People still seem to be really invested in the idea that Conor McGregor get credit for standing in the ring with one of the greatest boxers of all time, but that's kind of stupid, considering these people aren't big on participation trophies the other 99% of the time. CM Punk took up the challenge of stepping into the Octagon and they've been laughing at him ever since. So I'm not willing to listen to that crew when it comes to giving people credit for just getting in there. And apparently, neither is Floyd, because you're a fucking fool if you think Floyd is about to reciprocate.
And I'm not really going to give Conor that much credit for how he performed, because for a guy who's boxed before, he looked to me like a guy that was just gonna muddy this thing up and hope for the best. And clearly, he was excited for his huge payday, because he couldn't stop showing Floyd his appreciation during the fight in the form of exuberant hugs.
But you can't tell Conor's fans that he wasn't in the fight. To let them tell it, he controlled the early rounds and had a puncher's chance to win, like aggressive fighters don't get knocked out all the time. And he fought like believed it, though, because he was just throwing shit out there, and doing random shit, changing directions, in an attempt to trick Floyd. Like Floyd hasn't fought a clueless amateur before. Sometimes, he wasn't even throwing punches, just touching Floyd's face. I bet there's audio of Conor saying "boop" every time he touched Floyd's nose. Conor looked like a guy that didn't know what he was doing, which is illustrated by the fact that Conor couldn't stop trying to suplex Floyd. No, the truth is, Floyd controlled that fight from the opening bell.
I mean, it's not like you have to watch a lot of Floyd Mayweather fights to get a feel for how he fights, and I wouldn't recommend watching him a lot, anyway, unless you're trying to induce narcolepsy. Personally, I've watched three fights that I remember, and one of them (Shane Mosley), I was so fucking drunk. There's no clever description of how drunk I was, either. I was just drunk, yelling at a stranger across the room about how he was scoring the rounds. Fred, if you're out there, bless you and your wife for listening to me babble until I was sober enough to drive. I still didn't know how to drink like a grown up in 2010.
So that's roughly two and two-fifths of his fights that I was sober enough to process, and that's enough to know when he's taking the fight seriously. Say whatever you want about how he ducked fighters, when he was in the ring, he was all business. Yeah, him and Pacquiao were fucking decrepit when they finally fought, but you could see on Floyd's face that he was there to end the talk about this rapidly deteriorating semi-pro basketball player once and for all. When Shane Mosley rocked him early in their fight, the look on his face said that he wasn't gonna let some dude with light eyes and an S-Curl take him out. Conor McGregor never once got that look from Floyd Mayweather, because Floyd knew he didn't have to try. The looks Conor got from Floyd ranged from "mild indifference" to "bemused." It probably took all he had not to laugh once he saw Conor's strategy of randomly changing directions. And I gotta say, it was funny as hell watching Conor try that and get punched dead in the face anyway.
And that's why Floyd didn't bother with his shoulder rolls, and that's why he kept going forward. He could have treated this like a real boxing match, but for what? He wasn't fighting a real boxer, and honestly, Conor probably would have done better not trying so hard to box. But acting like Conor McGregor was a serious competitor in this is really doing a Conor a disservice, because you're about to convince this dude that he can do it for real and get put to sleep by somebody who's younger and hungrier. Shit, Floyd almost did it and he wasn't even trying.
We weren't watching a competitive boxing match; we were watching a boxer spar with a guy trying to box.
And in that context, Conor never stood a chance.
Monday, September 04, 2017
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Nintendo just won't stop fucking up
Nintendo, for all of it's greatness, stays shooting itself in the foot.
Yeah, they look like they're riding high with the early Switch sales, they keep a few billion in the bank as a general rule, and they always make some of the best games on the market. They have brand loyalty unlike anything else in the video game industry. But that's kind of the problem. Because of these things, they're always trying to float some bullshit, which they can do, because they're Nintendo. And the discontinuing the NES Classic is one of those stupid, stupid things.
Now, according to them, they never intended for the NES Classic to become a permanent sales item, because they just wanted to get their name back out in the streets. That's their real reason for it. They had the Switch coming, and people didn't really get into the Wii U, so they released this thing to remind us who they were. It was a mixtape before the album, except, it's with the expectation that Jay-Z would be forgotten. That's how off base Nintendo was. They thought they would be forgotten, even though Nintendo had been a household name for 30 years.
So they never expected that the NES Classic would blow up like it did. But here's where most companies would change course and take advantage of this brand new revenue stream. Here's where most companies might be like, "let's milk this, and maybe release another one next year for the SNES." Not Nintendo, though. They were like, "Nah, we don't need this extra money. Even though we could change course, let's just stick to our original decision, the one that didn't have all of the information."
And because of that bad decision making, the NES Classic is gone forever, unless you have a few hundred laying around to buy one on eBay.
Apparently, they're doing this because they want to push the Virtual Console again, which is such a fucking Nintendo-like decision that it makes me want to set something on fire. They do shit like this all the time, and they never learn, even after it backfires.
Look, there's nothing wrong with the Virtual Console. I like the Virtual Console. I've given it lots of money to buy games I already have. I bought Super Mario Bros. 3 twice this year. It's such a senseless decision on my part, you'd think that someone at Nintendo is operating my brain. But everybody that wants to play those games isn't going to buy a Wii U or a Switch just to play them. And not only that, there's only 30 games on the thing. I'm sure there will be plenty of other games on the Virtual Console that you're gonna be able to sell for the 12th time. You're killing a new revenue stream on the fact that someone might not want to buy Dr. Mario again if they already have it on the NES Classic.
But that's how stubborn Nintendo is. That's the kind of thinking that had them sticking with Friend Codes for their internet service, in the face of XBox Live dominating online gaming. Nintendo had about five chances to get their internet strategy right, and failed every time, even though there were successful examples all around them that they could have been copying. They said that they didn't need third-party developers, even though third-party developers are the ones that sell the biggest selling games of the year, each and every year. They really believe they don't need Grand Theft Auto on their systems because Mario Kart 8 is gonna hold everything down. They even said that internet gaming wasn't going to last, while watching XBox Live and Steam become brand names right in their face. They're like the Prince of video games. Geniuses at creativity, but too stubborn to hire a corporate wizard to sell this shit for them. No marketing person would tell you to stick with Friend Codes, but they don't have time to listen, because they gotta get another Zelda game out.
They never learn, and yet, it never matters. Let's face it, they're Nintendo. They single-handedly resurrected the video game industry and maintained it for a decade. They're always profitable. They still dominate handheld gaming, even though they've re-released that same handheld system about six times. They're doing a lot correctly. But it's like CM Punk said about Vince McMahon: He's a millionaire that should be a billionaire. And it isn't because they discontinued the NES Classic, but it's not not because they discontinued it, either.
Yeah, they look like they're riding high with the early Switch sales, they keep a few billion in the bank as a general rule, and they always make some of the best games on the market. They have brand loyalty unlike anything else in the video game industry. But that's kind of the problem. Because of these things, they're always trying to float some bullshit, which they can do, because they're Nintendo. And the discontinuing the NES Classic is one of those stupid, stupid things.
Now, according to them, they never intended for the NES Classic to become a permanent sales item, because they just wanted to get their name back out in the streets. That's their real reason for it. They had the Switch coming, and people didn't really get into the Wii U, so they released this thing to remind us who they were. It was a mixtape before the album, except, it's with the expectation that Jay-Z would be forgotten. That's how off base Nintendo was. They thought they would be forgotten, even though Nintendo had been a household name for 30 years.
So they never expected that the NES Classic would blow up like it did. But here's where most companies would change course and take advantage of this brand new revenue stream. Here's where most companies might be like, "let's milk this, and maybe release another one next year for the SNES." Not Nintendo, though. They were like, "Nah, we don't need this extra money. Even though we could change course, let's just stick to our original decision, the one that didn't have all of the information."
And because of that bad decision making, the NES Classic is gone forever, unless you have a few hundred laying around to buy one on eBay.
Apparently, they're doing this because they want to push the Virtual Console again, which is such a fucking Nintendo-like decision that it makes me want to set something on fire. They do shit like this all the time, and they never learn, even after it backfires.
Look, there's nothing wrong with the Virtual Console. I like the Virtual Console. I've given it lots of money to buy games I already have. I bought Super Mario Bros. 3 twice this year. It's such a senseless decision on my part, you'd think that someone at Nintendo is operating my brain. But everybody that wants to play those games isn't going to buy a Wii U or a Switch just to play them. And not only that, there's only 30 games on the thing. I'm sure there will be plenty of other games on the Virtual Console that you're gonna be able to sell for the 12th time. You're killing a new revenue stream on the fact that someone might not want to buy Dr. Mario again if they already have it on the NES Classic.
But that's how stubborn Nintendo is. That's the kind of thinking that had them sticking with Friend Codes for their internet service, in the face of XBox Live dominating online gaming. Nintendo had about five chances to get their internet strategy right, and failed every time, even though there were successful examples all around them that they could have been copying. They said that they didn't need third-party developers, even though third-party developers are the ones that sell the biggest selling games of the year, each and every year. They really believe they don't need Grand Theft Auto on their systems because Mario Kart 8 is gonna hold everything down. They even said that internet gaming wasn't going to last, while watching XBox Live and Steam become brand names right in their face. They're like the Prince of video games. Geniuses at creativity, but too stubborn to hire a corporate wizard to sell this shit for them. No marketing person would tell you to stick with Friend Codes, but they don't have time to listen, because they gotta get another Zelda game out.
They never learn, and yet, it never matters. Let's face it, they're Nintendo. They single-handedly resurrected the video game industry and maintained it for a decade. They're always profitable. They still dominate handheld gaming, even though they've re-released that same handheld system about six times. They're doing a lot correctly. But it's like CM Punk said about Vince McMahon: He's a millionaire that should be a billionaire. And it isn't because they discontinued the NES Classic, but it's not not because they discontinued it, either.
Nah, I didn't watch that Charles Barkley show
Like most right thinking people, I decided months ago that I wasn't gonna watch that Charles Barkley race show. If I wanted a sports figure to upset me, I could just think back to the Super Bowl and feel my chest burn. I don't need to watch Charles Barkley stumble his way through some shit that actually matters. But I watched a few commercials and changed my mind. Then I forgot, because I have no discernible attention span. Seriously. I zoned out and watched half an episode of "Highly Questionable" after I wrote that paragraph.
After I remembered that I hadn't watched the show, though, I gave some serious thought to the idea, and I realized that I don't need to watch it. Not for the obvious reasons. I mean, if I'm looking for ways to bridge the racial divide with the funny guy from "Inside the NBA," then I might come out of this joining the Klan because I think it'll make white people more comfortable. But that's an easy reason to pick out of this. We all laugh at Charles because he says crazy things, but he's really trying here. It's a genuine concern of his, and he wants to try to help.
It's just that this show simply isn't for me. And I don't mean, "My tastes are different than this show," I mean, I literally do not need this show. No black person does. This show is strictly for white people.
I don't mean that in any kind of insulting way, like I mean it when some white person posts an article about cooking steak in the dishwasher. Those kinds of things make me wonder how we ever allowed ourselves to be dominated by them in the first place, and because we did, I have to question how smart we all are, as a species. No, I mean, as a black person, I really don't need an education on race relations in this country.
This show, and shows like it (W. Kamau Bell's show, for example, which I have watched a few times, and have recently come to regret it) are based around the flawed premise that all we need is to have a conversation about our differences and come together. We're just a mystery to one another, and all we need to do is tell each other that, yes, we both like tacos, and we both had a hard time getting our kids to shit in the pot, and that's all it takes to end all of this acrimony between the races. We just need to listen to each other. Sounds good.
Except the premise for these shows is pretty insulting to black people in particular, because it assumes that the refusal to listen is happening on both sides. It isn't.
See, black people; We already know about white people. Learning about white people is part of surviving in America. There are books and articles and shows everywhere about black people interacting with white people on their jobs, or in their every day lives, or at school, or growing up and the stress that comes with that. They describe the frustration over not being heard, understood, or respected, both in verbal interaction, as well as the physical. Black women have a million stories about white women trying to touch them without permission. And in all of those stories, none of them ever end with the white people learning any lessons or modifying their behavior, but the black people instead have to find a way to deal with this without going crazy. It's all based on reality, and in all of those experiences, we're learning how to navigate white people and their world. Because this is their world.
Telling us that we need to hear them out is kind of pointless, because we've been hearing them out all our lives. And if we aren't hearing them out at work or at school, we're hearing them out on TV or on the news, because this country has always been for them. Because of that, white people aren't some kind of mystery. We might not understand why they call microwaved milk chicken "fried," but generally speaking, already know where they're coming from. We've known since we've been in America.
The disconnect comes when we try to explain our perspective, and that's when the arguments happen. Suddenly, white people start getting defensive and it becomes more important to them to avoid being seen as racist than actually trying to solve some problems. See, we can't talk about race with the average white person, because race doesn't exist for them, and they believe that it shouldn't exist for us. They believe that race is something to be ignored, not embraced and respected. Because in their world, race isn't an obstacle in any way, and that's why they get to say silly shit like, "Bringing race into this is what keeps racism alive," and that's why they think that calling them "mayonnaise boy" is the same as them calling us "nigger." They largely don't understand race or race dynamics. They've created a world around themselves that's completely race-free and can't figure out why everybody doesn't live like that, while forgetting the fact that white people also created the conditions that don't allow for everybody to live like that.
So shows like Charles Barkley's Race War or whatever the fuck it's called, and W. Kamau Bell's Meet the White People, those shows are really for white people. They're supposed to watch these shows and learn some shit, since they can't handle hearing it in the break room without going to pieces. White people are supposed to watch and see why it's really dumb to tell and room of angry and scared black people that it's somehow on them to reach common ground with the same police that are killing their kids, and Charles Barkley is just oblivious enough to be their stand-in. He says that dumb shit and gets yelled at for 45 minutes, so you don't have to. He's sacrificing himself for you, white people. He's like your own Black Jesus.
Because it's long past time that white people understood and accepted that, even though we're all people, and if you pinch us, we bleed and all that, our lived experiences are completely different. We don't always see things the same way, we don't feel the same way about this country, or that President you elected, or baseball, or Seinfeld, or all kinds of stuff. Stop trying to make us you. We don't want to be you, because for one, our music is better and our food has flavor. We want to be us, and we're gonna talk about race and its ups and down, whether you like it or not. The only question is, are you willing to listen and learn?
After I remembered that I hadn't watched the show, though, I gave some serious thought to the idea, and I realized that I don't need to watch it. Not for the obvious reasons. I mean, if I'm looking for ways to bridge the racial divide with the funny guy from "Inside the NBA," then I might come out of this joining the Klan because I think it'll make white people more comfortable. But that's an easy reason to pick out of this. We all laugh at Charles because he says crazy things, but he's really trying here. It's a genuine concern of his, and he wants to try to help.
It's just that this show simply isn't for me. And I don't mean, "My tastes are different than this show," I mean, I literally do not need this show. No black person does. This show is strictly for white people.
I don't mean that in any kind of insulting way, like I mean it when some white person posts an article about cooking steak in the dishwasher. Those kinds of things make me wonder how we ever allowed ourselves to be dominated by them in the first place, and because we did, I have to question how smart we all are, as a species. No, I mean, as a black person, I really don't need an education on race relations in this country.
This show, and shows like it (W. Kamau Bell's show, for example, which I have watched a few times, and have recently come to regret it) are based around the flawed premise that all we need is to have a conversation about our differences and come together. We're just a mystery to one another, and all we need to do is tell each other that, yes, we both like tacos, and we both had a hard time getting our kids to shit in the pot, and that's all it takes to end all of this acrimony between the races. We just need to listen to each other. Sounds good.
Except the premise for these shows is pretty insulting to black people in particular, because it assumes that the refusal to listen is happening on both sides. It isn't.
See, black people; We already know about white people. Learning about white people is part of surviving in America. There are books and articles and shows everywhere about black people interacting with white people on their jobs, or in their every day lives, or at school, or growing up and the stress that comes with that. They describe the frustration over not being heard, understood, or respected, both in verbal interaction, as well as the physical. Black women have a million stories about white women trying to touch them without permission. And in all of those stories, none of them ever end with the white people learning any lessons or modifying their behavior, but the black people instead have to find a way to deal with this without going crazy. It's all based on reality, and in all of those experiences, we're learning how to navigate white people and their world. Because this is their world.
Telling us that we need to hear them out is kind of pointless, because we've been hearing them out all our lives. And if we aren't hearing them out at work or at school, we're hearing them out on TV or on the news, because this country has always been for them. Because of that, white people aren't some kind of mystery. We might not understand why they call microwaved milk chicken "fried," but generally speaking, already know where they're coming from. We've known since we've been in America.
The disconnect comes when we try to explain our perspective, and that's when the arguments happen. Suddenly, white people start getting defensive and it becomes more important to them to avoid being seen as racist than actually trying to solve some problems. See, we can't talk about race with the average white person, because race doesn't exist for them, and they believe that it shouldn't exist for us. They believe that race is something to be ignored, not embraced and respected. Because in their world, race isn't an obstacle in any way, and that's why they get to say silly shit like, "Bringing race into this is what keeps racism alive," and that's why they think that calling them "mayonnaise boy" is the same as them calling us "nigger." They largely don't understand race or race dynamics. They've created a world around themselves that's completely race-free and can't figure out why everybody doesn't live like that, while forgetting the fact that white people also created the conditions that don't allow for everybody to live like that.
So shows like Charles Barkley's Race War or whatever the fuck it's called, and W. Kamau Bell's Meet the White People, those shows are really for white people. They're supposed to watch these shows and learn some shit, since they can't handle hearing it in the break room without going to pieces. White people are supposed to watch and see why it's really dumb to tell and room of angry and scared black people that it's somehow on them to reach common ground with the same police that are killing their kids, and Charles Barkley is just oblivious enough to be their stand-in. He says that dumb shit and gets yelled at for 45 minutes, so you don't have to. He's sacrificing himself for you, white people. He's like your own Black Jesus.
Because it's long past time that white people understood and accepted that, even though we're all people, and if you pinch us, we bleed and all that, our lived experiences are completely different. We don't always see things the same way, we don't feel the same way about this country, or that President you elected, or baseball, or Seinfeld, or all kinds of stuff. Stop trying to make us you. We don't want to be you, because for one, our music is better and our food has flavor. We want to be us, and we're gonna talk about race and its ups and down, whether you like it or not. The only question is, are you willing to listen and learn?
Saturday, December 19, 2015
A "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Review That Doesn't Spoil Shit
Straight off the top: Star Wars does not feel right without the 20th Century Fox fanfare at the top. I wish Disney could buy them just for the purpose of making Star Wars feel whole again.
Back in 2007, I tore apart Superman Returns, partially for holding the balls of Richard Donner's Superman movies as if it's trying to keep them warm and shielded, like Superman does for Metropolis. Because of that, and because Bryan Singer didn't think Superman should fight anything, it never really comes together as an original work. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a lot like that. It doesn't hold the original Star Wars' balls quite as tightly, but there's definitely some light ball-tickling going on.
In other words, I hope you like Star Wars, because JJ Abrams is about to show you how much he likes Star Wars. Yes, I call it "Star Wars." "A New Hope" is stupid.
Anyway, JJ Abrams is way into that movie. So much, in fact, that he takes great care to recreate some of the scenes from Star Wars in his movie, but he JJ's them up so you don't notice what he's doing. It isn't a knock on The Force Awakens, because his story is its own thing. He just has a clear love for Star Wars that he can't help but let us see. JJ loves Star Wars so much that I bet he still calls it "Star Wars."
As a result, two-thirds of the movie is really good. He's really good about allowing us to find out what happened to the characters we really love while letting us get to know these new characters. In true Star Wars tradition, you don't find out anything about the new characters so much as you get to hang out with them for a while, before realizing later that you don't know much about them at all. They're just so funny and likable that you never notice.
Like, Finn, for instance. Finn is what would happen if you took a regular person from here and dropped them into Star Wars. Unlike every other character in Star Wars lore who grew up in a place where slugs become crime lords and people can be choked from across the street, Finn ain't about this life. And it shows. Everybody in the world who dreams about living in the Star Wars universe, thinks that if they went there, they'd suddenly learn the force or enjoy living in space, but Finn is your reality. Finn is what you'd actually be like. He's not a coward, but he's terribly confused about what life is like out here, and really doesn't get why we all need to be out here fighting when we can all get ships that go to the Outer Rim. In a way, he's a twist on Han Solo, who didn't think it was worth sacrificing his life in the service of the Rebellion.
Then, there's Rey, a scavenger girl surviving on a desert planet. She lives a difficult life, getting ripped off by the local scrap yard guy who pays her in food, and sleeping in the wreckage of an old AT-AT Walker. When she isn't scavenging or fixing stuff, she sits and watches the ships fly off this barren desert planet. And even though she lives this hard knock life, she still manages to have a heart for sad sacks that come stumbling across her front door. She's almost the inverse of Luke Skywalker, because she doesn't dream of leaving this world at all, even though she should probably want to.
Kylo Ren isn't likable, though. Not at all. The previous villains were cool or charismatic in different ways, or carried themselves with a presence. Darth Vader was awe-inspiring and ruthless. Darth Maul was designed to be cool. Christopher Lee's voice alone made Count Dooku memorable. Even General Grievous was completely original, with some old school built in. But Kylo Ren isn't like that. He comes off like he's trying to be someone else, and acts very much like a spoiled child at times. For all I know, that was the point.
As for what happens in the movie, there's a lot of action, it looks really good, and it is imaginative, because after all, this is a JJ Abrams movie. If nothing else, he's going to take your breath way with his action scenes. There was never a worry about that, because if he could make the Starship Enterprise exciting, imagine what he could do with the Millennium Falcon.
But then, there's that last third of the movie. I remember reading a review about Revenge of the Sith when it came out that said that George Lucas was basically forcing the plot to go where he needed it to go, logic be damned (and that review was right). There was an end point that had already been predetermined, and he needed to get these loose ends tied up before the credits roll, which is why Yoda just up and decided that he needed to go into exile. There are moments like that, where it felt like they had decided where these characters needed to end up and they were gonna get there, logic be damned. The last third of this movie kinda felt like JJ remembered that he needed to hit a couple more beats before he wrapped this thing up.
In my mind, it's like he delivers the script, and its brilliant, but someone at the studio was like, "There are no clips from the third act that we can put into the trailer. Give us some trailer moments." And he gets mad and hate-writes a new third act for them. I mean, it's just kinda there, aside fromdiscovering that Princess Leia had an army of Jedi babies without Han or Chewbacca deciding that he's had enough of Han's shit and they finally scrap it out. The last third of the movie left me with questions, and not the kind where you're like, "I wonder where this is gonna go next?" No, it's the kind of questions like, "Lemme rewind this and watch it again, because I must have missed something."
But it's a good movie. Just one that's going to take some time for me to really appreciate. JJ did a good job of working in the original trilogy's universe organically, and there are so many moments where I was pointing at the screen in excitement, because I suddenly saw something I recognized. He also wrote this thing as if the prequels never happened, which is good, because I doubt anyone's gonna go into this like, "This thing better address the final fate of Watto, or I want my money back." No, The Force Awakens dovetails out of Return of the Jedi, but in a way that is both familiar and new at the same time. It's kind of comforting to spend another couple of hours in a that galaxy again.
Back in 2007, I tore apart Superman Returns, partially for holding the balls of Richard Donner's Superman movies as if it's trying to keep them warm and shielded, like Superman does for Metropolis. Because of that, and because Bryan Singer didn't think Superman should fight anything, it never really comes together as an original work. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a lot like that. It doesn't hold the original Star Wars' balls quite as tightly, but there's definitely some light ball-tickling going on.
In other words, I hope you like Star Wars, because JJ Abrams is about to show you how much he likes Star Wars. Yes, I call it "Star Wars." "A New Hope" is stupid.
Anyway, JJ Abrams is way into that movie. So much, in fact, that he takes great care to recreate some of the scenes from Star Wars in his movie, but he JJ's them up so you don't notice what he's doing. It isn't a knock on The Force Awakens, because his story is its own thing. He just has a clear love for Star Wars that he can't help but let us see. JJ loves Star Wars so much that I bet he still calls it "Star Wars."
As a result, two-thirds of the movie is really good. He's really good about allowing us to find out what happened to the characters we really love while letting us get to know these new characters. In true Star Wars tradition, you don't find out anything about the new characters so much as you get to hang out with them for a while, before realizing later that you don't know much about them at all. They're just so funny and likable that you never notice.
Like, Finn, for instance. Finn is what would happen if you took a regular person from here and dropped them into Star Wars. Unlike every other character in Star Wars lore who grew up in a place where slugs become crime lords and people can be choked from across the street, Finn ain't about this life. And it shows. Everybody in the world who dreams about living in the Star Wars universe, thinks that if they went there, they'd suddenly learn the force or enjoy living in space, but Finn is your reality. Finn is what you'd actually be like. He's not a coward, but he's terribly confused about what life is like out here, and really doesn't get why we all need to be out here fighting when we can all get ships that go to the Outer Rim. In a way, he's a twist on Han Solo, who didn't think it was worth sacrificing his life in the service of the Rebellion.
Then, there's Rey, a scavenger girl surviving on a desert planet. She lives a difficult life, getting ripped off by the local scrap yard guy who pays her in food, and sleeping in the wreckage of an old AT-AT Walker. When she isn't scavenging or fixing stuff, she sits and watches the ships fly off this barren desert planet. And even though she lives this hard knock life, she still manages to have a heart for sad sacks that come stumbling across her front door. She's almost the inverse of Luke Skywalker, because she doesn't dream of leaving this world at all, even though she should probably want to.
Kylo Ren isn't likable, though. Not at all. The previous villains were cool or charismatic in different ways, or carried themselves with a presence. Darth Vader was awe-inspiring and ruthless. Darth Maul was designed to be cool. Christopher Lee's voice alone made Count Dooku memorable. Even General Grievous was completely original, with some old school built in. But Kylo Ren isn't like that. He comes off like he's trying to be someone else, and acts very much like a spoiled child at times. For all I know, that was the point.
As for what happens in the movie, there's a lot of action, it looks really good, and it is imaginative, because after all, this is a JJ Abrams movie. If nothing else, he's going to take your breath way with his action scenes. There was never a worry about that, because if he could make the Starship Enterprise exciting, imagine what he could do with the Millennium Falcon.
But then, there's that last third of the movie. I remember reading a review about Revenge of the Sith when it came out that said that George Lucas was basically forcing the plot to go where he needed it to go, logic be damned (and that review was right). There was an end point that had already been predetermined, and he needed to get these loose ends tied up before the credits roll, which is why Yoda just up and decided that he needed to go into exile. There are moments like that, where it felt like they had decided where these characters needed to end up and they were gonna get there, logic be damned. The last third of this movie kinda felt like JJ remembered that he needed to hit a couple more beats before he wrapped this thing up.
In my mind, it's like he delivers the script, and its brilliant, but someone at the studio was like, "There are no clips from the third act that we can put into the trailer. Give us some trailer moments." And he gets mad and hate-writes a new third act for them. I mean, it's just kinda there, aside from
But it's a good movie. Just one that's going to take some time for me to really appreciate. JJ did a good job of working in the original trilogy's universe organically, and there are so many moments where I was pointing at the screen in excitement, because I suddenly saw something I recognized. He also wrote this thing as if the prequels never happened, which is good, because I doubt anyone's gonna go into this like, "This thing better address the final fate of Watto, or I want my money back." No, The Force Awakens dovetails out of Return of the Jedi, but in a way that is both familiar and new at the same time. It's kind of comforting to spend another couple of hours in a that galaxy again.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Will Smith, Independence Day, and boring-ass off-screen deaths
I don't think there's a person out there that likes off-screen deaths in movies.
Not the kind where they're killed off-screen, but then, you learn later on in the movie what happened. I mean the kind where you spend two or three hours (or more) investing emotionally in these characters, then when the new one comes out, you find out that they died, and no one cares. That shit sucks.
Some movies handle it better than others, because the Rocky movies killed off Adrian and Paulie that way. But the Rocky movies dealt with it by making it part of the story. Adrian's death was part of the reason why Rocky and his son had a wedge between them in Rocky Balboa, and (SPOILERS), it was the reason why Rocky gave up on his own failing health in Creed.
Then, you got those assholes over at Fox who gave you two and a half hours of Ripley trying to save this little girl from acid-bleeding aliens, in the middle of space, only to find out that Newt died anyway in between Aliens and Alien 3. Alien 3 is almost twenty years old and people still list that as one of the reasons why they never liked that movie. They just brushed all that joy and goodwill aside so they could tell their story, instead of giving the payoff that the fans wanted. It's just one in a long list of reasons why Sylvester Stallone is a better filmmaker than you.
No one likes that second method, why is why Roland Emmerich did exactly that with Independence Day: Resurgence.
Now, let's be clear: I seriously doubt that anyone was emotionally invested in any of the characters in Independence Day. I know I'm going out on a limb here, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Tell me that you felt the emotional depth of the angry teenage boy who just wants to love his family, or the war hero President of the United States. However, the way they got rid of Will Smith's character in Resurgence is kinda lame.
You didn't know Will Smith wasn't coming back for Resurgence? My bad. Spoilers.
Becausethey didn't offer Will Smith enough money he's too big a star for this foolishness now Suicide Squad has a better shot at keeping his name hot they didn't offer Jaden a role as his stepson that looks just like him Will Smith declined to come back to the movie that started July 4th as "Will Smith Weekend," they had to kill off his character. It only makes sense, because he can't be alive anywhere in the world while this is going on and not come back. It had to be this, because only the Avengers can get away with not having to explain why Iron Man couldn't come help Captain America take down three flying aircraft carriers, or Thor had to fend off another alien invasion by himself.
And you know what, I'm fine with Will Smith's character being dead. I get it. It wasn't that kind of movie, where people get attached to the characters. Really, we just like Will Smith. But if you gotta kill him off, you gotta do better than this:
Why the hell not? It's not like you're limited by your special effects budget. So why couldn't we find out that Capt. Hiller, despite all his confidence and bravado, had a really hard time dealing with the knowledge that the fate of humanity rested on his shoulders? Maybe that led to some drinking, some depression, some PTSD. Maybe he broke down completely, and believed that the aliens were still out there and were trying to control minfd. No one really knew how to help him, and he believed he was alone in this. So he tries to fight back against his perceived enemies in the government that he believes have already been compromised. And his story ends with him driving his car off of a bridge, because he believes that the aliens have finally broken his mind as well.
Now, Vivica A. Fox is back in this movie, and evidently, her son (Hiller's stepson) is supposed to be one of heroes of this movie, because of course he is. And I'm sure their characters will be sufficiently boring. But it would be so much better if they came into the movie with something like this over their heads. Of course they're gonna fight the aliens, but now, it's personal.
And maybe Will Smith sees that synopsis, and it looks interesting to him. He could work with that material. And he calls up Roland Emmerich, and asks to make that movie, because that's what Will Smith does now. He just goes around making movies that seem interesting to him, and it's good to know that someone thought After Earth was interesting. A movie about the complete mental breakdown of the hero from Independence Day is way more interesting than that same guy fighting the aliens again. And Fox is dying to make a franchise out of this. $50-70 million would be in their hands before Will Smith could come to his senses.
That sort of thing should be the template for off-screen deaths. I'm not naive. I know that those times can't be avoided sometimes. But if you're already going to have to do it, you might as well make it count for something, and change the story going forward.
Not the kind where they're killed off-screen, but then, you learn later on in the movie what happened. I mean the kind where you spend two or three hours (or more) investing emotionally in these characters, then when the new one comes out, you find out that they died, and no one cares. That shit sucks.
Some movies handle it better than others, because the Rocky movies killed off Adrian and Paulie that way. But the Rocky movies dealt with it by making it part of the story. Adrian's death was part of the reason why Rocky and his son had a wedge between them in Rocky Balboa, and (SPOILERS), it was the reason why Rocky gave up on his own failing health in Creed.
Then, you got those assholes over at Fox who gave you two and a half hours of Ripley trying to save this little girl from acid-bleeding aliens, in the middle of space, only to find out that Newt died anyway in between Aliens and Alien 3. Alien 3 is almost twenty years old and people still list that as one of the reasons why they never liked that movie. They just brushed all that joy and goodwill aside so they could tell their story, instead of giving the payoff that the fans wanted. It's just one in a long list of reasons why Sylvester Stallone is a better filmmaker than you.
No one likes that second method, why is why Roland Emmerich did exactly that with Independence Day: Resurgence.
Now, let's be clear: I seriously doubt that anyone was emotionally invested in any of the characters in Independence Day. I know I'm going out on a limb here, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Tell me that you felt the emotional depth of the angry teenage boy who just wants to love his family, or the war hero President of the United States. However, the way they got rid of Will Smith's character in Resurgence is kinda lame.
You didn't know Will Smith wasn't coming back for Resurgence? My bad. Spoilers.
Because
And you know what, I'm fine with Will Smith's character being dead. I get it. It wasn't that kind of movie, where people get attached to the characters. Really, we just like Will Smith. But if you gotta kill him off, you gotta do better than this:
You don't have to show any of this shit on screen, so there isn't a single reason why it has to be that boring. Maybe the producers feel like they needed to show respect to Will Smith's character, but that's really dumb, because he doesn't work there anymore. Besides, they already disrespected him by killing him off-screen. We're already past the point of disrespect, so you might as well go all the way. Because if I was writing the movie, Will Smith's Capt. Steven Hiller would have gone through some shit before he died.
"While test piloting the ESD’s first alien hybrid fighter, an unknown malfunction causes the untimely death of Col. Hiller. Hiller’s valor in the War of ‘96 made him a beloved global icon whose selfless assault against the alien mothership lead directly to the enemy’s defeat. He is survived by his wife Jasmine and son Dylan."
Why the hell not? It's not like you're limited by your special effects budget. So why couldn't we find out that Capt. Hiller, despite all his confidence and bravado, had a really hard time dealing with the knowledge that the fate of humanity rested on his shoulders? Maybe that led to some drinking, some depression, some PTSD. Maybe he broke down completely, and believed that the aliens were still out there and were trying to control minfd. No one really knew how to help him, and he believed he was alone in this. So he tries to fight back against his perceived enemies in the government that he believes have already been compromised. And his story ends with him driving his car off of a bridge, because he believes that the aliens have finally broken his mind as well.
Now, Vivica A. Fox is back in this movie, and evidently, her son (Hiller's stepson) is supposed to be one of heroes of this movie, because of course he is. And I'm sure their characters will be sufficiently boring. But it would be so much better if they came into the movie with something like this over their heads. Of course they're gonna fight the aliens, but now, it's personal.
And maybe Will Smith sees that synopsis, and it looks interesting to him. He could work with that material. And he calls up Roland Emmerich, and asks to make that movie, because that's what Will Smith does now. He just goes around making movies that seem interesting to him, and it's good to know that someone thought After Earth was interesting. A movie about the complete mental breakdown of the hero from Independence Day is way more interesting than that same guy fighting the aliens again. And Fox is dying to make a franchise out of this. $50-70 million would be in their hands before Will Smith could come to his senses.
That sort of thing should be the template for off-screen deaths. I'm not naive. I know that those times can't be avoided sometimes. But if you're already going to have to do it, you might as well make it count for something, and change the story going forward.
Friday, October 30, 2015
The Police Need to Sack Up
I'm confused by these police out here.
On the one hand, the police are supposed to be brave souls, the thin blue line that stands between decent society and chaos, the protectors of the vulnerable. When everyone is running away from danger, they run towards it. On the other hand, police are actually delicate flowers that need our love and support to adequately do their jobs. That's what all these police union heads and chiefs and sheriffs are out here saying, and it's making their guys look kinda soft.
Yeah, the police aren't looking so good in the realm of public relations here lately, what with all these protests against them, just because their weapons keep accidentally discharging into people. And the police aren't gonna stand for it. They want you to know that they put their lives on the line to protect you every day and that you should appreciate what they do. And in a perfect world, we probably would. Except, we don't live in that perfect world. We live in a world where they shoot unarmed black people of all ages, for no reason at all. We live in a world where police are attacking school children for standing too close. We live in world where people actually don't want to call the police, because less people will get shot if the police don't get involved in the business of protecting people.
People are actually starting to say, "I just got robbed, but it's safer if you don't come. I got my future to think about." You're not supposed to say that to the police, that's something you say to your crazy uncle that keeps a straight razor in his boot.
But this is where we are, and the police are really in their feelings about it. Despite all of the unwarranted shootings and assaults that they don't get charged for, they still feel like they're heroes. They don't think anything is wrong with the idea that a segment of society fears them. They still want everyone to tell them how much they're appreciated. To them, it's unfair that people should say the harsh things that they say about the police these days.
Well, it's unfair to us that we can get assaulted or killed by them and no charged are ever filed. Looks like we both have grievances.
And what's worse, they think that mean words and unequal violence are on the same plane. Like, in their minds, I said to them, "Hey, you shot and killed me," and they're like, "Well, you hurt my feelings. I guess we're even." So, to recap, the police think a sassy teenager and an armory filled with machine guns are the same thing.
They would also have us believe that the Black Lives Matter movement is inciting violence against police, and there are two things wrong with that. One, police killings have been trending downward for a while now, and two, anyone that wants to kill a cop was already in the business of killing cops before Black Lives Matter became a hashtag. Like that dude rode the bus from Baltimore to New York to shoot some cops didn't have that in mind long before these protests started. If killing cops wasn't already part of his daily thoughts (and it was), then a six hour bus ride would have been more than enough time for him to come to his senses.
So cops getting shot was already a hazard of the job, and has been since the day guns were invented. Probably because your entire job is to stand in the way of someone's illegal hustle. You're essentially a professional hater. So when some dude got around to inventing the gun, the first thing he probably tried to do was use it on the government empowered peacekeeper that kept messing up his bootleg textiles operation.
So, no one sprung this on you, cops. This is the job that you signed up for. We didn't ask you to become cops, especially if you're gonna be out here shooting 12 year old kids. I guess you thought this job was gonna be all shooting black people and violating our civil rights, but it turns out there's more to it than just the fun stuff. Sometimes, the bullets come back. Sometimes, people aren't going to like you. Sometimes, it's going to be your fault and people will want you held accountable. And if you can't deal with that, then maybe you shouldn't be a cop.
Because it seems like cops doing their job better is completely off the table, based on the statements that these police are making.
And it's not like they need the support of the people they police, anyway. They haven't had the support of black people probably ever, and it hasn't stopped the police from getting pretty much whatever they want from Americans. The police of Doraville, GA have a tank, and the population of Doraville is like, 10,000 people, and barely has crime. They probably don't have tasers in Doraville, but they have a tank. And the only time that tank is getting used is when they have to make YouTube videos about it like this one. But they have it, because police get what they want, no questions asked. The troops don't even have it that good, and the wars they fight aren't rhetorical.
So, let's not act like public support is necessary for operations. You just want someone to pat you on the back and tell you that you done good. And to act like your feelings are important at a time when you're shooting people like you're on XBox Live is fucking disgusting.
On the one hand, the police are supposed to be brave souls, the thin blue line that stands between decent society and chaos, the protectors of the vulnerable. When everyone is running away from danger, they run towards it. On the other hand, police are actually delicate flowers that need our love and support to adequately do their jobs. That's what all these police union heads and chiefs and sheriffs are out here saying, and it's making their guys look kinda soft.
Yeah, the police aren't looking so good in the realm of public relations here lately, what with all these protests against them, just because their weapons keep accidentally discharging into people. And the police aren't gonna stand for it. They want you to know that they put their lives on the line to protect you every day and that you should appreciate what they do. And in a perfect world, we probably would. Except, we don't live in that perfect world. We live in a world where they shoot unarmed black people of all ages, for no reason at all. We live in a world where police are attacking school children for standing too close. We live in world where people actually don't want to call the police, because less people will get shot if the police don't get involved in the business of protecting people.
People are actually starting to say, "I just got robbed, but it's safer if you don't come. I got my future to think about." You're not supposed to say that to the police, that's something you say to your crazy uncle that keeps a straight razor in his boot.
But this is where we are, and the police are really in their feelings about it. Despite all of the unwarranted shootings and assaults that they don't get charged for, they still feel like they're heroes. They don't think anything is wrong with the idea that a segment of society fears them. They still want everyone to tell them how much they're appreciated. To them, it's unfair that people should say the harsh things that they say about the police these days.
Well, it's unfair to us that we can get assaulted or killed by them and no charged are ever filed. Looks like we both have grievances.
And what's worse, they think that mean words and unequal violence are on the same plane. Like, in their minds, I said to them, "Hey, you shot and killed me," and they're like, "Well, you hurt my feelings. I guess we're even." So, to recap, the police think a sassy teenager and an armory filled with machine guns are the same thing.
They would also have us believe that the Black Lives Matter movement is inciting violence against police, and there are two things wrong with that. One, police killings have been trending downward for a while now, and two, anyone that wants to kill a cop was already in the business of killing cops before Black Lives Matter became a hashtag. Like that dude rode the bus from Baltimore to New York to shoot some cops didn't have that in mind long before these protests started. If killing cops wasn't already part of his daily thoughts (and it was), then a six hour bus ride would have been more than enough time for him to come to his senses.
So cops getting shot was already a hazard of the job, and has been since the day guns were invented. Probably because your entire job is to stand in the way of someone's illegal hustle. You're essentially a professional hater. So when some dude got around to inventing the gun, the first thing he probably tried to do was use it on the government empowered peacekeeper that kept messing up his bootleg textiles operation.
So, no one sprung this on you, cops. This is the job that you signed up for. We didn't ask you to become cops, especially if you're gonna be out here shooting 12 year old kids. I guess you thought this job was gonna be all shooting black people and violating our civil rights, but it turns out there's more to it than just the fun stuff. Sometimes, the bullets come back. Sometimes, people aren't going to like you. Sometimes, it's going to be your fault and people will want you held accountable. And if you can't deal with that, then maybe you shouldn't be a cop.
Because it seems like cops doing their job better is completely off the table, based on the statements that these police are making.
And it's not like they need the support of the people they police, anyway. They haven't had the support of black people probably ever, and it hasn't stopped the police from getting pretty much whatever they want from Americans. The police of Doraville, GA have a tank, and the population of Doraville is like, 10,000 people, and barely has crime. They probably don't have tasers in Doraville, but they have a tank. And the only time that tank is getting used is when they have to make YouTube videos about it like this one. But they have it, because police get what they want, no questions asked. The troops don't even have it that good, and the wars they fight aren't rhetorical.
So, let's not act like public support is necessary for operations. You just want someone to pat you on the back and tell you that you done good. And to act like your feelings are important at a time when you're shooting people like you're on XBox Live is fucking disgusting.
Friday, July 24, 2015
WWE sacrificed Hulk Hogan to save themselves
Hulk Hogan is one of the most well known people in the world. He's also, apparently, a racist, and WWE has disassociated itself from him. They have to do it, because they don't want anyone looking their way for more racism. And we all know if people start looking there, THEY WILL FIND IT.
Hulk Hogan worked for WWE for more than 20 years, and has been closely tied to the company at the highest levels for all of that time. He used to hang out at the Vince McMahon's house and help write the shows. He used to tour with Vince for more than 300 days a year. He helped Vince get into movies. And he helped make Vince a billionaire. So they're close.
Hulk Hogan was exposed as a racist last night. I'm sure this news was no shock to Vince McMahon. Because he's probably told the same racist jokes and stories as Hogan himself.
Now, I don't have any proof of that, but I do know that WWE has a history of racist stereotypes. They've only had one black WWF Champion in their history, and they won't even refer to him as black. Vince McMahon got real close to saying some racist stuff about Booker T on live TV years ago, and said the word "niggardly" on Smackdown once, I guess, because he feels like he should be able to say "nigger" as openly as he does in his own house. Then, called John Cena a "nigga" in front of Booker T because he thought it was funny. D-Generation X did a skit mocking the Nation of Domination with four white guys wearing blackface. More than once, the WWF has tried to run a "race war" angle in their programming, which was an excuse for white people to say bad stuff about black people in promos. They had a Mexican tag team drive riding lawnmowers to the ring. A couple of years ago, they fired Alberto del Rio for defending himself against racism. And they've employed Michael P.S. Hayes since the dark ages.
Continuing to employ Michael P.S. Hayes when people know him as a racist before they know him as a wrestler speaks volumes about WWE. Because you know he isn't the only one. I kinda wish Mark Henry wasn't under contract, so he could tell us every racist he's confronted backstage. WWE has gotta be infested with them, because one thing I know about racists is that they like to hang out with other racists.
And if Hogan is a racist, and Vince is most likely a racist (a Republican from North Carolina who employs racists for 20 year stints, and hangs out with racist Republican candidate Donald Trump), then who else in WWE is a racist? Racists always prefer to create environments where they're free to be racist, so you know there's gotta be a lot of them.
And that's why they shut the door on Hulk Hogan, because they don't want anyone asking that question. They had to get Hulk up out the paint before folks start connecting dots on this. Sure, they don't want their company "associated with such virulent hatred and yadda yadda yadda, we totally nailed that press release." Yes, they want people of all races at their shows because black and Latino dollars spend, too. They're just covered in chicken grease and dried beans. But the real reason is because they don't want anyone coming for them.
And that's not to make Hogan the victim. Hulk Hogan should be out on his ass. It's kind of hard to say that knowing how much I bought in to Hulkamania as a child, teenager, and young adult, but facts are facts. He doesn't like me or anybody who looks like me. So for that, fuck him. I'd be a fool if I wasted time trying to figure out the context for why this guy hates black people. The answer, evidently, is that everyone famous in the 1980s was a piece of shit. Sylvester Stallone is next, and having a small Italian beat up black men in five out of six Rocky movies is gonna be the proof against him.
So no, Hogan isn't a victim and WWE isn't mistreating him. They're just throwing him under the bus to save themselves. But it's too late. The racist train has already left the station. Just like Donald Sterling, though, they aren't cutting ties with Hogan because he's racist, otherwise, they would have done it 20 years ago. They're cutting ties with Hogan because you know he's a racist.
This is a huge story already, and it will only grow from here. When we hear this racist tape, the question will inevitably become, "Did WWE know that Hulk Hogan was so repulsive?" And that's when all your favorite minority wrestlers will come out with stories to tell. Alberto del Rio is READY for your airtime, television media. And this might be the come-up that Virgil has been looking for. Koko's gotta make sure that the curl is juicy. And we might finally get an explanation about what the hell Akeem was supposed to be.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Bioshock: Infinite - A racial look at a racial game
Heads up: Here be spoilers.
Bioshock: Infinite has a storyline filled some some of the most disgusting racists of all time. It's a world where a bunch of racist elites leave mainland America to start their own floating colony called Columbia. In the early 1900s. It really is the kind of shit we all expect the rich to do, anyway, except in 2015, they'll call it "Elysium." They're going to leave us all behind and create a world where they can do what they want, without us begging for "their fairly obligated tax dollars," or "a living wage."
Bioshock: Infinite has a storyline filled some some of the most disgusting racists of all time. It's a world where a bunch of racist elites leave mainland America to start their own floating colony called Columbia. In the early 1900s. It really is the kind of shit we all expect the rich to do, anyway, except in 2015, they'll call it "Elysium." They're going to leave us all behind and create a world where they can do what they want, without us begging for "their fairly obligated tax dollars," or "a living wage."
Columbia is just a more racist version of that, because they plaster that they hate black people on their walls, in posters, and in statues, all over the city. Problem is, they have black people living up there, because everyone knows that racist elites can't be expected to do for themselves. They need an oppressed underclass to serve them, otherwise, we might not know that they're rich.
So these rich white folks brought black people to their new enclave and insulted and demeaned them at every turn. And that's the undercurrent of this story where you're a white guy that's coming to rescue a white girl being chased by a giant bird.
All of which is fine with me, because I expect this racist society to be brought down by a black uprising. You can't put that much racism into a game without the racists getting what's coming to them. You just can't. Otherwise, I'd wonder exactly how racist the staff at Irrational Games actually was.
And that's exactly what happens. In between Booker DeWitt and Elizabeth running and shooting and jumping between alternate universes, the black folks get guns and airships and start killing white folks. As you do when you're an oppressed underclass fighting for your dignity. Booker DeWitt gets caught up in their story, even though he doesn't give a shit about their rebellion, and in one of the universes, becomes a hero to these rebelling Negroes.
This is where my problem with the game starts.
Because up until this point, there was a very clear racial divide and in the story, there was expectation that the black folks were going to rebel and the white elites were going to get what was coming to them, and it was going to be amazing. Honestly, it was the main reason why I kept playing the game. But when we got to the rebellion, and the black folks started killing these crackers, the writers of the game decided that, morally, these murdering black folks were just as bad as the people who sought to oppress them.
And that's fucking insanity.
It's a very "color-blind" way of looking at things, and not at all based in reality when it comes to fighting for freedom. It's the kind of thinking that has removed Martin Luther King from the list of black revolutionaries and added him to the list of people who want us all to hold hands and love each other. Which he did, but he wasn't a fool. And he was way more radical than he gets credit for. But after 60 years of people only listening to the part of his message that makes them feel good, we're left with "I Have A Dream," and no understanding that freedom has to be fought for and people might have to die to accomplish that.
The people of Columbia were never going to give up what they had in order to allow these people that they viewed as "inferior" and "subhuman" to sit alongside them. They weren't. And they would have killed them all and replaced them with some other black people before they let that happen. The black people in Columbia were not viewed as human by the white people. So I don't know how Booker DeWitt expected the black folks to gain their freedom without an armed rebellion, and yes, killing a bunch of white folks. For him to judge them as being "no different" than the people in Columbia really turned me off to the game.
To put it simply, you can't oppress people, and then expect them to talk to you when they've had enough. You weren't willing to talk when you were oppressing them, so when folks have had enough, the time for talking is done.
Because, to put it in it's proper context, this was 1912. The Civil War ended 47 years ago. There were people in Columbia who had fought in that war. We were knee deep in Jim Crow at this time, and Columbia is an ultra right-wing community, filled with people who thought less of black people than the people who actually fought in the war. The Klan was practicing open terrorism at this time. Black people were still not allowed to do much of anything, aside from working for white people for low pay, then walking back to their segregated neighborhoods across town. Which were not nearly as nice, because there was no money coming into them. And this was considered "freedom."
Yeah, the rebels were "no different." Get outta here with that.
Normally, the politics of the game makers doesn't really bother me, because being black, you learn to tune these things out. But this game made black people and our history part of the story. We weren't playable characters (still pushing that rock up that mountain), but we were a major part of what was happening. And suddenly, these people were making judgments on things that still happen in the real world today. It really took me out of what was a pretty fun game. I haven't played it since. Maybe one day, I'll get around to finishing. In the meantime, I'll play something that doesn't make sweeping judgments about racial issues.
Batman v. Superman: The stupidest argument of all time
Apparently, you have to have qualifications before you can criticize movie trailers now. You can't just chalk it up to taste anymore. You have to prove your impartiality before you can speak on movies now. I don't know where this shit started, but it really needs to stop. The Batman v. Superman trailer was leaked over the weekend, and naturally, some folks didn't like it, but folks got mad when they dared express that online. Like, more than usual.
We're talking about a movie trailer about a fictitious alien that wants to be friends fighting a fictitious rich guy with an inability to let go of the past. It sounds like the plot to a Pixar movie, but people were acting like they were investigating a murder, trying to figure out the motives of people who didn't like it. This isn't exactly serious scholarship here. Taking on critics of this movie trailer isn't going to get you a job at The Atlantic.
It just blows my hair back when people get this serious over fictional characters, as if it's going to make a bit of difference either way. Instead of people just enjoying the fact that we're all nerds, people are out here acting like people who didn't like it are going to block off the theaters in an act of censorship. People are actually drawing conclusions about the characters of real, living people based on what they thought about a movie trailer. Because, as we know, movie trailers are the modern iteration of Rorschach tests.
And the thing is, I don't think people defending the trailer really understand where the problem is coming from. People aren't loving the way this movie is turning out (and the one before it) because it continues the Batman-ization of the DC Universe, and it was something that a lot of people could see coming after The Dark Knight came out.
See, Batman is grim and gritty. He's tormented. He wreaks vengeance on those who wronged him so that others don't have to suffer like he did. Basically, this dude is broken inside and uses that to punch criminals until they're broken like him. That formula for a superhero made Warner Bros. a billion dollars. And because movie executives are generally unimaginative, they said, "Hey, Superman is having trouble. Why not make him like Batman?" You know, completely ignoring the context surrounding Superman's movies.
I mean, the problem with Superman Returns wasn't that Superman isn't tormented, it's that it was two and a half hours of washing Richard Donner's balls. But who has time for a true examination of the issues?
And that's why Man of Steel is the way it is. That's why Superman is morose, everything is dimly lit, and there's no sense of joy or fun in a single frame of the movie. That's why Superman doesn't save anyone. Superman lives in Batman's world now, and in Batman's world, you need to learn that life is shit.
Except that's not the world Superman lives in. Superman is supposed to represent all of those good things. He tries to save people before he punches people. He's supposed to inspire people to be good and do better. He always tries to de-escalate the situation, even though he's powerful enough to turn the person in front of him into a fine, red mist. That's what makes him Superman. Of course he can kill everyone on Earth, but he doesn't want to. He wants to show us a better way. Even if he's existing in Batman's dark, depressing, basement of a world, at the very least, he needs to be that. He wasn't, and right there is the difference in opinion on Man of Steel.
Superman fans didn't need for Superman to change. Batman fans needed for Superman to change. And Batman fans loved that movie.
That's why some people weren't excited to see the Batman v. Superman trailer, because they're worried that it's gonna be more of the same: A Superman that Superman fans don't recognize. And there's a huge possibility of that if the movie is based on "The Dark Knight Returns," a story that paints Superman as a government-owned bitch. The only people who want to see that are Batman fans. It has nothing to do with a secret love for Marvel or an inability to let go of the Donner Superman movies or any other of the silly shit I've seen thrown out there this weekend. Maybe it just doesn't look that good to some people. We're talking about art, not an arms treaty.
We won't know for sure until the movie gets released, but in the meantime, dial back the hostility. We're all allowed to have opinions, and none of us need to justify them to you.
We're talking about a movie trailer about a fictitious alien that wants to be friends fighting a fictitious rich guy with an inability to let go of the past. It sounds like the plot to a Pixar movie, but people were acting like they were investigating a murder, trying to figure out the motives of people who didn't like it. This isn't exactly serious scholarship here. Taking on critics of this movie trailer isn't going to get you a job at The Atlantic.
It just blows my hair back when people get this serious over fictional characters, as if it's going to make a bit of difference either way. Instead of people just enjoying the fact that we're all nerds, people are out here acting like people who didn't like it are going to block off the theaters in an act of censorship. People are actually drawing conclusions about the characters of real, living people based on what they thought about a movie trailer. Because, as we know, movie trailers are the modern iteration of Rorschach tests.
And the thing is, I don't think people defending the trailer really understand where the problem is coming from. People aren't loving the way this movie is turning out (and the one before it) because it continues the Batman-ization of the DC Universe, and it was something that a lot of people could see coming after The Dark Knight came out.
See, Batman is grim and gritty. He's tormented. He wreaks vengeance on those who wronged him so that others don't have to suffer like he did. Basically, this dude is broken inside and uses that to punch criminals until they're broken like him. That formula for a superhero made Warner Bros. a billion dollars. And because movie executives are generally unimaginative, they said, "Hey, Superman is having trouble. Why not make him like Batman?" You know, completely ignoring the context surrounding Superman's movies.
I mean, the problem with Superman Returns wasn't that Superman isn't tormented, it's that it was two and a half hours of washing Richard Donner's balls. But who has time for a true examination of the issues?
And that's why Man of Steel is the way it is. That's why Superman is morose, everything is dimly lit, and there's no sense of joy or fun in a single frame of the movie. That's why Superman doesn't save anyone. Superman lives in Batman's world now, and in Batman's world, you need to learn that life is shit.
Except that's not the world Superman lives in. Superman is supposed to represent all of those good things. He tries to save people before he punches people. He's supposed to inspire people to be good and do better. He always tries to de-escalate the situation, even though he's powerful enough to turn the person in front of him into a fine, red mist. That's what makes him Superman. Of course he can kill everyone on Earth, but he doesn't want to. He wants to show us a better way. Even if he's existing in Batman's dark, depressing, basement of a world, at the very least, he needs to be that. He wasn't, and right there is the difference in opinion on Man of Steel.
Superman fans didn't need for Superman to change. Batman fans needed for Superman to change. And Batman fans loved that movie.
That's why some people weren't excited to see the Batman v. Superman trailer, because they're worried that it's gonna be more of the same: A Superman that Superman fans don't recognize. And there's a huge possibility of that if the movie is based on "The Dark Knight Returns," a story that paints Superman as a government-owned bitch. The only people who want to see that are Batman fans. It has nothing to do with a secret love for Marvel or an inability to let go of the Donner Superman movies or any other of the silly shit I've seen thrown out there this weekend. Maybe it just doesn't look that good to some people. We're talking about art, not an arms treaty.
We won't know for sure until the movie gets released, but in the meantime, dial back the hostility. We're all allowed to have opinions, and none of us need to justify them to you.
Monday, February 02, 2015
The Real Issue With the X-Men: Apocalypse Casting
Last week, Bryan Singer announced the recasting of Cyclops, Jean Grey, and Storm for X-Men: Apocalypse, and nobody really seemed to care, because who the fuck are these people? They're like the cast of the new Fantastic Four flick, except for Michael B. Jordan. In fact, they're so anonymous that they might be the same people.
The Storm casting did get some buzz from Storm fans, because she is once again being played by some girl who doesn't fit the Storm mold. I get it, because everyone wants to see their favorites represented properly on screen. It's the reason why I have decided that the Transformers movies are nothing more than a series of night terrors filled with slow-motion action shots and blurry metal shards that I can't wake up from. Storm fans (myself included) want to see their girl shown as the powerful African leader that she is, instead of the sidekick to Jean with a white wig that she's become.
But the really important issue with this recasting hasn't even been addressed: We no longer have to watch Wolverine's love affair with Jean Grey that never made a lick of sense. I assume it won't be there, because it would be really, really creepy.
See, I'm a masochist, evidently, because I've watched all of the X-Men movies. And I watched them closely enough to realize that Wolverine knew Jean Grey for maybe a week, in total movie time. So watching him tearfully kill Jean in the third one, and dream about her years after the fact, always made me sick. I should have been crying, because I was the one who sat through X-Men: The Last Stand.
That plot thread is something that is well known to folks who read the comics. For a couple of decades, the comics teased the idea that Jean and Wolverine had a long smoldering attraction for each other, and in another world, they might have been together. But Scott had that on lock (for reasons that continue to mystify us), so Jean would never act on it, even though Wolverine would sometimes press the issue.
In the flicks, Wolverine met Jean, spent almost no time with her in the couple of days he tooled around the mansion, then left the X-Men for an undetermined amount of time. He showed up back out there just in time for them to get invaded, and never saw Jean again until a few minutes before she died. She was an evil zombie throughout the next movie, so it's not like she was in a position to further explore their relationship. Wolverine worked hard on his chest to impress her, so her rejection forced him to kill her. Some of this might have been made up, because that third movie was so awful, and I really don't want to watch it again.
But saying that Wolverine knew Jean for a week is being generous.
It's kinda like in Man of Steel, where Superman and Lois have no reason throughout the movie to get together, but they still have to kiss at the end, because that's the expectation. Wolverine is a dude who trusts no one and hasn't for decades, but he meets this girl who's already booed up, spends no time with her, but when she dies, he's suddenly so close to her that he's on the brink of tears? And in the next movie, he struggles to kill her, even though he hasn't had a problem killing complete strangers since this trilogy started? Even though these movies were supposed to walk their own path, Wolverine and Jean had to eye-bathe each other, because those were the times. Even if it doesn't make sense.
That's the kind of foolishness that this recasting gets us from up under. Sure, Storm is still underwhelming (and probably wasn't going to be a big part of the movie, so they're just filling a roster spot), but we're just that much closer to a movie that makes sense.
Monday, January 26, 2015
#CancelWWENetwork is a thing, and I don't blame you
Please don't misunderstand, WWE. People aren't canceling their WWE subscriptions because Roman Reigns won the Royal Rumble. They're not canceling because Daniel Bryan lost, either. That would be pretty stupid. People are canceling their subscriptions because they're tired of your shit.
Your show is trash, WWE. Raw is trash. Smackdown is trash. NXT is cool. Your pay-per-views are trash. And have been for quite sometime.
I quit watching WWE in 2007 or so, because your shows started crapping out. They were not worth my time. They were not entertaining. And WWE was not missed. The Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania came to Atlanta during that time, but I didn't care. I wasn't watching, and I didn't, until 2011, because I heard about CM Punk and the "pipebomb" promo. And once I saw that things hadn't changed at all, I quit watching again. But I wanted to watch wrestling, so I watched TNA instead. At the time, TNA still qualified as "wrestling."
I'd check in from time to time with WWE after that, right up until the present day, and it was never getting any better. Boring angles, uninteresting wrestlers, the endless three-hour death march known as "Monday Night Raw." Like, they named a guy "Bad News Barrett," in the tradition of "Bad News Allen/Brown," who was named such because, if you got into it with him, it was bad news for you. The updated version of this gimmick? He literally came out and gave people bad news.
We went from a tough guy to a guy whose gimmick was to say, "I've got some bad news. Your city sucks," or whatever he said that week. This is the level of creativity we're dealing with here.
And all the while, ticket prices are rising and pay-per-views are getting astronomical in price. Wrestlemania had reached $60. The average price was $45, and there was at least one every month. And you're getting Bad News Barrett for your money?
So then, WWE introduces the WWE Network in 2014, and for $10 a month, you can watch all of their pay-per-views, WCW's pay-per-views, ECW's pay-per-views, and all kinds of old shows and content. Not only that, you can watch the new pay-per-views live each month, for no extra money. It's a great deal, and eventually, I signed up for that. Not to watch the new shit, mind you, because it's dogshit. I signed up to watch the old shit. But if you're gonna throw in that month's show for free, I'll check it out. And that's what I started doing back in November.
And the three pay-per-views I've watched haven't been worth the ten bucks. Just some of the shittiest damn wrestling shows I've ever seen.
Now, I know how disappointed I was, and I had just started watching again. I can only imagine how folks feel when they've been watching the entire time. Before the network, when you had to pay full price for these shows. When you were paying all this money in ticket prices. When you were watching their shows every week. And the shows are just awful, but the people running the show don't care. You're still coming, you're still watching, so why change?
But WWE has invested a lot in this network, and they want it to take off. It's been struggling to get subscribers, even at that low price. They can't afford to lose the subscribers they have. That's their weak spot. They could ignore you when they were just on TV or on pay-per-view, because there are other entities involved that are providing money to the company. Ratings had been dropping since 2002. They didn't care. They had advertisers and such to keep giving them money. But this network is all on them. And these numbers come to them in real time. So frustrated viewers can make their voices heard. By canceling.
Enough was enough, and when you can't do any better for one of your big four shows than what we got last night (and Survivor Series before it), well, I don't blame folks for canceling. I don't know where this idea comes from that people can't dislike the shows that they watch, and they can't complain when something that was good isn't good anymore. Some people enjoyed the Royal Rumble, but a lot people didn't. And that's not because Roman Reigns won and Daniel Bryan didn't. It's because it was a shit show, and along the way, they seemed to take special care to keep people from enjoying the guys they like. If you gave Daniel Bryan fans (or Dolph Ziggler or Cesaro or Dean Ambrose) a good showing before he lost, people might not have reacted the way they did.
It wasn't worth $45 for PPV, or whatever people paid for tickets, or even the three hours it took to watch it. Here's hoping that WWE finally starts to understand that.
Your show is trash, WWE. Raw is trash. Smackdown is trash. NXT is cool. Your pay-per-views are trash. And have been for quite sometime.
I quit watching WWE in 2007 or so, because your shows started crapping out. They were not worth my time. They were not entertaining. And WWE was not missed. The Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania came to Atlanta during that time, but I didn't care. I wasn't watching, and I didn't, until 2011, because I heard about CM Punk and the "pipebomb" promo. And once I saw that things hadn't changed at all, I quit watching again. But I wanted to watch wrestling, so I watched TNA instead. At the time, TNA still qualified as "wrestling."
I'd check in from time to time with WWE after that, right up until the present day, and it was never getting any better. Boring angles, uninteresting wrestlers, the endless three-hour death march known as "Monday Night Raw." Like, they named a guy "Bad News Barrett," in the tradition of "Bad News Allen/Brown," who was named such because, if you got into it with him, it was bad news for you. The updated version of this gimmick? He literally came out and gave people bad news.
We went from a tough guy to a guy whose gimmick was to say, "I've got some bad news. Your city sucks," or whatever he said that week. This is the level of creativity we're dealing with here.
And all the while, ticket prices are rising and pay-per-views are getting astronomical in price. Wrestlemania had reached $60. The average price was $45, and there was at least one every month. And you're getting Bad News Barrett for your money?
So then, WWE introduces the WWE Network in 2014, and for $10 a month, you can watch all of their pay-per-views, WCW's pay-per-views, ECW's pay-per-views, and all kinds of old shows and content. Not only that, you can watch the new pay-per-views live each month, for no extra money. It's a great deal, and eventually, I signed up for that. Not to watch the new shit, mind you, because it's dogshit. I signed up to watch the old shit. But if you're gonna throw in that month's show for free, I'll check it out. And that's what I started doing back in November.
And the three pay-per-views I've watched haven't been worth the ten bucks. Just some of the shittiest damn wrestling shows I've ever seen.
Now, I know how disappointed I was, and I had just started watching again. I can only imagine how folks feel when they've been watching the entire time. Before the network, when you had to pay full price for these shows. When you were paying all this money in ticket prices. When you were watching their shows every week. And the shows are just awful, but the people running the show don't care. You're still coming, you're still watching, so why change?
But WWE has invested a lot in this network, and they want it to take off. It's been struggling to get subscribers, even at that low price. They can't afford to lose the subscribers they have. That's their weak spot. They could ignore you when they were just on TV or on pay-per-view, because there are other entities involved that are providing money to the company. Ratings had been dropping since 2002. They didn't care. They had advertisers and such to keep giving them money. But this network is all on them. And these numbers come to them in real time. So frustrated viewers can make their voices heard. By canceling.
Enough was enough, and when you can't do any better for one of your big four shows than what we got last night (and Survivor Series before it), well, I don't blame folks for canceling. I don't know where this idea comes from that people can't dislike the shows that they watch, and they can't complain when something that was good isn't good anymore. Some people enjoyed the Royal Rumble, but a lot people didn't. And that's not because Roman Reigns won and Daniel Bryan didn't. It's because it was a shit show, and along the way, they seemed to take special care to keep people from enjoying the guys they like. If you gave Daniel Bryan fans (or Dolph Ziggler or Cesaro or Dean Ambrose) a good showing before he lost, people might not have reacted the way they did.
It wasn't worth $45 for PPV, or whatever people paid for tickets, or even the three hours it took to watch it. Here's hoping that WWE finally starts to understand that.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
College players don't play any harder than pros, you fool
I get that some folks like college sports more because of this myth that college students play harder. I don't know where it came from, but it had to have been started by someone who doesn't understand football. It's a really stupid argument that NFL players aren't playing hard all the time, because you will be killed if you play football at half-speed while everyone else isn't. You could try to argue that teams collectively decide to slack off, but we've seen that before, too. It's called the Pro Bowl, and the Pro Bowl sucks.
People really push this idea when it comes to basketball, though. Personally, I don't buy the fact that pro players don't play hard, because there is no other sensible reason for Kobe Bryant to sweat that much. If Kobe is sweating like that and not playing hard, I suggest that he see a doctor. I mean, besides the one about to cut open his shoulder.
Now, if you told me that pro players didn't play hard every night, you might have an argument, and even then, I don't blame the players. The players aren't slacking off because they're overpaid fat-cats that can't be bothered to entertain the fans. The players are slacking off because they have to play the Knicks six times.
The NBA season is already an 82 game grind, and you expect these players to bring the same fire that they'd give to Chicago to the Philadelphia 76ers? The good teams get more of a challenge playing themselves in practice. Playing the Sixers multiple times is like the morning conference call of basketball games. It has to be done to make the boss happy, but you're not about to pretend like it's truly necessary.
It's only an expectation because it's believed that Michael Jordan did it. Oh, Jordan never took a game off. And he probably didn't, because Michael Jordan is a lunatic. You saw from his Hall of Fame speech how much trouble he's having adjusting to civilized society, where every perceived slight isn't grounds for some form of revenge. When regular people do that, they usually need to seek some form of counseling, because making the other person keep shooting half-court shots for two hours until you win (this actually happened) isn't a realistic option. But let's make Michael Jordan's rare psychosis the standard for NBA players. Kobe shares this affliction, but you hate Kobe, and right now, he's trying to figure out how to tape up his rotator cuff so he can play next week. This isn't healthy behavior.
Besides, the NBA season is four times as long as a college season. Who can't bring it for twenty games? True, being browbeaten by some redass college coach could be exhausting, but if you're any good, you're only gonna be there for a year or two, anyway. When you're a 19 year old college player who has agents secretly telling him that he's going in the lottery, and girls sneaking in and out of your dorm room, you're not listening to the coach, anyway. Play defense? Defense is for suckers. Carmelo didn't play defense at Syracuse (and it was a zone defense, at that), and he has a $124 million dollar deal.
And that's what it's all about, anyway. They're not doing this for some mythical love of the game. This is their audition for the same millions that Carmelo gets. They don't love the game any more than the pros do. They just don't have to keep up the illusion as long.
But let these kids have to go on a six game road trip in the middle of a forty game season, through flyover country, against a bunch of schools that even Digger Phelps would struggle to recognize, and see how much effort you get. John Calipari could offer his players cash bribes on top of their secret signing bonuses and Kentucky still wouldn't show up against Kennesaw State. Hell, if they did show up against Kennesaw State and beat them by 70, these same folks would complain that Kentucky ran up the score.
So I don't mind if players take a few games off because who cares, they're playing Charlotte. If Golden State really brought it for four quarters against Charlotte, Charlotte would lose by 200 points and Michael Jordan's anger would make him try to suit up again.
And you shouldn't care, either, because it's not like those games get aired by anyone except NBA TV.
People really push this idea when it comes to basketball, though. Personally, I don't buy the fact that pro players don't play hard, because there is no other sensible reason for Kobe Bryant to sweat that much. If Kobe is sweating like that and not playing hard, I suggest that he see a doctor. I mean, besides the one about to cut open his shoulder.
Now, if you told me that pro players didn't play hard every night, you might have an argument, and even then, I don't blame the players. The players aren't slacking off because they're overpaid fat-cats that can't be bothered to entertain the fans. The players are slacking off because they have to play the Knicks six times.
The NBA season is already an 82 game grind, and you expect these players to bring the same fire that they'd give to Chicago to the Philadelphia 76ers? The good teams get more of a challenge playing themselves in practice. Playing the Sixers multiple times is like the morning conference call of basketball games. It has to be done to make the boss happy, but you're not about to pretend like it's truly necessary.
It's only an expectation because it's believed that Michael Jordan did it. Oh, Jordan never took a game off. And he probably didn't, because Michael Jordan is a lunatic. You saw from his Hall of Fame speech how much trouble he's having adjusting to civilized society, where every perceived slight isn't grounds for some form of revenge. When regular people do that, they usually need to seek some form of counseling, because making the other person keep shooting half-court shots for two hours until you win (this actually happened) isn't a realistic option. But let's make Michael Jordan's rare psychosis the standard for NBA players. Kobe shares this affliction, but you hate Kobe, and right now, he's trying to figure out how to tape up his rotator cuff so he can play next week. This isn't healthy behavior.
Besides, the NBA season is four times as long as a college season. Who can't bring it for twenty games? True, being browbeaten by some redass college coach could be exhausting, but if you're any good, you're only gonna be there for a year or two, anyway. When you're a 19 year old college player who has agents secretly telling him that he's going in the lottery, and girls sneaking in and out of your dorm room, you're not listening to the coach, anyway. Play defense? Defense is for suckers. Carmelo didn't play defense at Syracuse (and it was a zone defense, at that), and he has a $124 million dollar deal.
And that's what it's all about, anyway. They're not doing this for some mythical love of the game. This is their audition for the same millions that Carmelo gets. They don't love the game any more than the pros do. They just don't have to keep up the illusion as long.
But let these kids have to go on a six game road trip in the middle of a forty game season, through flyover country, against a bunch of schools that even Digger Phelps would struggle to recognize, and see how much effort you get. John Calipari could offer his players cash bribes on top of their secret signing bonuses and Kentucky still wouldn't show up against Kennesaw State. Hell, if they did show up against Kennesaw State and beat them by 70, these same folks would complain that Kentucky ran up the score.
So I don't mind if players take a few games off because who cares, they're playing Charlotte. If Golden State really brought it for four quarters against Charlotte, Charlotte would lose by 200 points and Michael Jordan's anger would make him try to suit up again.
And you shouldn't care, either, because it's not like those games get aired by anyone except NBA TV.
Sunday, December 07, 2014
CM Punk should be your hero
Seems like everyone has had a few choice words for CM Punk this year, whether it was because he left, how he left, or because he explained his reasons for leaving. Everyone seems to think he's a bitch for walking out on Vince McMahon, like doing the right thing matters in that situation. In 2011, he was cool for saying everything we had been saying about the company, but now, he's whining. And I don't get that, because the people who are talking shit should really understand where he's coming from. I know I do.
Right now, I'm working a job that I hate. It isn't the first time, but hopefully, it'll be the last time. I get burnt out dealing with the same, easily fixable bullshit that happens around here, or being told that management is listening, but they ignore you when you show up with ideas. Or having to be the one who takes the hit when other people can't or won't do their job correctly. That shit gets tiring and stressful, and if it wasn't for the fact that I don't have millions in the bank, I'd tell that place to go fuck themselves expeditiously.
So I understand where Punk is coming from, and that's before you factor in that he had to risk his already injured body to make dangerous people like Ryback look good for six nights a week. No matter how much money you make, some days, you just lie in bed and dread the amount of shit that's coming your way. And goddammit, you just don't want to deal with it anymore.
Maybe we don't want to understand his side because he's living our dream, and we think that's what we want. And because it looks awesome, that's what he should want, too. He ain't digging a ditch. He travels and he's famous. He gets to be at Comic-Con and on Talking Dead. Plus, he's a millionaire, and stupid people think that means you lose your right to complain. But that's part of the problem, and like Punk says, Vince is taking advantage of that.
Just because everyone wants it and thinks they're willing to put up with it or its been done this way for so long doesn't mean it's correct. Slavery was practiced in America for 400 years. Rape and dowries used to be a part of the courtship process. Drilling holes in the skull used to be a legitimate medical practice. And just because John Cena is willing to go 400 days straight with no break doesn't mean that CM Punk should have to suffer in silence. If he isn't physically or mentally capable of holding up anymore, for whatever reason, then he should go home.
And that's before we get into the petty shit that WWE does.
Yeah, WWE is petty, and we've known this since the Huckster and Scheme Gene. We've lambasted WWE for decades because Vince McMahon is a very small man when he wants to be. He was the bad guy when he did those skits and he continued to be the bad guy up until he fired Alberto del Rio for slapping a racist backstage. He lets all sorts of bigots, sexists, and bullies run rampant in his locker room. He encouraged his wrestlers to use steroids, while at the same time telling those wrestlers that they didn't really work for him. And even though they didn't really work for him, when they left his employ, he limited their employment opportunities elsewhere (no-compete clauses). He's your best friend when he can make money off of you, and when you're all used up, ready to die, or completely hate the business, you never hear from him again. And people don't put up with it because they love fake fighting or because they're heroes. They put up with it because they've been raised to believe that this is how it's supposed to be, as long as Vince is paying you. For one guy, the money wasn't incentive enough to keep coming back. And that's the guy you call a bitch?
Man, fuck that. You've walked away from jobs and people for way less, so miss me with this shit about how Punk should have stuck it out or that WWE was somehow in the right. If Punk's story is correct, he went home because he was hurt and burnt out, WWE didn't want to fix anything that was wrong with him (because he's an "independent contractor"), then they fired him on his wedding day (and of course they knew all about it, because fucking AJ Lee had to have that time off). If Punk's story wasn't true, don't you think WWE would have immediately sued him for telling it? Don't you think they would have responded online? Vince had the floor just last week on Stone Cold's podcast, and didn't refute a damn thing.
No, I don't fault CM Punk at all. In fact, I'm jealous, because I wish I could do that shit.
Because as badly as I'd like to see him cutting promos and giving me one solid reason to watch WWE, now he's living my dream. He has the freedom, like Chris Jericho or Rob Van Dam, or John Morrison before him to go explore the other shit that they like to do. And if he ever decides he wants to wrestle again, he can. And if not, he doesn't have to. CM Punk should be your hero, because he told the establishment to kiss his ass, and legally speaking, they did it.
Only this time, it wasn't kayfabe. And that's unfortunate, because I was hoping he'd demand the ice cream bars again.
Saturday, November 08, 2014
Dion Waiters doesn't have to stand for the National Anthem, and neither do you
I swear, y'all get so touchy about the wrong shit.
There's a story going around that Dion Waiters, shooting guard for the Cleveland Cavaliers, declared that he isn't standing for the National Anthem anymore, because of his religious beliefs. He's a Muslim, and as we all know, Muslims hate America. Well, we would all know that if we all did the right thing and watched Fox News.
And as you'd expect, there's a whole lot of people mad at him, because reacting without knowing reasons is so commonplace in America that you'd think it was in the Constitution. To let the folks I saw online tell it, we should all be offended that he hates America so much, and that he should go play in the Middle East if he loves Islam so much. Only the most measured and reasonable responses go on the internet. It's not like he'd stand for the National Anthem over there, either.
Now, as an old man, it isn't the first time I've seen this. I remember when Chris Jackson, later known as Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, of the Denver Nuggets (and hated Gulfport High School), did the same thing back in 1996, for the same reasons. He eventually decided to stand and pray, as a way to, um...what's the word that means "meeting in the middle?" Compromise. You'll have to excuse me for forgetting the word, but it never happens in our culture anymore, so I haven't needed to remember it.
But in the meantime, people went crazy, just like they're on the verge of doing now. Insults, death threats, the whole nine. And over the stupidest of reasons: Over a song written by a slave owner who ironically didn't want his own freedom restricted. And for a song about freedom, people out here sure are hell-bent on Dion Waiters not keeping his.
After all, it isn't a crime not to stand for the National Anthem. It's a nationalistic custom that became codified, but no one ever goes to jail for this, and people refuse to stand for the National Anthem all the time. Hell, I've personally refused to stand for the National Anthem before. And it's not like there aren't things happening in America that give people reasons to feel like America isn't with them. Dion Waiters is black and a Muslim. Buddy's got a list.
But he probably isn't doing it for those reasons, anyway (although he'd be justified). It isn't some political statement that he's making. Muslims simply believe (according to the Google research I did right before sliding into an endless vortex of Salon articles. There's one that explains why we have pubic hair. Pubic hair.) that they're not supposed to humble themselves or stand in veneration for anyone except Allah. There's a lot I don't agree with when it comes to Islam, but I have no problem with that. After all, they're trying to stay good with their omnipotent and eternal Creator, and you want to give them grief about a custom built up around a song written 200 years ago that'll probably be forgotten in another hundred. When it comes to historical importance (from their perspective), you might as well be mad at them for not wanting to do the Schmoney Dance.
And if you're a Christian (and most of you are claiming to be, because atheists really don't care that much), you probably should back up off all this anger, because your religion says something similar, all up in the Bible. Yeah, revering this flag and song is tantamount to idolatry. I'm an unrepentant heathen, and even I know that your God doesn't like that. Come on now, you know that dude is jealous and angry. You think he's gonna be reasonable about your nationalism? I guess you could throw Romans 13:1 at me (Google it, like I did), but again, there's no authority that says you have to stand for the flag. Just advisory rules that suggest how you observe the custom.
Really, none of this means anything at all, because while Dion Waiters didn't stand for the National Anthem in Utah on Wednesday (he was still in the locker room), he did stand for it Friday night in Denver. Waiters says that the story isn't true at all (might not even be a Muslim), and what's more likely is that he was pouting about being pulled from the starting lineup in Utah. Waiters has been talking shit about how he should start from the minute LeBron said he was coming back to Cleveland, so I'm sure he wasn't happy about coming off the bench. But I felt like I should address it, because I know how Americans like to overreact about meaningless things.
It's what I get for insisting on reading the comments. Never read the comments.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Blogger Can't Pull Her Head Out Of Her Own Ass: The Eric Garner Edition
It took a lot of effort to write this and not make it about trashing feminists. I just feel like I need to you let you know that up front.
I don't need to tell anybody that the Eric Garner murder by the NYPD is all fucked up. I think we all agree there. And I'm not telling you that you have to go protest and hit up every rally that breaks out, because let's be totally honest: I won't be there, either. I am a lazy person in general, and I work ten hour days in a city whose only defining characteristic is heavy traffic. I barely even visit my parents, let alone attend protests.
So there's no shame in not attending any of those marches, and I'm not just saying that to cover my own ass. But if that's what you're gonna do, just don't be a self-involved dickhead like this lady, who wrote a piece over at "For Harriet," (read it here) where she declares that she won't join any protests for Eric Garner because men don't support the fight against misogyny. I was gonna call her a "twat," but I don't want my own inherent misogyny to take this discussion off course. I think "dickhead" is a fair compromise.
Kimberly Foster, the writer of this piece, argues that, while she will shed tears over Eric Garner (because there are no other ways to express sadness or sympathy with this family than writing that you're literally shedding tears), she will not join the fight for justice, because we men have not converted to full time feminists. To fully drive her point home, she also says in the piece, "you're not my friend anymore," and "I'm taking my toys and going home." It's the kind of writing that exemplifies why people make fun of thinkpieces.
It really is a childish argument to make, that she's not going to do anything for him, because all of us (penis-wielders, that is) don't do anything for her kind (feminists, I assume).
Now, to be fair, men really don't do much for women's rights, or understand how women navigate a world where there are a lot of men are trying to fuck them, regardless of their wishes. I'm stealing this line from Louis C.K., but essentially, the number one threat to women are men. And it's true. Men stay raping women, killing women, beating women, insulting women, calling them names because they told them no, putting them in those ratchet ass strip club rap videos, you name it, we do it. Generally speaking, the number one skill that men have is hurting women or breaking down their sense of self-worth. To put it in Madden terms, we have a 99 ranking in that department. And speaking of Madden, that's our number two skill.
It's not all men that act like this, but from a woman's perspective, she doesn't know who is or isn't going to be that asshole, and has to keep her guard up. I get that. While it isn't 100% of men who act like that, probably 99% percent of people who act like that towards women are men. The remaining 1%? Bull dykes, I guess. Are we still calling them "bull dykes?" I don't even know if that's offensive. Anyway, these statistics probably aren't 100% accurate, because "the inside of my ass" isn't a legitimate source.
And yet, because all men aren't on board with her crusade (which is a worthy cause), she isn't going to take up this crusade. As if women aren't wrongly arrested, assaulted, or killed by the police. This isn't a man/woman issue, because the cops don't give a fuck about anybody. She must have missed that video where the cop pinned the lady down with his knees and started teeing off on her face. I wish I could have seen the little hamster inside her head stumble on his running wheel as she was thinking this shit up.
Just because it was a man this time, that excuses her from all protesterly duties. She'll save her bile and rage for when it's a woman being assaulted by the police, so she can charge him with a violation of her rights and misogyny. She ain't getting out the bed for no less than misogyny.
This is the divide-and-conquer shit that prevents justice from being served. While you're drawing your line in the sand, the police are still beating on people with impunity. But don't worry about that, because reciprocity is the more important hill to die on. All you're doing is showing that when the shit goes down, you're not gonna be there. And if you're not gonna be there, that's fine. Just don't paint yourself as someone who's taking a noble stand by leaving people hanging when they need help. You ain't no hero. Anybody can do what you're doing. Ignoring homeless people on the street can give you that same sense of self-satisfaction. What you're doing is trying to position yourself as some sort of victim, when you're actually someone who can't think outside of themselves for five minutes before you have to ask, "What about me?"
But hey, it's your blog. Whatever works for you.
I don't need to tell anybody that the Eric Garner murder by the NYPD is all fucked up. I think we all agree there. And I'm not telling you that you have to go protest and hit up every rally that breaks out, because let's be totally honest: I won't be there, either. I am a lazy person in general, and I work ten hour days in a city whose only defining characteristic is heavy traffic. I barely even visit my parents, let alone attend protests.
So there's no shame in not attending any of those marches, and I'm not just saying that to cover my own ass. But if that's what you're gonna do, just don't be a self-involved dickhead like this lady, who wrote a piece over at "For Harriet," (read it here) where she declares that she won't join any protests for Eric Garner because men don't support the fight against misogyny. I was gonna call her a "twat," but I don't want my own inherent misogyny to take this discussion off course. I think "dickhead" is a fair compromise.
Kimberly Foster, the writer of this piece, argues that, while she will shed tears over Eric Garner (because there are no other ways to express sadness or sympathy with this family than writing that you're literally shedding tears), she will not join the fight for justice, because we men have not converted to full time feminists. To fully drive her point home, she also says in the piece, "you're not my friend anymore," and "I'm taking my toys and going home." It's the kind of writing that exemplifies why people make fun of thinkpieces.
It really is a childish argument to make, that she's not going to do anything for him, because all of us (penis-wielders, that is) don't do anything for her kind (feminists, I assume).
Now, to be fair, men really don't do much for women's rights, or understand how women navigate a world where there are a lot of men are trying to fuck them, regardless of their wishes. I'm stealing this line from Louis C.K., but essentially, the number one threat to women are men. And it's true. Men stay raping women, killing women, beating women, insulting women, calling them names because they told them no, putting them in those ratchet ass strip club rap videos, you name it, we do it. Generally speaking, the number one skill that men have is hurting women or breaking down their sense of self-worth. To put it in Madden terms, we have a 99 ranking in that department. And speaking of Madden, that's our number two skill.
It's not all men that act like this, but from a woman's perspective, she doesn't know who is or isn't going to be that asshole, and has to keep her guard up. I get that. While it isn't 100% of men who act like that, probably 99% percent of people who act like that towards women are men. The remaining 1%? Bull dykes, I guess. Are we still calling them "bull dykes?" I don't even know if that's offensive. Anyway, these statistics probably aren't 100% accurate, because "the inside of my ass" isn't a legitimate source.
And yet, because all men aren't on board with her crusade (which is a worthy cause), she isn't going to take up this crusade. As if women aren't wrongly arrested, assaulted, or killed by the police. This isn't a man/woman issue, because the cops don't give a fuck about anybody. She must have missed that video where the cop pinned the lady down with his knees and started teeing off on her face. I wish I could have seen the little hamster inside her head stumble on his running wheel as she was thinking this shit up.
Just because it was a man this time, that excuses her from all protesterly duties. She'll save her bile and rage for when it's a woman being assaulted by the police, so she can charge him with a violation of her rights and misogyny. She ain't getting out the bed for no less than misogyny.
This is the divide-and-conquer shit that prevents justice from being served. While you're drawing your line in the sand, the police are still beating on people with impunity. But don't worry about that, because reciprocity is the more important hill to die on. All you're doing is showing that when the shit goes down, you're not gonna be there. And if you're not gonna be there, that's fine. Just don't paint yourself as someone who's taking a noble stand by leaving people hanging when they need help. You ain't no hero. Anybody can do what you're doing. Ignoring homeless people on the street can give you that same sense of self-satisfaction. What you're doing is trying to position yourself as some sort of victim, when you're actually someone who can't think outside of themselves for five minutes before you have to ask, "What about me?"
But hey, it's your blog. Whatever works for you.
Friday, May 09, 2014
Josh Gordon ain't no political prisoner (also, weed is delicious)
Rob Van Dam once talked about how all these world class athletes all smoked weed. Can't find the quote, but he said something to the effect of, "Why is it that all of the finely tuned athletes who know so much about their bodies are choosing to smoke weed?" Maybe it was Joe Rogan. Anyway, they're basically saying that if there was something really wrong with it, these people would know and wouldn't use it. I tend to believe them, because they both have (or had) shows built around smoking a lot of weed and talking about it, so I assume they'd know.
I personally don't think there's anything wrong with weed. I've said since I was a teenager, I'd rather my kids smoke weed than cigarettes. And yet, it's still considered a part of the same category as heroin. In the eyes of the law, weed and heroin are the same. It's a ridiculous idea, because one has been killing people since it came out and the other is responsible for American weight gain. They're not the same thing, and I think one of them should be legalized, even if it is responsible for putting Taco Bell on the map.
Josh Gordon, wide receiver for the Cleveland Browns, obviously feels like I do, because he just failed a second drug test the other day. He could be suspended for a year as a result.
And like with all drug suspensions, some people are calling him stupid and other people are like, "hey, man, weed comes from the Earth, man." Personally, I don't think it's worth an actual debate. At least not about the rightness or wrongness of a Gordon suspension. The debate needs to be about weed laws and how the NFL eventually will treat them, not whether or not it's fair that he could be suspended a year, while Ray Rice, who punched out his fiance in a casino (allegedly, even though we all saw the video of the aftermath), will be starting Week 1 of the season. Or that Jim Irsay, who was arrested with pills and cash in a pillow case, got his situation swept under the rug. It isn't. We all know the NFL doesn't hand out punishment fairly.
But Josh Gordon ain't no political prisoner. He's a weed head. And I don't even say that negatively, because weed heads are fun people to be around. I don't know Josh Gordon, but I'm sure he isn't any different. I don't really follow Cleveland sports, because reading about Cleveland makes dark thoughts crop up in my head, but I haven't heard anything about him being lazy or causing a problem up there. In fact, he's a really good player, so clearly, he can handle his high. But let's not act like this man is facing a grave injustice. His civil rights aren't being violated. The NFL has clear rules and testing procedures for weed. I don't think they have one for punching your girlfriend in the face, otherwise, half the league would be actually be practice squad players, because everyone else was already suspended.
I'm not saying that to justify spousal abuse, either. The NFL and the Players' Union need to crackdown on players who do stuff like this, unless it's good business for them to represent a gang of wifebeaters. Even if it's just smashing their toes with a hammer, or a series of paper cuts, they need to do something to let players know that attacking their wives is not okay. In a perfect world, they would do this and fight for a loosening of drug restrictions. But there's no sense in that, because their only choices in this are "conform or nah?" The NFL is never going to budge on this. Ever.
It was suggested (on Twitter, admittedly) that because weed helps with brain injuries and stuff like that, and because the NFL has a huge problem with brain injuries, Josh Gordon shouldn't be suspended. And that sounds reasonable until you realize that we don't know if that's why Josh Gordon was smoking. He might just like making smoke rings. And we can't ask him now, because of course he's gonna say that's why he was doing it. Hell, I'd tell you it was curing my crippling erectile dysfunction if it kept from me getting suspended.
Another thing to realize is, the NFL has proven that it doesn't give a shit about players and their stupid brain injuries. To them, that's just a left-wing conspiracy cooked up to bleed the job creators dry. That's why they hid information about brain injuries from the players and that's why they nickel and dime former players now. Junior Seau shooting himself in the chest didn't mean anything to them. They're far more concerned about the image of the league (WE GOTTA PROTECT THE SHIELD, MAN!), and while weed is still illegal, they're not going to change anything, no matter how many tests prove that it helps with brain injuries. They won't even change if it's legalized, because after that, there will still be a lingering perception of weed as a "drug." As far as the NFL's concerned, you better grab a fistful of somas or a cortizone shot and get back on the field.
That's where the real debate needs to be. Not whether or not Josh Gordon is getting screwed, because Ray Rice is living out his Mike Tyson fantasies and Jim Irsay is playing "Breaking Bad," and nothing's happening to them. Unfortunately, the rule is the rule, and they don't have one for punching women or owners going to buy $29,000 in drugs. Or smoking fake weed and jerking off in a parking lot (this one is absolutely true). Or even for players causing a national security uproar at the airport.
See, that's the problem right there. Josh Gordon isn't being as imaginative with his infractions as everyone else.
I personally don't think there's anything wrong with weed. I've said since I was a teenager, I'd rather my kids smoke weed than cigarettes. And yet, it's still considered a part of the same category as heroin. In the eyes of the law, weed and heroin are the same. It's a ridiculous idea, because one has been killing people since it came out and the other is responsible for American weight gain. They're not the same thing, and I think one of them should be legalized, even if it is responsible for putting Taco Bell on the map.
Josh Gordon, wide receiver for the Cleveland Browns, obviously feels like I do, because he just failed a second drug test the other day. He could be suspended for a year as a result.
And like with all drug suspensions, some people are calling him stupid and other people are like, "hey, man, weed comes from the Earth, man." Personally, I don't think it's worth an actual debate. At least not about the rightness or wrongness of a Gordon suspension. The debate needs to be about weed laws and how the NFL eventually will treat them, not whether or not it's fair that he could be suspended a year, while Ray Rice, who punched out his fiance in a casino (allegedly, even though we all saw the video of the aftermath), will be starting Week 1 of the season. Or that Jim Irsay, who was arrested with pills and cash in a pillow case, got his situation swept under the rug. It isn't. We all know the NFL doesn't hand out punishment fairly.
But Josh Gordon ain't no political prisoner. He's a weed head. And I don't even say that negatively, because weed heads are fun people to be around. I don't know Josh Gordon, but I'm sure he isn't any different. I don't really follow Cleveland sports, because reading about Cleveland makes dark thoughts crop up in my head, but I haven't heard anything about him being lazy or causing a problem up there. In fact, he's a really good player, so clearly, he can handle his high. But let's not act like this man is facing a grave injustice. His civil rights aren't being violated. The NFL has clear rules and testing procedures for weed. I don't think they have one for punching your girlfriend in the face, otherwise, half the league would be actually be practice squad players, because everyone else was already suspended.
I'm not saying that to justify spousal abuse, either. The NFL and the Players' Union need to crackdown on players who do stuff like this, unless it's good business for them to represent a gang of wifebeaters. Even if it's just smashing their toes with a hammer, or a series of paper cuts, they need to do something to let players know that attacking their wives is not okay. In a perfect world, they would do this and fight for a loosening of drug restrictions. But there's no sense in that, because their only choices in this are "conform or nah?" The NFL is never going to budge on this. Ever.
It was suggested (on Twitter, admittedly) that because weed helps with brain injuries and stuff like that, and because the NFL has a huge problem with brain injuries, Josh Gordon shouldn't be suspended. And that sounds reasonable until you realize that we don't know if that's why Josh Gordon was smoking. He might just like making smoke rings. And we can't ask him now, because of course he's gonna say that's why he was doing it. Hell, I'd tell you it was curing my crippling erectile dysfunction if it kept from me getting suspended.
Another thing to realize is, the NFL has proven that it doesn't give a shit about players and their stupid brain injuries. To them, that's just a left-wing conspiracy cooked up to bleed the job creators dry. That's why they hid information about brain injuries from the players and that's why they nickel and dime former players now. Junior Seau shooting himself in the chest didn't mean anything to them. They're far more concerned about the image of the league (WE GOTTA PROTECT THE SHIELD, MAN!), and while weed is still illegal, they're not going to change anything, no matter how many tests prove that it helps with brain injuries. They won't even change if it's legalized, because after that, there will still be a lingering perception of weed as a "drug." As far as the NFL's concerned, you better grab a fistful of somas or a cortizone shot and get back on the field.
That's where the real debate needs to be. Not whether or not Josh Gordon is getting screwed, because Ray Rice is living out his Mike Tyson fantasies and Jim Irsay is playing "Breaking Bad," and nothing's happening to them. Unfortunately, the rule is the rule, and they don't have one for punching women or owners going to buy $29,000 in drugs. Or smoking fake weed and jerking off in a parking lot (this one is absolutely true). Or even for players causing a national security uproar at the airport.
See, that's the problem right there. Josh Gordon isn't being as imaginative with his infractions as everyone else.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Maybe Mark Jackson ISN'T a victim. MAYBE.
So Mark Jackson got fired from the Warriors yesterday, despite being the best coach they've had since the first time Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came out. Remember those days? You could still buy a black and white TV. Michael Jackson being white was a new thing.
All the reports are saying that no one liked him and that's why he got fired. Well, no one except the team. You know, the most important people to impress. Because there's plenty of coaches that got along great with the front office who would get outcoached at the YMCA youth league, which is why they now have a well paid job working the telestrator on ESPN. ESPN is nature's way of removing shitty coaches from the business of winning basketball games.
Logically speaking, though, that's probably the dumbest reason of all time to fire a coach. The dude won 51 games, got the team into the playoffs the last two years, and has the support of the team. You know, the guys who put asses in the seats. He's making you money and he's winning games. How fragile does your ego have to be to end all of that just because the coach doesn't like you, Joe Lacob? I would say that coaches have been fired for less, but there will always be Jerry Jones and George Steinbrenner. You have to sink to subhuman levels of pettiness to get where they are, but that's where Joe Lacob seems to be now. Firing a coach for not getting along with the owner is like firing a coach who just won two Super Bowls for you, because the media didn't give you enough credit for putting the team together.
Now, everyone's mad at the owner, because everyone loved Mark Jackson, and in basketball, that's important. The media needs to like the coach, otherwise, they'll start a campaign to D'Antoni your team. Of course the players have to like the coach. The fans should like the coach, because they're buying tickets. Who gives a fuck what the people working for the organization think? No one's coming to see you. And do you know how irrelevant the owner can be when it comes to public outreach? Donald Sterling is a racist and has owned the Clippers for 33 years. When he bought them, almost everyone I know was semen. He's been a racist the whole time, and it hasn't stopped the Clippers from selling tickets.
So as long Mark Jackson isn't messing up that cash, it really shouldn't matter. Then again, scuttlebutt around the Bay says there's more to it than that.
Word from the SF Gate has it that Mark Jackson, who is a pastor (I honestly had no idea until a few hours ago), and team president Rick Welts, who is "a gay (that's a quote from Donald Sterling)," were at odds about Welts's openly gay lifestyle.
Well, that changes everything. Because if that's true, then it changes from a story about a sensitive ass owner to a guy who was openly insulting his boss. 'Cuz Mark Jackson wasn't shy about weighing in about gay issues in the NBA, and he didn't seem like the most gay-friendly guy. On a scale from "one" to "Tim Hardaway," I would hope he was closer to "one," but he doesn't exactly sound welcoming. When Jason Collins came out, Mark Jackson said something about having "beliefs of what’s right and what’s wrong." He also said he was going to pray for Collins's family. And as a guy who hasn't been to church since the last time the Warriors were good, someone saying that they're going to pray for you means that they want something about you to change. By some accounts, Jackson really wasn't feeling "the gays."
And if this is true, it's probably going to become a thing about how a "God-fearing Christian man" lost his job because of his religious beliefs, and I'm going to start insulting people for being hypocrites again. If it is true, Mark Jackson lost his job because he wouldn't shut the fuck up. You can't go around insulting your boss, even if you believe your religion entitles you to shit on everyone else's lifestyle (it doesn't). That's what this is about. Mark Jackson isn't a victim when you put it like that. Mark Jackson isn't even a man of conviction. Mark Jackson is stupid. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it needs to be said all the time.
Besides, can you really get that mad about some religious guy getting fired by his openly gay boss? It's actually kind of ironic, considering all of the roadblocks people are throwing up at gay people in the name of "religious freedom." I almost hope this story is true, just so I can laugh at the people who get mad.
But if it isn't true, then I retract all of that and I'll meet everyone at the picket line to cape up for Mark Jackson. I'll have my trash can ready for optimal window-throwing and everything. Promise.
All the reports are saying that no one liked him and that's why he got fired. Well, no one except the team. You know, the most important people to impress. Because there's plenty of coaches that got along great with the front office who would get outcoached at the YMCA youth league, which is why they now have a well paid job working the telestrator on ESPN. ESPN is nature's way of removing shitty coaches from the business of winning basketball games.
Logically speaking, though, that's probably the dumbest reason of all time to fire a coach. The dude won 51 games, got the team into the playoffs the last two years, and has the support of the team. You know, the guys who put asses in the seats. He's making you money and he's winning games. How fragile does your ego have to be to end all of that just because the coach doesn't like you, Joe Lacob? I would say that coaches have been fired for less, but there will always be Jerry Jones and George Steinbrenner. You have to sink to subhuman levels of pettiness to get where they are, but that's where Joe Lacob seems to be now. Firing a coach for not getting along with the owner is like firing a coach who just won two Super Bowls for you, because the media didn't give you enough credit for putting the team together.
Now, everyone's mad at the owner, because everyone loved Mark Jackson, and in basketball, that's important. The media needs to like the coach, otherwise, they'll start a campaign to D'Antoni your team. Of course the players have to like the coach. The fans should like the coach, because they're buying tickets. Who gives a fuck what the people working for the organization think? No one's coming to see you. And do you know how irrelevant the owner can be when it comes to public outreach? Donald Sterling is a racist and has owned the Clippers for 33 years. When he bought them, almost everyone I know was semen. He's been a racist the whole time, and it hasn't stopped the Clippers from selling tickets.
So as long Mark Jackson isn't messing up that cash, it really shouldn't matter. Then again, scuttlebutt around the Bay says there's more to it than that.
Word from the SF Gate has it that Mark Jackson, who is a pastor (I honestly had no idea until a few hours ago), and team president Rick Welts, who is "a gay (that's a quote from Donald Sterling)," were at odds about Welts's openly gay lifestyle.
Well, that changes everything. Because if that's true, then it changes from a story about a sensitive ass owner to a guy who was openly insulting his boss. 'Cuz Mark Jackson wasn't shy about weighing in about gay issues in the NBA, and he didn't seem like the most gay-friendly guy. On a scale from "one" to "Tim Hardaway," I would hope he was closer to "one," but he doesn't exactly sound welcoming. When Jason Collins came out, Mark Jackson said something about having "beliefs of what’s right and what’s wrong." He also said he was going to pray for Collins's family. And as a guy who hasn't been to church since the last time the Warriors were good, someone saying that they're going to pray for you means that they want something about you to change. By some accounts, Jackson really wasn't feeling "the gays."
And if this is true, it's probably going to become a thing about how a "God-fearing Christian man" lost his job because of his religious beliefs, and I'm going to start insulting people for being hypocrites again. If it is true, Mark Jackson lost his job because he wouldn't shut the fuck up. You can't go around insulting your boss, even if you believe your religion entitles you to shit on everyone else's lifestyle (it doesn't). That's what this is about. Mark Jackson isn't a victim when you put it like that. Mark Jackson isn't even a man of conviction. Mark Jackson is stupid. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it needs to be said all the time.
Besides, can you really get that mad about some religious guy getting fired by his openly gay boss? It's actually kind of ironic, considering all of the roadblocks people are throwing up at gay people in the name of "religious freedom." I almost hope this story is true, just so I can laugh at the people who get mad.
But if it isn't true, then I retract all of that and I'll meet everyone at the picket line to cape up for Mark Jackson. I'll have my trash can ready for optimal window-throwing and everything. Promise.
Friday, May 02, 2014
Darrell Trigg for President: Please let this happen.
We've reached that time when all manner of fringe elements have started declaring for the Presidential race. Most of the people won't make it the distance because they don't have the resources to get onto the ballot (which is why we need electoral reform), or because they started running two years in advance and ran out of money. And then, there are those who could have all the money they wanted and won't make it because they are just a fucking lunatic. That's the category that Darrell Trigg falls into.
Darrell Trigg is an Engineering Consultant from Virginia, and I suspect that the only reason why this information got into his biography is because he had to prove that he wasn't some sort of drifter who killed an old widow for her money. Aside from those four sentences, the other three pages are about how much he loves God. Nothing wrong with that. I just find it startling that a person who wants to be President has almost nothing to say about his employment history. I mean, if you spend 30 years working at Target and now you want to be President, I'd like to know that, because if nothing else, I expect you to have good customer service skills.
But Darrell is one of those kinds of people who really wants to be a pastor, but got the words mixed up and said "President" instead. And being an old man, I see how something like that could happen. When you see Darrell's platform, it'll all make sense, because this is a man whose only difference from the Taliban is that girls will still be able to go to school. FOR NOW.
He wants to impose all kinds of holy restrictions upon all of us, and maybe 30 or 40 of you out there will think this is cool, but for the other 300 million, it's going to be a problem. Well, not really, because it's not like this guy has a shot at winning, but if he did, someone would have him assassinated long before the election. I'm not kidding. If this man had a realistic shot at being seen on television outside of public access, he would alienate so many people that the Democrats and Republicans would forget about each other and tear this guy to pieces. And now that I've said it, I truly hope to see something like that happen.
Thanks to The Everlasting GOP Stoppers and Joe My God for bringing this guy to my attention. His platform is below and in italics, and I'll be chiming in here and there.
1. Separation of Church and State will be changed to the Union of Church and State. God will be asked to be an integral part of the government of the U.S.
2. Public Schools – all schools supported by the U.S. Federal and State tax systems:
3. Homosexuality will not be recognized legally, or in any other manner, by the United States government or any state, city, or county government.
4. Public - Traded Corporations :
5. The income of coaches of sports teams at universities will be limited to $300,000 per year .
Yeah fucking right. They'd let Jerry Sandusky go back to Penn State before this ever happened.
6. The legal drinking age will be increased to 25 for any alcoholic beverage.
7. Marriage and the family will be protected by the following :
8. The rating system for movies and T.V. shows will be drastically overhauled :
9. Abortion will only be legal in situations where the child has a small probability of living and the pregnancy is placing the life of the mother in extreme risk.
He's actually to the left of much of the Republicans here. Go figure. YOU SOCIALIST SCUM.
10. Industries in the United States ( U.S.) that have suffered from foreign competition with much lower labor pay rates, lower employee compensation costs, and lower environmental compliance costs will be assisted and protected. Assistance will include financial help in building or refurbishing manufacturing plants and training employees and low capital gains taxes. Protection will include tariffs on imported goods in order to establish a market fair for these U.S. industries. These tariffs will be used to help prevent inflation on these manufactured goods.
This is him begging for lobbyist money, because American industries ARE their foreign competition. Either that or he truly doesn't understand how outsourcing works. I'm so cynical that I really believe it's the first one.
11. The Welfare Department will be overhauled. This overhaul will include training welfare recipients for jobs that match their abilities. The financial responsibilities of caring for children of mothers who are not married will be shared by the father .
I wonder if he realizes how socialist he sounds, except that the 30 minute video he posted to announce his candidacy suggests that he isn't self-aware at all.</a> The first part is actually a good idea that President Obama has been trying to get in place for a while now. The second part, is pretty random and also what is supposed to be happening already--child support. Perhaps you've heard of it.
12. The insurance and medical system of the U.S. will be overhauled. Employers will be required to provide insurance for their employees. The costs of medical services and pharmaceuticals will be reviewed. These will be offered at a fair price without excessive profit for the providers.
If the corporations don't get you for limiting their pay, then Big Pharma certainly will. Sir, don't say this stuff in public, because your life will be in danger.
13. Illegal immigration laws will be enforced . Laws will be passed to assist this enforcement.
14. Several laws will be reviewed, including several statute -of-limitations.
15. Marijuana will not be legal except for medicinal purposes.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Look, Trigg, I just don't want to see you waste your money here. Just stop. I know you said that God wants you to be President, but God has met us, even if you haven't. He's clearly playing a practical joke on you, which I think he does from time to time. All of these people out here claiming that God told you to do something, I think he just wants to see if you'll actually do it. There's no way he really thinks you're going to become President until all 300 million of us die first. And if that's what actually happens, you'll just be the leader of about 40 people until Mexico claims the empty husk that was America.
Darrell Trigg is an Engineering Consultant from Virginia, and I suspect that the only reason why this information got into his biography is because he had to prove that he wasn't some sort of drifter who killed an old widow for her money. Aside from those four sentences, the other three pages are about how much he loves God. Nothing wrong with that. I just find it startling that a person who wants to be President has almost nothing to say about his employment history. I mean, if you spend 30 years working at Target and now you want to be President, I'd like to know that, because if nothing else, I expect you to have good customer service skills.
But Darrell is one of those kinds of people who really wants to be a pastor, but got the words mixed up and said "President" instead. And being an old man, I see how something like that could happen. When you see Darrell's platform, it'll all make sense, because this is a man whose only difference from the Taliban is that girls will still be able to go to school. FOR NOW.
He wants to impose all kinds of holy restrictions upon all of us, and maybe 30 or 40 of you out there will think this is cool, but for the other 300 million, it's going to be a problem. Well, not really, because it's not like this guy has a shot at winning, but if he did, someone would have him assassinated long before the election. I'm not kidding. If this man had a realistic shot at being seen on television outside of public access, he would alienate so many people that the Democrats and Republicans would forget about each other and tear this guy to pieces. And now that I've said it, I truly hope to see something like that happen.
Thanks to The Everlasting GOP Stoppers and Joe My God for bringing this guy to my attention. His platform is below and in italics, and I'll be chiming in here and there.
1. Separation of Church and State will be changed to the Union of Church and State. God will be asked to be an integral part of the government of the U.S.
- The national religion of The United States of America will be the Christian religion . Those belonging to other religions, such as Islam, will be free to live and worship here as now, with their own religion; however, the Christian religion will be the one chosen to form the basic moral principles of our nation, to give it a strong moral foundation, and a right relationship with God.
2. Public Schools – all schools supported by the U.S. Federal and State tax systems:
- The Bible will be a standard required subject in all public schools and universities, for all grades , the same as English and Math.
- Each day of school will begin with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.
- The salary and total compensation package of school teachers will be increased.
- The total budget for our school system will be increased.
- The school day will include one period of physical education that includes 30 minutes of exercise four days per week.
3. Homosexuality will not be recognized legally, or in any other manner, by the United States government or any state, city, or county government.
4. Public - Traded Corporations :
- The income and other compensation, received by the managers and officers of public - traded corporations will be limited to $300,000 per year.
5. The income of coaches of sports teams at universities will be limited to $300,000 per year .
Yeah fucking right. They'd let Jerry Sandusky go back to Penn State before this ever happened.
6. The legal drinking age will be increased to 25 for any alcoholic beverage.
- Alcohol will not be allowed on university campuses.
7. Marriage and the family will be protected by the following :
- Marriage will be defined as the union of one woman with one man.
- The legal age for marriage will be 22.
- A couple wishing to get married must first attend Christian marriage counseling classes.
- Divorce will only be allowed in cases of abuse, infidelity, or incarceration.
- The penalties for abuse and infidelity will include large fines and jail time.
- Married couples who become pregnant must attend Christian parenting classes.
8. The rating system for movies and T.V. shows will be drastically overhauled :
- No show or movie will be allowed on T.V. systems or computer systems accessible by homes that contain nudity, strong sexual content, excessive foul language, blasphemy, or any form of homosexuality.
9. Abortion will only be legal in situations where the child has a small probability of living and the pregnancy is placing the life of the mother in extreme risk.
He's actually to the left of much of the Republicans here. Go figure. YOU SOCIALIST SCUM.
10. Industries in the United States ( U.S.) that have suffered from foreign competition with much lower labor pay rates, lower employee compensation costs, and lower environmental compliance costs will be assisted and protected. Assistance will include financial help in building or refurbishing manufacturing plants and training employees and low capital gains taxes. Protection will include tariffs on imported goods in order to establish a market fair for these U.S. industries. These tariffs will be used to help prevent inflation on these manufactured goods.
This is him begging for lobbyist money, because American industries ARE their foreign competition. Either that or he truly doesn't understand how outsourcing works. I'm so cynical that I really believe it's the first one.
11. The Welfare Department will be overhauled. This overhaul will include training welfare recipients for jobs that match their abilities. The financial responsibilities of caring for children of mothers who are not married will be shared by the father .
I wonder if he realizes how socialist he sounds, except that the 30 minute video he posted to announce his candidacy suggests that he isn't self-aware at all.</a> The first part is actually a good idea that President Obama has been trying to get in place for a while now. The second part, is pretty random and also what is supposed to be happening already--child support. Perhaps you've heard of it.
12. The insurance and medical system of the U.S. will be overhauled. Employers will be required to provide insurance for their employees. The costs of medical services and pharmaceuticals will be reviewed. These will be offered at a fair price without excessive profit for the providers.
If the corporations don't get you for limiting their pay, then Big Pharma certainly will. Sir, don't say this stuff in public, because your life will be in danger.
13. Illegal immigration laws will be enforced . Laws will be passed to assist this enforcement.
14. Several laws will be reviewed, including several statute -of-limitations.
15. Marijuana will not be legal except for medicinal purposes.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Look, Trigg, I just don't want to see you waste your money here. Just stop. I know you said that God wants you to be President, but God has met us, even if you haven't. He's clearly playing a practical joke on you, which I think he does from time to time. All of these people out here claiming that God told you to do something, I think he just wants to see if you'll actually do it. There's no way he really thinks you're going to become President until all 300 million of us die first. And if that's what actually happens, you'll just be the leader of about 40 people until Mexico claims the empty husk that was America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)