to gangs, most people probably wish the police would dish out more abuse.
Gangs, what you don't need to start doing is trying to pretend that you bring something positive to the community. You don't. You don't feed any homeless people or run any youth football leagues. You don't even have the smarts to keep your own neighborhoods decent, like the Mafia used to. To pretend anything different means that you're as dumb as a fence post and you think we're just as stupid as you are.
Any abuse you get from the police, you brought on yourselves by being gangs in the first place, and if you really wanted to stop that, all you'd have to do is stop killing kids and selling drugs. Neither of those things are needed to make Chicago a better place to live. Sure, there would be some residual ass-kickings in the interim, but that's to be expected, as no one believes that gang members ever change. Plus, I hear the police in Chicago are really corrupt. But if you really gave a damn about Chicago, you'd stop doing what you're doing instead of saying it's someone else's fault that you're a bunch of assholes.
Wait, what am I doing? Like some jackass gang member is really gonna read all these words and shit.
If you listen to what they've been saying in their press conferences (yes, they held a press conference. My mind is blown by this), they're not delinquents who shoot each other over colors and city blocks they don't even own, but an actually an outreach group for wayward youth, who have nowhere else to turn. Clearly, I've been blind all these years. On top of that, the Chicago's police are the real villains, and the gangs are actually helpless and voiceless victims who have no way of fighting back. They are harassed by the police FOR NO REASON AT ALL...other than being exceptionally well-coordinated. They're like a dance troupe, without the dancing. Or the gay.
But in their press conference, they actually got out there and said that the Chicago Police "weren't playing fair." They actually formed those words with their brains and allowed them to come out of their mouths. You know, because murderers and drug dealers really should be treated fairly.
What the hell is wrong with these people? Look, I ain't gonna sit here and say that the Chicago police are saints. Sure, they have a history of abuse. Sure, they don't get along with the people in the community. I get that. But what's that gotta do with y'all getting out here and selling drugs and shooting each other? What's that gotta do with all the senseless violence? Police abuse has been going on in a lotta places for a lotta years, and I've never heard anyone say, "Being abused by the police made me want to sell crack."
Let's just be real here, Chicago gangs...you're not exactly credible here. No one gives a shit what happens to you, because you're in gangs. When was the last time you heard anyone say anything positive about gangs being in their neighborhood? "You know, ever since Big ol' 6 took over around here, my property values have gone up." You can say whatever you want about the cops, and it can be 100% accurate, with video evidence, and no one will care, because no matter what the police do, people will still be more afraid of gangs than they are of the police. And the fact that you can't see that proves why you're stupid enough to be in a gang in the first place. What, did the gangs think that someone other than other gang members would rally to their defense?
See, all folks want is for their kids to be able to walk around outside without having to be bulletproof, and to have a minimum of crackheads in the area. And that's a problem that the cops don't cause. Police brutality is what the police can control. But two things...one, it's not like gangs will promise to stop selling drugs if the cops stop beating their asses, and two, when it comes to gangs, most people probably wish the police would dish out more abuse.
Gangs, what you don't need to start doing is trying to pretend that you bring something positive to the community. You don't. You don't feed any homeless people or run any youth football leagues. You don't even have the smarts to keep your own neighborhoods decent, like the Mafia used to. To pretend anything different means that you're as dumb as a fence post and you think we're just as stupid as you are.
Any abuse you get from the police, you brought on yourselves by being gangs in the first place, and if you really wanted to stop that, all you'd have to do is stop killing kids and selling drugs. Neither of those things are needed to make Chicago a better place to live. Sure, there would be some residual ass-kickings in the interim, but that's to be expected, as no one believes that gang members ever change. Plus, I hear the police in Chicago are really corrupt. But if you really gave a damn about Chicago, you'd stop doing what you're doing instead of saying it's someone else's fault that you're a bunch of assholes.
Wait, what am I doing? Like some jackass gang member is really gonna read all these words and shit.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
There are always those hopes and dreams that always SHOULD work in theory, perhaps in a vacuum or on "Star Trek," that could never actually happen in the real world. Perhaps finding a way to kill the material desires of man or everyone being able to say the "n-word." These things will never happen because people can't ever be too rich, even if it means bankrupting everyone else. You shoulda kept me from stealing all your money, assholes! That's just how the game is played!
But that's the kind of context that Libertarians view the world through. There's no real benefit to Rand Paul's (I will not call him "Dr. Paul," because having a doctorate doesn't mean I have to show it respect) claim that businesses should be able to deny service to black people because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 improperly infringes on the rights of private citizens. How does that make the world better? It doesn't even make private business better, because even though racists would be happy, that's less money that black people are spending on shit. And everyone knows that black folks can spend some money. If not for us, the lucrative "multi-colored weave" industry wouldn't exist today.
Sure, if we were sitting in Professor Rahman's PolySci class, you might be able to make that argument, but this is the real world, where people lost lives, health, and loved ones over the central issue of whether or not the world will survive if white people have to flip the script and serve black people. Fifty years later, we can see that it didn't cause God to unleash any plagues, although if the Klan reads this, that'll suddenly become the explanation for AIDS.
But that's the kind of context that Libertarians view the world through. There's no real benefit to Rand Paul's (I will not call him "Dr. Paul," because having a doctorate doesn't mean I have to show it respect) claim that businesses should be able to deny service to black people because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 improperly infringes on the rights of private citizens. How does that make the world better? It doesn't even make private business better, because even though racists would be happy, that's less money that black people are spending on shit. And everyone knows that black folks can spend some money. If not for us, the lucrative "multi-colored weave" industry wouldn't exist today.
Sure, if we were sitting in Professor Rahman's PolySci class, you might be able to make that argument, but this is the real world, where people lost lives, health, and loved ones over the central issue of whether or not the world will survive if white people have to flip the script and serve black people. Fifty years later, we can see that it didn't cause God to unleash any plagues, although if the Klan reads this, that'll suddenly become the explanation for AIDS.
Friday, May 14, 2010
I hate filling up on gas. I hate going to get my oil changed. I hate even checking my oil. It's a fucking chore. As a lazy American, I would be most appreciative to be able to stop doing this. I want a car that I don't have to look at or think about until it's time for me to turn it on or file a police report about it's burglary. Currently, I'm just wasting time that I could be using to watch [Random D-List Celebrity Reality Show X]. But oh no, we have the profits of our corporate overlords to think about.
Oil, and everything else surrounding it is a pain in the ass. But everyone is convinced that the world will collapse into shambles if we stop using it, proving that advertising and lobbying are far more effective than facts and truth will ever be. It's why so many of us think that Kendra Wilkinson is actually famous for something.
The only benefit to buying oil that anyone can think of is that it's miles cheaper than anything else we can replace it with. And that's true, as far as I know. But at the same time, the use of oil not only harms the planet (and us, by proxy, until we can abandon this shithole for Mars), is a national security threat (see; all American involvement in the Middle East, ever), is also expensive (see; current gas prices), and is currently destroying the Gulf of Mexico (see; BP and Halliburton's latest plot to kill us all).
Plus, I'm just sick of buying it. I don't buy it because I want it, I buy it because I have to get to work and that's much easier to do when I don't have to push my car down Highway 78. I don't get a choice in the matter; it's either buy gas or start walking. And anyone who lives in Metro Atlanta knows that's not really an option.
Oil and gas are not market leaders because consumers demand it, they're market leaders because moonshine and whiskey will tear up your engine worse than when you eat at Krystal's. Trust me, if people could lube their engines with Vaseline, godless sodomites would have to find a new deviant hobby because that shit would sell the fuck out.
And yeah, it's cheaper, but since when was cheaper better? Cheaper is awesome when it comes to the DVD bin at Wal-Mart or sending our astronauts into space, but some of the more expensive alternatives to oil and gas simply don't have the side-effects that oil and gas do. Iran can't jack up the price of, say, hydrogen cells, because that shit will be made here in America, or at worst, China. And since they already own more than half of America anyway, it won't change our day-to-day lives at all. Except when they rename this place, "The Glorious Revolution of Amero-China." Coming in 2012.
Also, there won't be any bus fumes to inhale or potential oil leaks that lead to yet another political dramatization known as a "Congressional hearing" that's used in place of any actual problem solving.
Will it be expensive to change over to something else? Yes. But when have Americans ever been concerned about price? DVD players were upwards of $1000 dollars when they came out and they still flew off store shelves. We have a sneaker industry that releases yearly editions of shoes that start at $200 and they always sell out. Let's not pretend that our country is a model of frugality. We have rim rental shops in America. And they are profitable.
Besides, basic economics says that the more people buy stuff, the cheaper it gets. I got a D in economics and I know that. If the price point for the PS3 wasn't too high, then I'm sure we'll adjust when it comes to not using gas in our cars anymore.
Simply put, it's time to stop the bullshit. Other than various holy books, the internal combustion engine is about the only thing older than 50 years that we still use. We're just holding onto it because we're used to it; like your spouse that you're truly sick of looking at. Plus, it makes really cool growling sounds. It's hard to pass that up for something that will probably sound like an electric fan, but it's time. Time to let petroleum go. It's dirty and it doesn't taste very good. It's doing nothing but causing problems. Many of which end with an explosion.
Oil, and everything else surrounding it is a pain in the ass. But everyone is convinced that the world will collapse into shambles if we stop using it, proving that advertising and lobbying are far more effective than facts and truth will ever be. It's why so many of us think that Kendra Wilkinson is actually famous for something.
The only benefit to buying oil that anyone can think of is that it's miles cheaper than anything else we can replace it with. And that's true, as far as I know. But at the same time, the use of oil not only harms the planet (and us, by proxy, until we can abandon this shithole for Mars), is a national security threat (see; all American involvement in the Middle East, ever), is also expensive (see; current gas prices), and is currently destroying the Gulf of Mexico (see; BP and Halliburton's latest plot to kill us all).
Plus, I'm just sick of buying it. I don't buy it because I want it, I buy it because I have to get to work and that's much easier to do when I don't have to push my car down Highway 78. I don't get a choice in the matter; it's either buy gas or start walking. And anyone who lives in Metro Atlanta knows that's not really an option.
Oil and gas are not market leaders because consumers demand it, they're market leaders because moonshine and whiskey will tear up your engine worse than when you eat at Krystal's. Trust me, if people could lube their engines with Vaseline, godless sodomites would have to find a new deviant hobby because that shit would sell the fuck out.
And yeah, it's cheaper, but since when was cheaper better? Cheaper is awesome when it comes to the DVD bin at Wal-Mart or sending our astronauts into space, but some of the more expensive alternatives to oil and gas simply don't have the side-effects that oil and gas do. Iran can't jack up the price of, say, hydrogen cells, because that shit will be made here in America, or at worst, China. And since they already own more than half of America anyway, it won't change our day-to-day lives at all. Except when they rename this place, "The Glorious Revolution of Amero-China." Coming in 2012.
Also, there won't be any bus fumes to inhale or potential oil leaks that lead to yet another political dramatization known as a "Congressional hearing" that's used in place of any actual problem solving.
Will it be expensive to change over to something else? Yes. But when have Americans ever been concerned about price? DVD players were upwards of $1000 dollars when they came out and they still flew off store shelves. We have a sneaker industry that releases yearly editions of shoes that start at $200 and they always sell out. Let's not pretend that our country is a model of frugality. We have rim rental shops in America. And they are profitable.
Besides, basic economics says that the more people buy stuff, the cheaper it gets. I got a D in economics and I know that. If the price point for the PS3 wasn't too high, then I'm sure we'll adjust when it comes to not using gas in our cars anymore.
Simply put, it's time to stop the bullshit. Other than various holy books, the internal combustion engine is about the only thing older than 50 years that we still use. We're just holding onto it because we're used to it; like your spouse that you're truly sick of looking at. Plus, it makes really cool growling sounds. It's hard to pass that up for something that will probably sound like an electric fan, but it's time. Time to let petroleum go. It's dirty and it doesn't taste very good. It's doing nothing but causing problems. Many of which end with an explosion.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Look, I'm no fan of illegal immigration, mostly because no matter how you spin it, it's still breaking the law. I'm a bigger fan of Mexico trying not to encourage its citizens to flood our borders and "take back" America. Really, if America wanted to line the border with landmines and replace the Rio Grande with an acid lava moat, it would be well within its rights at this point.
But that new law in Arizona, I think, is a bit much. I haven't read the bill or anything, because I don't need any sleep right now, but what I've been able to pick up so far is that cops can basically stop people for being Mexican in an effort to weed out the illegals. They don't need any real reasoning other than the fact that their pickup truck is painted like the Mexican flag and has "HERNANDEZ" plastered across the windshield.
It's pretty fucked up. But it's also ironic in that, the same people who support bills like this are probably the same people who complain about getting searched at airports or football games. I guess it's okay to just randomly stop people when they're not white, right?
But that new law in Arizona, I think, is a bit much. I haven't read the bill or anything, because I don't need any sleep right now, but what I've been able to pick up so far is that cops can basically stop people for being Mexican in an effort to weed out the illegals. They don't need any real reasoning other than the fact that their pickup truck is painted like the Mexican flag and has "HERNANDEZ" plastered across the windshield.
It's pretty fucked up. But it's also ironic in that, the same people who support bills like this are probably the same people who complain about getting searched at airports or football games. I guess it's okay to just randomly stop people when they're not white, right?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Be Happy It's Not "A Woman's World"
Everyone likes to fantasize about how much better things would be if their kind were in charge. It's part of why Muslims are so willing to blow themselves up; because they think that we'd all be happier under Sharia law. They claim past successes like other constantly revolting Middle East societies as proof. The truth is, people pretending to be happy because they were scared. A large part of Sharia law is chopping off body parts, and all that "listening" and "pleading your case" really gets in the way of the hacking.
I say that to provide a warning to the women of the world, because it's well known that nothing is ever good enough for women. They always want more. And when it comes to women's rights, we're on a slippery slope, because in jokes, women are always talking about how great the world would be if they were in charge. Trust me, women, you don't really want that.
How do I know what women want? Because I know a lot of women, and they like to complain about what they don't like. So, it's not like it's a secret about what women want. And what you don't want is to run the world.
I'm not saying that women are incapable of being in charge, because they are. For one, they're in charge of every household in America (except the one on Dr. Phil where that fat kid slapped his mother. That would have never happened at my house, unless I was trying to commit suicide). Husbands (men) dance to the tune that his wife is playing. That's just how life is. But to think that the world would improve because women ran it, well, that's just lunacy.
I don't know where women get off thinking that way, because women can't get along with other women at a garden party. What makes them think that the situation will get better when they've got a nuclear arsenal at their fingertips?
Women get mad at each other over the simplest things, like wearing the same dress, but try to have the rest of us believe that they'll just talk out their problems. They do it all the time on sitcoms. Two women will be sniping at each other behind their backs, but once they're in the same room together, they decide that they adore each other and their burning hatred for each other was all the men's fault. Well, that's bullshit of the first order.
Women HATE each other. I don't have a female friend that hasn't uttered the following statement to me: "I HATE OTHER WOMEN." And with good reason. Women are petty, women are jealous, and women are vindictive. And no man is as hard on a woman as another woman. The only people who call women "whores" are other women, because men are okay with a woman who just wants to get hers. It's not like we can't relate.
And how will women running the world change their relationships with men? You think your man is jealous now because you're making more money than he is? How do you think he'll act when he has to report to you in every aspect of his life? At least now, he can go to work and get away from you.
If women wind up running the world, you might as well just turn into Amazons, because that's going to destroy the entire notion of manhood. And women LOVE manhood. Women love it when their men take charge and show initiative. If women are running things, then who's gonna sing those songs where women love their man for paying their bills? Beyonce's career will become extinct, because she'll have to start adding substance to her songs. And do you really think we're gonna keep opening doors for you? "Shit, you're in charge; you open MY door." You'll be encouraging us to be the lazy slobs you already think we are.
Women HATE IT when men aren't trying to get Master's degrees like they are. Women HATE IT if they have to do something because men didn't do it to THEIR LOFTY STANDARDS. They already resent us for the littlest things, like not doing things like them. If women actually started running the world, we'd see a rash of women dying of aneurysms.
Not only that, women LIKE to use their sex appeal to get their way. Well, if you're running the world, who are you going to seduce? The only reason why that works is because men can't say no. Women were trained (mostly by dealing with horny men) to reject all sex until they decide to go along with it. If men aren't promoting chicks that they're sleeping with, then who are you gonna gossip about?
It's just going to create a world that you, women, will not be happy in. I'm just trying to save you from yourselves. Just be happy with shattering that glass ceiling instead of having delusions of grandeur.
I say that to provide a warning to the women of the world, because it's well known that nothing is ever good enough for women. They always want more. And when it comes to women's rights, we're on a slippery slope, because in jokes, women are always talking about how great the world would be if they were in charge. Trust me, women, you don't really want that.
How do I know what women want? Because I know a lot of women, and they like to complain about what they don't like. So, it's not like it's a secret about what women want. And what you don't want is to run the world.
I'm not saying that women are incapable of being in charge, because they are. For one, they're in charge of every household in America (except the one on Dr. Phil where that fat kid slapped his mother. That would have never happened at my house, unless I was trying to commit suicide). Husbands (men) dance to the tune that his wife is playing. That's just how life is. But to think that the world would improve because women ran it, well, that's just lunacy.
I don't know where women get off thinking that way, because women can't get along with other women at a garden party. What makes them think that the situation will get better when they've got a nuclear arsenal at their fingertips?
Women get mad at each other over the simplest things, like wearing the same dress, but try to have the rest of us believe that they'll just talk out their problems. They do it all the time on sitcoms. Two women will be sniping at each other behind their backs, but once they're in the same room together, they decide that they adore each other and their burning hatred for each other was all the men's fault. Well, that's bullshit of the first order.
Women HATE each other. I don't have a female friend that hasn't uttered the following statement to me: "I HATE OTHER WOMEN." And with good reason. Women are petty, women are jealous, and women are vindictive. And no man is as hard on a woman as another woman. The only people who call women "whores" are other women, because men are okay with a woman who just wants to get hers. It's not like we can't relate.
And how will women running the world change their relationships with men? You think your man is jealous now because you're making more money than he is? How do you think he'll act when he has to report to you in every aspect of his life? At least now, he can go to work and get away from you.
If women wind up running the world, you might as well just turn into Amazons, because that's going to destroy the entire notion of manhood. And women LOVE manhood. Women love it when their men take charge and show initiative. If women are running things, then who's gonna sing those songs where women love their man for paying their bills? Beyonce's career will become extinct, because she'll have to start adding substance to her songs. And do you really think we're gonna keep opening doors for you? "Shit, you're in charge; you open MY door." You'll be encouraging us to be the lazy slobs you already think we are.
Women HATE IT when men aren't trying to get Master's degrees like they are. Women HATE IT if they have to do something because men didn't do it to THEIR LOFTY STANDARDS. They already resent us for the littlest things, like not doing things like them. If women actually started running the world, we'd see a rash of women dying of aneurysms.
Not only that, women LIKE to use their sex appeal to get their way. Well, if you're running the world, who are you going to seduce? The only reason why that works is because men can't say no. Women were trained (mostly by dealing with horny men) to reject all sex until they decide to go along with it. If men aren't promoting chicks that they're sleeping with, then who are you gonna gossip about?
It's just going to create a world that you, women, will not be happy in. I'm just trying to save you from yourselves. Just be happy with shattering that glass ceiling instead of having delusions of grandeur.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Moral failings are no longer news
Dial it back a little bit, commentators. Tiger Woods' career isn't even gonna take a hit from this. No one even really cared about this story until AFTER he drove into a tree. Until then, it was just another athlete stepping out on his wife. "Yawn. At least Shaq slept with Gilbert Arenas's wife to make it interesting."
Sure, it's embarrassing, having private voicemails and text messages out there in the public eye, but in the end, who's really gonna care? Yes, he was wrong, but he didn't do anything to the public-at-large, so why would any rational person hold this against him? The only person he owes any explanation to is the white woman that hit him with that golf club. Me, I'm just hoping Tiger learned not to leave the evidence everywhere for folks to find next time.
See, people don't seem to realize that we don't live in the "stare-down-your-nose-disapprovingly-and-judgmentally" society anymore. No one cares about the moral failings of our celebrities, which is why "making great movies" is an adequate defense for Roman Polanski drugging and raping a 14-year-old. No, "giving a shit" keeps us from laughing at Lil Wayne having four kids by four different women this year. That shit SHOULD BE disgusting, but that's just the way of the world today. Ah, bastard children. Hilarious.
It's 2009, though, and we love our TMZ, Smoking Gun, and reality TV. We don't like to point out that our public figures are ethically and morally bankrupt (except politicians and corporate CEOs, of course...fucking with my money), because we're writing it off as "entertainment." "I love watching these rich hood rats fight each other, because it's not real life. It's inside the TV. Hey, you heard that new R. Kelly yet?" No, one really cares, because our public figures in 2009 are just as trashy (or in Robert's case, WAY MORE trashy) as the rest of us.
Now, if Tiger had done something that got him put in handcuffs, you might see a little different reaction, the kind of overreaction that's always about "the children." You know, because everyone knows that kids are huge fans of golf and the news.
But the way the world is now, can anyone REALLY get on him too harshly for this? I mean, it's hard to judge someone when you're hiding mistresses' phone numbers under guys names in your cell phone. "No, baby, Jared's not a woman; he's saving his voice for karaoke." It's hard to point fingers when you're taking phone numbers from guys that you KNOW want to fuck you, relationship or not, justifying it by calling them "my friends."
How many regular folks these days are cheating on their husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends? What's the divorce rate these days, like 55%? Politicians are dropping off the moral high horse like flies and it seems like every day, some celebrity is getting caught up in the same trashy drama that regular folks do. It's old hat now, seeing a wife chasing her husband down the street with a golf club, while he drives into a tree. That happened over here six times before the mailman came.
We should just be glad that what happened was all that happened. No one got stabbed, no one got shot, no one got beaten into a pulp in the passenger seat of the car, because Tiger's concussion came while he was still in the house. Allegedly.
It would be nice if all of our public figures would stop sleeping with everyone, but that's not likely to happen. They're not magical faery folk from a fabled land far away, they come from the same places that we do, so it's not like we should be shocked that they act this way if WE are also acting this way. All we can do is keep trying to do better ourselves, and hopefully, it'll rub off on others. And by "keep trying," I mean "START trying."
Sure, it's embarrassing, having private voicemails and text messages out there in the public eye, but in the end, who's really gonna care? Yes, he was wrong, but he didn't do anything to the public-at-large, so why would any rational person hold this against him? The only person he owes any explanation to is the white woman that hit him with that golf club. Me, I'm just hoping Tiger learned not to leave the evidence everywhere for folks to find next time.
See, people don't seem to realize that we don't live in the "stare-down-your-nose-disapprovingly-and-judgmentally" society anymore. No one cares about the moral failings of our celebrities, which is why "making great movies" is an adequate defense for Roman Polanski drugging and raping a 14-year-old. No, "giving a shit" keeps us from laughing at Lil Wayne having four kids by four different women this year. That shit SHOULD BE disgusting, but that's just the way of the world today. Ah, bastard children. Hilarious.
It's 2009, though, and we love our TMZ, Smoking Gun, and reality TV. We don't like to point out that our public figures are ethically and morally bankrupt (except politicians and corporate CEOs, of course...fucking with my money), because we're writing it off as "entertainment." "I love watching these rich hood rats fight each other, because it's not real life. It's inside the TV. Hey, you heard that new R. Kelly yet?" No, one really cares, because our public figures in 2009 are just as trashy (or in Robert's case, WAY MORE trashy) as the rest of us.
Now, if Tiger had done something that got him put in handcuffs, you might see a little different reaction, the kind of overreaction that's always about "the children." You know, because everyone knows that kids are huge fans of golf and the news.
But the way the world is now, can anyone REALLY get on him too harshly for this? I mean, it's hard to judge someone when you're hiding mistresses' phone numbers under guys names in your cell phone. "No, baby, Jared's not a woman; he's saving his voice for karaoke." It's hard to point fingers when you're taking phone numbers from guys that you KNOW want to fuck you, relationship or not, justifying it by calling them "my friends."
How many regular folks these days are cheating on their husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends? What's the divorce rate these days, like 55%? Politicians are dropping off the moral high horse like flies and it seems like every day, some celebrity is getting caught up in the same trashy drama that regular folks do. It's old hat now, seeing a wife chasing her husband down the street with a golf club, while he drives into a tree. That happened over here six times before the mailman came.
We should just be glad that what happened was all that happened. No one got stabbed, no one got shot, no one got beaten into a pulp in the passenger seat of the car, because Tiger's concussion came while he was still in the house. Allegedly.
It would be nice if all of our public figures would stop sleeping with everyone, but that's not likely to happen. They're not magical faery folk from a fabled land far away, they come from the same places that we do, so it's not like we should be shocked that they act this way if WE are also acting this way. All we can do is keep trying to do better ourselves, and hopefully, it'll rub off on others. And by "keep trying," I mean "START trying."
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Tiger Woods ain't gotta say shit
By now, everybody has heard about Tiger Woods running into a tree down the street from his house at 2:30 in the morning. Everybody knows about his face being scratched up, how he had blood in his mouth, and how he was laid out in the street when the cops got there. Everybody knows that his wife busted out the windows of the truck to save him. We also know that Tiger ain't saying shit else.
He's not talking to the cops, he's not talking to reporters; I don't even think he's coming outside until his face is healed up. And you know what? He doesn't have to.
I know reporters are going to keep trying to get at the truth, because that's what they're paid to do. I know the cops want a statement, because he drove over a fire hydrant and hit a tree. But Tiger hasn't committed a crime here. Tiger has no obligation to the press and once he showed his license and registration to the cops, he didn't have to say anything further to them. He doesn't have to tell the whole story to us or anyone else. At this point, all we're doing is wasting gas flying helicopters around his house or posting up on the corner looking for a statement. We're not getting one.
He already said all he was going to say on the matter, and while I don't believe the official story (if she had the good sense to run and get a golf club to bash out the window, why couldn't she grab the extra car keys instead? Because she already had the club and wasn't done swinging it at him yet. That's why he ain't have no shoes on, cuz that chick was crazy.), who the fuck am I?
This is one of the things that's wrong with us: Even though we have all these websites and folks with cameras everywhere and Twitter, these folks are entitled to their privacy and we don't need to know everything that's going on inside their homes. The irony is, the same people who are trying to get the dirt on Tiger (or any other celebrity) are the same ones who sit around complaining about how "that nosy bitch won't keep my name out her mouth."
Tiger (or anyone else) don't owe us shit. Some people believe that because they spend their money to see them or wear their clothes or whatever the case may be, that these folks owe them something. "I spent all this money supporting you, and this is the thanks I get? Where's the gratitude?" It's kind of a backwards way of thinking to me. It's not like we give these people money out of the kindness of our hearts. We're getting something for our money.
We get to watch Tiger play golf or we get to wear Michael's shoes or we get to listen to Jay-Z's music. At that point, we're even with these cats. Money was paid, services were rendered, everybody's square. Obsessing over their lives is something you're doing for free, and just because you're putting all this extra time into them doesn't mean that they actually owe you extra information. You don't extra credit for being a fanatic (or being nosy), unless your goal is to get a restraining order.
So go ahead and keep quiet, Tiger. The speculation is more fun, anyway. And it's amazes me how quickly everyone learned to pronounce "Uchitel."
He's not talking to the cops, he's not talking to reporters; I don't even think he's coming outside until his face is healed up. And you know what? He doesn't have to.
I know reporters are going to keep trying to get at the truth, because that's what they're paid to do. I know the cops want a statement, because he drove over a fire hydrant and hit a tree. But Tiger hasn't committed a crime here. Tiger has no obligation to the press and once he showed his license and registration to the cops, he didn't have to say anything further to them. He doesn't have to tell the whole story to us or anyone else. At this point, all we're doing is wasting gas flying helicopters around his house or posting up on the corner looking for a statement. We're not getting one.
He already said all he was going to say on the matter, and while I don't believe the official story (if she had the good sense to run and get a golf club to bash out the window, why couldn't she grab the extra car keys instead? Because she already had the club and wasn't done swinging it at him yet. That's why he ain't have no shoes on, cuz that chick was crazy.), who the fuck am I?
This is one of the things that's wrong with us: Even though we have all these websites and folks with cameras everywhere and Twitter, these folks are entitled to their privacy and we don't need to know everything that's going on inside their homes. The irony is, the same people who are trying to get the dirt on Tiger (or any other celebrity) are the same ones who sit around complaining about how "that nosy bitch won't keep my name out her mouth."
Tiger (or anyone else) don't owe us shit. Some people believe that because they spend their money to see them or wear their clothes or whatever the case may be, that these folks owe them something. "I spent all this money supporting you, and this is the thanks I get? Where's the gratitude?" It's kind of a backwards way of thinking to me. It's not like we give these people money out of the kindness of our hearts. We're getting something for our money.
We get to watch Tiger play golf or we get to wear Michael's shoes or we get to listen to Jay-Z's music. At that point, we're even with these cats. Money was paid, services were rendered, everybody's square. Obsessing over their lives is something you're doing for free, and just because you're putting all this extra time into them doesn't mean that they actually owe you extra information. You don't extra credit for being a fanatic (or being nosy), unless your goal is to get a restraining order.
So go ahead and keep quiet, Tiger. The speculation is more fun, anyway. And it's amazes me how quickly everyone learned to pronounce "Uchitel."
Monday, November 30, 2009
Atlanta Hawks: When is Mike Woodson getting his extension?
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)