So I am listening to the Diane Rehm show, and Larry Sabato is talking, because this is what he does. Talk. Well I mean really he is some director of some election or public policy thing at the University of Virginia.
And he is a hack. Like in here are the two things he says:
1. He very often is 98% accurate in his election predictions!
(Author's note: You will achieve a similarly accurate result if you just pick the incumbent to win. [Political] science!)
2. He will ooze on the teevee and call the race for you if you give him a big pile of money. Thanks to John Cook at Gawker
(Author's note: Jesus Christ is this guy rich)
So to sum up: Larry Sabato will make blindingly obvious remarks and will say what you want him to say for cash.
But to what he is saying now! This is more or less a live-blog.
- Virginia is a state that sometimes picks Democrats and sometimes picks Republicans.
- We can't extrapolate too much from these races.
- People don't have the same turnout for off-year elections!
God he sucks. He just said a bunch of things that you know from having a half functional brain.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tom Friedman: I Know A Guy
Oh hi blog!
Here I will refute Tom Friedman's latest Op-Ed, point by point, because he is an insufferable cosmically stupid man.
Last summer I attended a talk by Michelle Rhee, the dynamic chancellor of public schools in Washington. Just before the session began, a man came up, introduced himself as Todd Martin and whispered to me that what Rhee was about to speak about — our struggling public schools — was actually a critical, but unspoken, reason for the Great Recession.
Tom Friedman: I know a guy. Sometimes when I'm in Washington (DC or the state - whichever!) mystery men come up to me and divulge information about what's going on that nobody else knows. That is why I, Tom Friedman, have an op-ed in the New York Times. Also, how about the construction of that second sentence, huh?
There’s something to that. While the subprime mortgage mess involved a huge ethical breakdown on Wall Street, it coincided with an education breakdown on Main Street — precisely when technology and open borders were enabling so many more people to compete with Americans for middle-class jobs.
The subprime mortgages had little to do with an ethical breakdown, and had a hell of a lot more to do with a bubble-fueled economy, that, as a result, is drive by periods of increasing volatility. Nobody was talking about ethics when the housing bubble was being inflated, Tom. I mean, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that it was some shadowy unscrupulous bankers that had a sudden realization that if they just started acting unethically then everybody would be rich. But I think you may be suggesting just that.
And then, what's the logical fallacy where you just take two events and you say, "here, these are two things that happened at the same time. They are related." I don't remember either, but it doesn't make any sense.
Also, by "open borders" what he really means to say is "labor is dirt cheap outside of the US and so is transportation costs. Let's move production there." Or you can go with the flowery bullshit of open borders; your choice. But that doesn't even answer the question of WHY people are able to compete for formerly American middle class jobs. Well, because you don't need to be terribly educated or specialized to do most jobs because of technology! It's true! Let's hope this realization doesn't come back to bite him in the... oh Tom, you're in for a rough one.
In our subprime era, we thought we could have the American dream — a house and yard — with nothing down. This version of the American dream was delivered not by improving education, productivity and savings, but by Wall Street alchemy and borrowed money from Asia.
Well, that and shadow banking arms of legitimate financial corporations told us we could have that dream, too, to be fair. Otherwise, he's right with this paragraph. Still has nothing to do with education though.
A year ago, it all exploded. Now that we are picking up the pieces, we need to understand that it is not only our financial system that needs a reboot and an upgrade, but also our public school system. Otherwise, the jobless recovery won’t be just a passing phase, but our future.
This is what I like to call: Ignoring History's Minor Inconveniences (trademark forthcoming)
1960s: It all exploded with a credit crunch
1970s: It all exploded due to oil prices and stagflation
1980s: It all exploded due to Leveraged Buyouts and other corporate raiders
1990s: It all exploded with the Savings and Loan scandals
1990s: (twofer!) It all exploded when people realized pets.com was not actually worth 800 billion dollars
2000s: It all exploded due to a mortgage meltdown
AND
1960s-2000s: American education, by certain metrics in certain populations, is losing ground, comparatively.
Again I stress: the two sides of the "AND" have not a whit to do with each other. Our public schools have been in desperate need of revamps and overhauls and some less profoundly stupid ideas like tying public school funding to property taxes. You've read Jonathan Kozol, right? Good.
“Our education failure is the largest contributing factor to the decline of the American worker’s global competitiveness, particularly at the middle and bottom ranges,” argued Martin, a former global executive with PepsiCo and Kraft Europe and now an international investor. “This loss of competitiveness has weakened the American worker’s production of wealth, precisely when technology brought global competition much closer to home. So over a decade, American workers have maintained their standard of living by borrowing and overconsuming vis-à-vis their real income. When the Great Recession wiped out all the credit and asset bubbles that made that overconsumption possible, it left too many American workers not only deeper in debt than ever, but out of a job and lacking the skills to compete globally.”
Wait, I thought he went to a talk by Rhee? When is Rhee going to make an appearance?
1. Worker's global competitiveness, due to needing less education, expertise, or specialization, all comes down to where production can be made most cheaply. This is often not in the US. Middle and bottom ranges, especially. Fine, everybody get's a masters degree in Freakonomics: it will still be cheaper to manufacture car parts in Mexico.
2. We borrowed and consumed on houses we thought were worth what banks said they were worth. Which, OK, we should have known better. But consumer debt and the instability of finance has driven the American economy now for 50 years. President Obama said credit is the lifeblood of the economy, completely unironically, and nobody batted an eye. In other words, this isn't anything new.
3. The fact that real income is tied into the inherent instability of the world of finance means that indeed we need more education. Not Friedman's techno-utopian bullshit idea, but an education on how to stop this disgusting world of finance.
This problem will be reversed only when the decline in worker competitiveness reverses — when we create enough new jobs and educated workers that are worth, say, $40-an-hour compared with the global alternatives. If we don’t, there’s no telling how “jobless” this recovery will be.
Every recovery since the 70s is jobless. The whole point of having the Fed intervene as the lender of last resort is to restabilize the economy, not make jobs. So again, Tom talks about two events that have little to do with each other. A simple flow chart:
Should we create new jobs? ------> Yes --------> OK let's figure out what to produce
Is this a jobless recovery? ------> Of course, what a stupid question, we were talking about how to make jobs just now, so kindly butt out.
A Washington lawyer friend recently told me about layoffs at his firm. I asked him who was getting axed. He said it was interesting: lawyers who were used to just showing up and having work handed to them were the first to go because with the bursting of the credit bubble, that flow of work just isn’t there. But those who have the ability to imagine new services, new opportunities and new ways to recruit work were being retained. They are the new untouchables.
Tom Friedman: still has friends. Still waiting to hear from Rhee, too.
1. Well this is exciting. People who go to work to do work get fired. People who figure out new ways to pad billable hours to get a bunch more money for the law firm: this is apparently Tom Friedman's bright future.
2. New service, new opportunities: these are what drove i-bankers to invent CDOs, CDSs, and other sorts of exotic derivative securities. What could possibly go wrong there?
3. Making a colonial India reference, I see. Tom isn't good with these kinds of things. These people are the new caste of society that people won't deal with.... why, wait, I take it back, that's the smartest thing Friedman has ever said! I can't wait to spit on a banker!
That is the key to understanding our full education challenge today. Those who are waiting for this recession to end so someone can again hand them work could have a long wait. Those with the imagination to make themselves untouchables — to invent smarter ways to do old jobs, energy-saving ways to provide new services, new ways to attract old customers or new ways to combine existing technologies — will thrive. Therefore, we not only need a higher percentage of our kids graduating from high school and college — more education — but we need more of them with the right education.
At this point, I've given up on hearing from Rhee. It just wasn't meant to be.
Also, here is this hilariously stupid paragraph in a nutshell: Are you unemployed? Put on your creative thinking cap and become a person that can't be fired from the job you don't have! What do you mean there are no jobs? INNOVATE, SON! Also, thanks for the examples, Tom! This whole assortment of words boils down to: Reach for the stars! Do businessy sounding buzzwords! Creatovate!
I just made that word up! I'm UNTOUCHABLE! Elliot Ness motherfucker! Wait, no, the other kind?
As the Harvard University labor expert Lawrence Katz explains it: “If you think about the labor market today, the top half of the college market, those with the high-end analytical and problem-solving skills who can compete on the world market or game the financial system or deal with new government regulations, have done great. But the bottom half of the top, those engineers and programmers working on more routine tasks and not actively engaged in developing new ideas or recombining existing technologies or thinking about what new customers want, have done poorly. They’ve been much more exposed to global competitors that make them easily substitutable.”
The top half of the top half and the bottom half of the top half oh for God's sake Katz, some expert you are!
So maybe you're a person who is with me until now. And good. But we may part ways here, because I'm gonna go full-Marxist. The whole point of production is to minimize time and space (they are probably the same thing). You also want to flatten the level of education and expertise needed to do any given thing. So we are in a paradox now. We do what Katz wants and find ways to propel the capital machine, which will then further lead to the de-skilling of jobs. Then we'll come back and have this same talk again with an even bleaker outlook. That's how the system works, and the proposed solution seems to be saying to speed it up. It's mindboggling!
Those at the high end of the bottom half — high school grads in construction or manufacturing — have been clobbered by global competition and immigration, added Katz. “But those who have some interpersonal skills — the salesperson who can deal with customers face to face or the home contractor who can help you redesign your kitchen without going to an architect — have done well.”
This... is the same paragraph as above, except with shoe salespeople. Whatever.
Just being an average accountant, lawyer, contractor or assembly-line worker is not the ticket it used to be. As Daniel Pink, the author of “A Whole New Mind,” puts it: In a world in which more and more average work can be done by a computer, robot or talented foreigner faster, cheaper “and just as well,” vanilla doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s all about what chocolate sauce, whipped cream and cherry you can put on top. So our schools have a doubly hard task now — not just improving reading, writing and arithmetic but entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity.
Oh yeah, there's a long rich history of people waiting to be selected for the sweet life of an assembly-line worker. No wait there's a long rich history of labor unions with their collective power, getting a quality of life standard that affirmed the dignity of that labor and so assembly-line workers could be rightfully proud of what they did and have a good material life!
But at the end of the day, you just have to be ice cream. Also, with the vanilla thing, he has introduced a sexual connotation into this metaphor. A quick metaphor sidebar recap:
Untouchables: G-Men or anti-Brahmins?
Vanilla: your work flavor. Also possibly your sexual prowess
Ice cream: how to sell yourself to get a job
Bottom line: We’re not going back to the good old days without fixing our schools as well as our banks.
THERE NEVER WERE ANY GOOD OLD DAYS.
Here I will refute Tom Friedman's latest Op-Ed, point by point, because he is an insufferable cosmically stupid man.
Last summer I attended a talk by Michelle Rhee, the dynamic chancellor of public schools in Washington. Just before the session began, a man came up, introduced himself as Todd Martin and whispered to me that what Rhee was about to speak about — our struggling public schools — was actually a critical, but unspoken, reason for the Great Recession.
Tom Friedman: I know a guy. Sometimes when I'm in Washington (DC or the state - whichever!) mystery men come up to me and divulge information about what's going on that nobody else knows. That is why I, Tom Friedman, have an op-ed in the New York Times. Also, how about the construction of that second sentence, huh?
There’s something to that. While the subprime mortgage mess involved a huge ethical breakdown on Wall Street, it coincided with an education breakdown on Main Street — precisely when technology and open borders were enabling so many more people to compete with Americans for middle-class jobs.
The subprime mortgages had little to do with an ethical breakdown, and had a hell of a lot more to do with a bubble-fueled economy, that, as a result, is drive by periods of increasing volatility. Nobody was talking about ethics when the housing bubble was being inflated, Tom. I mean, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that it was some shadowy unscrupulous bankers that had a sudden realization that if they just started acting unethically then everybody would be rich. But I think you may be suggesting just that.
And then, what's the logical fallacy where you just take two events and you say, "here, these are two things that happened at the same time. They are related." I don't remember either, but it doesn't make any sense.
Also, by "open borders" what he really means to say is "labor is dirt cheap outside of the US and so is transportation costs. Let's move production there." Or you can go with the flowery bullshit of open borders; your choice. But that doesn't even answer the question of WHY people are able to compete for formerly American middle class jobs. Well, because you don't need to be terribly educated or specialized to do most jobs because of technology! It's true! Let's hope this realization doesn't come back to bite him in the... oh Tom, you're in for a rough one.
In our subprime era, we thought we could have the American dream — a house and yard — with nothing down. This version of the American dream was delivered not by improving education, productivity and savings, but by Wall Street alchemy and borrowed money from Asia.
Well, that and shadow banking arms of legitimate financial corporations told us we could have that dream, too, to be fair. Otherwise, he's right with this paragraph. Still has nothing to do with education though.
A year ago, it all exploded. Now that we are picking up the pieces, we need to understand that it is not only our financial system that needs a reboot and an upgrade, but also our public school system. Otherwise, the jobless recovery won’t be just a passing phase, but our future.
This is what I like to call: Ignoring History's Minor Inconveniences (trademark forthcoming)
1960s: It all exploded with a credit crunch
1970s: It all exploded due to oil prices and stagflation
1980s: It all exploded due to Leveraged Buyouts and other corporate raiders
1990s: It all exploded with the Savings and Loan scandals
1990s: (twofer!) It all exploded when people realized pets.com was not actually worth 800 billion dollars
2000s: It all exploded due to a mortgage meltdown
AND
1960s-2000s: American education, by certain metrics in certain populations, is losing ground, comparatively.
Again I stress: the two sides of the "AND" have not a whit to do with each other. Our public schools have been in desperate need of revamps and overhauls and some less profoundly stupid ideas like tying public school funding to property taxes. You've read Jonathan Kozol, right? Good.
“Our education failure is the largest contributing factor to the decline of the American worker’s global competitiveness, particularly at the middle and bottom ranges,” argued Martin, a former global executive with PepsiCo and Kraft Europe and now an international investor. “This loss of competitiveness has weakened the American worker’s production of wealth, precisely when technology brought global competition much closer to home. So over a decade, American workers have maintained their standard of living by borrowing and overconsuming vis-à-vis their real income. When the Great Recession wiped out all the credit and asset bubbles that made that overconsumption possible, it left too many American workers not only deeper in debt than ever, but out of a job and lacking the skills to compete globally.”
Wait, I thought he went to a talk by Rhee? When is Rhee going to make an appearance?
1. Worker's global competitiveness, due to needing less education, expertise, or specialization, all comes down to where production can be made most cheaply. This is often not in the US. Middle and bottom ranges, especially. Fine, everybody get's a masters degree in Freakonomics: it will still be cheaper to manufacture car parts in Mexico.
2. We borrowed and consumed on houses we thought were worth what banks said they were worth. Which, OK, we should have known better. But consumer debt and the instability of finance has driven the American economy now for 50 years. President Obama said credit is the lifeblood of the economy, completely unironically, and nobody batted an eye. In other words, this isn't anything new.
3. The fact that real income is tied into the inherent instability of the world of finance means that indeed we need more education. Not Friedman's techno-utopian bullshit idea, but an education on how to stop this disgusting world of finance.
This problem will be reversed only when the decline in worker competitiveness reverses — when we create enough new jobs and educated workers that are worth, say, $40-an-hour compared with the global alternatives. If we don’t, there’s no telling how “jobless” this recovery will be.
Every recovery since the 70s is jobless. The whole point of having the Fed intervene as the lender of last resort is to restabilize the economy, not make jobs. So again, Tom talks about two events that have little to do with each other. A simple flow chart:
Should we create new jobs? ------> Yes --------> OK let's figure out what to produce
Is this a jobless recovery? ------> Of course, what a stupid question, we were talking about how to make jobs just now, so kindly butt out.
A Washington lawyer friend recently told me about layoffs at his firm. I asked him who was getting axed. He said it was interesting: lawyers who were used to just showing up and having work handed to them were the first to go because with the bursting of the credit bubble, that flow of work just isn’t there. But those who have the ability to imagine new services, new opportunities and new ways to recruit work were being retained. They are the new untouchables.
Tom Friedman: still has friends. Still waiting to hear from Rhee, too.
1. Well this is exciting. People who go to work to do work get fired. People who figure out new ways to pad billable hours to get a bunch more money for the law firm: this is apparently Tom Friedman's bright future.
2. New service, new opportunities: these are what drove i-bankers to invent CDOs, CDSs, and other sorts of exotic derivative securities. What could possibly go wrong there?
3. Making a colonial India reference, I see. Tom isn't good with these kinds of things. These people are the new caste of society that people won't deal with.... why, wait, I take it back, that's the smartest thing Friedman has ever said! I can't wait to spit on a banker!
That is the key to understanding our full education challenge today. Those who are waiting for this recession to end so someone can again hand them work could have a long wait. Those with the imagination to make themselves untouchables — to invent smarter ways to do old jobs, energy-saving ways to provide new services, new ways to attract old customers or new ways to combine existing technologies — will thrive. Therefore, we not only need a higher percentage of our kids graduating from high school and college — more education — but we need more of them with the right education.
At this point, I've given up on hearing from Rhee. It just wasn't meant to be.
Also, here is this hilariously stupid paragraph in a nutshell: Are you unemployed? Put on your creative thinking cap and become a person that can't be fired from the job you don't have! What do you mean there are no jobs? INNOVATE, SON! Also, thanks for the examples, Tom! This whole assortment of words boils down to: Reach for the stars! Do businessy sounding buzzwords! Creatovate!
I just made that word up! I'm UNTOUCHABLE! Elliot Ness motherfucker! Wait, no, the other kind?
As the Harvard University labor expert Lawrence Katz explains it: “If you think about the labor market today, the top half of the college market, those with the high-end analytical and problem-solving skills who can compete on the world market or game the financial system or deal with new government regulations, have done great. But the bottom half of the top, those engineers and programmers working on more routine tasks and not actively engaged in developing new ideas or recombining existing technologies or thinking about what new customers want, have done poorly. They’ve been much more exposed to global competitors that make them easily substitutable.”
The top half of the top half and the bottom half of the top half oh for God's sake Katz, some expert you are!
So maybe you're a person who is with me until now. And good. But we may part ways here, because I'm gonna go full-Marxist. The whole point of production is to minimize time and space (they are probably the same thing). You also want to flatten the level of education and expertise needed to do any given thing. So we are in a paradox now. We do what Katz wants and find ways to propel the capital machine, which will then further lead to the de-skilling of jobs. Then we'll come back and have this same talk again with an even bleaker outlook. That's how the system works, and the proposed solution seems to be saying to speed it up. It's mindboggling!
Those at the high end of the bottom half — high school grads in construction or manufacturing — have been clobbered by global competition and immigration, added Katz. “But those who have some interpersonal skills — the salesperson who can deal with customers face to face or the home contractor who can help you redesign your kitchen without going to an architect — have done well.”
This... is the same paragraph as above, except with shoe salespeople. Whatever.
Just being an average accountant, lawyer, contractor or assembly-line worker is not the ticket it used to be. As Daniel Pink, the author of “A Whole New Mind,” puts it: In a world in which more and more average work can be done by a computer, robot or talented foreigner faster, cheaper “and just as well,” vanilla doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s all about what chocolate sauce, whipped cream and cherry you can put on top. So our schools have a doubly hard task now — not just improving reading, writing and arithmetic but entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity.
Oh yeah, there's a long rich history of people waiting to be selected for the sweet life of an assembly-line worker. No wait there's a long rich history of labor unions with their collective power, getting a quality of life standard that affirmed the dignity of that labor and so assembly-line workers could be rightfully proud of what they did and have a good material life!
But at the end of the day, you just have to be ice cream. Also, with the vanilla thing, he has introduced a sexual connotation into this metaphor. A quick metaphor sidebar recap:
Untouchables: G-Men or anti-Brahmins?
Vanilla: your work flavor. Also possibly your sexual prowess
Ice cream: how to sell yourself to get a job
Bottom line: We’re not going back to the good old days without fixing our schools as well as our banks.
THERE NEVER WERE ANY GOOD OLD DAYS.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
hip-hop succumbs to gay agenda
You read it, ladies and gents....
Due to the endless pressure of the gay agenda, as homosexuals try to taint our moral fiber with their filth, they have attacked one of the cornerstones of our society: hip hop music.
Hip-hop has gone gay. At least what i've been hearing. Granted the traditional definition of hip-hop has changed significantly... but let me state my case here:
Firstly, what do I mean by 'gay'? Well, i'm not saying its a bad thing, but generally, gay music has its own sound: slightly cheesy, overemotional techno. Would you hear it in a gay club (without significant remixing)? If you answered yes, its 'gay'. And proud of it.
Exhibit A: Rihanna's 'Don't Stop the Music'. Okay, I actually heard this in gay club. It's techno, everyone. And it has MJ in it. It is pretty fierce, girlfriend.
Exhibit B: Chris Brown's 'Forever'. It beats out Rihanna for the sound I'm talking about You may not have heard this one yet, so lets give it a listen:
Lastly, I would like to present you with exhibit C: Wiz Khalifa's 'Say Yeah'
That right there is the most absolutely fabulous rap song to hit the scene since diddy played the Diana Ross sample 'i'm coming out' in the background of 'Mo money mo problems'
Seriously. "Better off alone" in a rap song?
Homosexual Agenda: 1
Moral Fiber of Hip Hop: 0
Yes, I said moral fiber of hip hop. Because it makes about as much sense as 'moral fiber of America'. How delightfully ironic.
Due to the endless pressure of the gay agenda, as homosexuals try to taint our moral fiber with their filth, they have attacked one of the cornerstones of our society: hip hop music.
Hip-hop has gone gay. At least what i've been hearing. Granted the traditional definition of hip-hop has changed significantly... but let me state my case here:
Firstly, what do I mean by 'gay'? Well, i'm not saying its a bad thing, but generally, gay music has its own sound: slightly cheesy, overemotional techno. Would you hear it in a gay club (without significant remixing)? If you answered yes, its 'gay'. And proud of it.
Exhibit A: Rihanna's 'Don't Stop the Music'. Okay, I actually heard this in gay club. It's techno, everyone. And it has MJ in it. It is pretty fierce, girlfriend.
Exhibit B: Chris Brown's 'Forever'. It beats out Rihanna for the sound I'm talking about You may not have heard this one yet, so lets give it a listen:
Lastly, I would like to present you with exhibit C: Wiz Khalifa's 'Say Yeah'
That right there is the most absolutely fabulous rap song to hit the scene since diddy played the Diana Ross sample 'i'm coming out' in the background of 'Mo money mo problems'
Seriously. "Better off alone" in a rap song?
Homosexual Agenda: 1
Moral Fiber of Hip Hop: 0
Yes, I said moral fiber of hip hop. Because it makes about as much sense as 'moral fiber of America'. How delightfully ironic.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
When it rains...
Well, in DC, when it rains, it pours, then it mists, then it sprinkles, then it is cloudy for a month. But at least the weather coincides with our current state of global affairs. Allow the diagram below to aid you in your perception of our situation globally:
What is this you say? Well, its a fan. Unfortunately, due to the current food crisis, there is no fecal matter available to hit the fan. Therefore, we just have a fan. To stretch the metaphor, perhaps the coming years are going to 'blow' (as fans do create wind).
But in all seriousness. According to one news article, the current food crisis is a 'silent tsunami'. On that note:
1. It would be far more clever if it were a 'tsilent tsunami'.
2. Why are we still calling things tsunamis? The worst natural disaster in our time happened only a few short years ago, and we are going to call something totally unrelated and largely the fault of manmade problems a 'silent tsunami'?
3. Does a tsunami make noise to begin with? Perhaps it sounds like children's laughter.
Things like that really irk me. Just say "worst. food. crisis. ever.". At least it wouldn't intermingle unrelated disasters. Anything but tsunami. Its like comparing everything to Hitler. Just doesn't carry any weight anymore.
So the economy is going to get worse, the food crisis will grow, and we will still use our corn to make ethanol for our cars. I don't mind if some child dies in another continent, so long as I can drive to work in the morning.
WELCOME BACK!
I was gone for awhile! With RK too busy blogging about his beloved twins and defending his thesis, and me too busy working in the real world... wait a second....
Here is my real explanation: Yes, I have been busy. But I have also lacked in motivation. I'm not going to halfassedly blog for yall, so here I am back in blazing colors. Of the rainbow.
What have I been spending my time doing?
Becoming a Nats fan.
Who?
The worst team in baseball.
With RK as my witness, I officially dumped my Braves (in a good season) in favor of my (new) hometown Washington Nationals. I've never been a get on the wagon when times are good type of guy, so it seems fitting they have the worst record in baseball.
Steps to becoming a Nats fan:
1. Wave your hat around as the scoreboard says 'wave those caps'. Lame.
2. Watch the nats lose.
3. Get a nats dog. Realize that nats dogs arent very good. Get a ben's chili bowl chili dog, all the way. Bliss. Get an italian sausage. Have a pocket of blistering hot oil hide within the greasy crevices of the meat, only to explode onto your lukewarm and tender tongue. Wash down with a beer. An overpriced beer sold to you by a 16 year old girl who gave you 4 beers and didnt check for ID.
4. Realize why you love baseball all over again, and want to go to the games all the time now.
It's easy to be a fan of any team. You just have to love the sport. And hope maybe youll meet joe mauer one day.
What is this you say? Well, its a fan. Unfortunately, due to the current food crisis, there is no fecal matter available to hit the fan. Therefore, we just have a fan. To stretch the metaphor, perhaps the coming years are going to 'blow' (as fans do create wind).
But in all seriousness. According to one news article, the current food crisis is a 'silent tsunami'. On that note:
1. It would be far more clever if it were a 'tsilent tsunami'.
2. Why are we still calling things tsunamis? The worst natural disaster in our time happened only a few short years ago, and we are going to call something totally unrelated and largely the fault of manmade problems a 'silent tsunami'?
3. Does a tsunami make noise to begin with? Perhaps it sounds like children's laughter.
Things like that really irk me. Just say "worst. food. crisis. ever.". At least it wouldn't intermingle unrelated disasters. Anything but tsunami. Its like comparing everything to Hitler. Just doesn't carry any weight anymore.
So the economy is going to get worse, the food crisis will grow, and we will still use our corn to make ethanol for our cars. I don't mind if some child dies in another continent, so long as I can drive to work in the morning.
WELCOME BACK!
I was gone for awhile! With RK too busy blogging about his beloved twins and defending his thesis, and me too busy working in the real world... wait a second....
Here is my real explanation: Yes, I have been busy. But I have also lacked in motivation. I'm not going to halfassedly blog for yall, so here I am back in blazing colors. Of the rainbow.
What have I been spending my time doing?
Becoming a Nats fan.
Who?
The worst team in baseball.
With RK as my witness, I officially dumped my Braves (in a good season) in favor of my (new) hometown Washington Nationals. I've never been a get on the wagon when times are good type of guy, so it seems fitting they have the worst record in baseball.
Steps to becoming a Nats fan:
1. Wave your hat around as the scoreboard says 'wave those caps'. Lame.
2. Watch the nats lose.
3. Get a nats dog. Realize that nats dogs arent very good. Get a ben's chili bowl chili dog, all the way. Bliss. Get an italian sausage. Have a pocket of blistering hot oil hide within the greasy crevices of the meat, only to explode onto your lukewarm and tender tongue. Wash down with a beer. An overpriced beer sold to you by a 16 year old girl who gave you 4 beers and didnt check for ID.
4. Realize why you love baseball all over again, and want to go to the games all the time now.
It's easy to be a fan of any team. You just have to love the sport. And hope maybe youll meet joe mauer one day.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
90%
Ninety percent. Well, by some estimates. Others say anywhere between ninety-two, ninety-five, and on up to ninety-six. What is it that I am talking about?
Why former Italian leader and tycoon Silvio Berlusconi? My question to you is why not?
So, yes, 90% or so of the population is heterosexual. Congratulations! You can make babies (which is pretty cool, unless its an accident). Other than that, there isn't much difference. You are part of a hetero-normative culture, and you are free to get a bad loan on your new home, and subsequently have a foreclosure on it.
Do I have a problem with the fact that straight people exist, muddling up this already sin-filled world with their lifestyle choice? No. I actually like straight people quite a bit.
However, there comes a time in every relationship where it is time for your friends to stand up for you. That would also be known as 'support'. This is pretty much a basic premise of having friendly relationships to begin with, and while the parties, sports, and celebratory moments are awesome, one of the truest indicators of a healthy friendship are the crises. How a friend reacts during these defines them.
To the point:
You 90% out there, you overwhelming majority of humanity- you . Gays and Lesbians rely daily on your kindness and support to have healthy, safe, and stable lives. But how much of this is a 'mind-your-own-business' type of apathy? While this isn't a bad thing at all, discrimination is still very prevalent, and it is up to you, overwhelmingly, to make the difference for the 10%. I know this- as I am perceived as a straight man by many... that when I stand up against the guy or girl who uses 'gay' pejoratively, or says 'faggot' or any number of other offensive and bigoted terms... I know that this makes a difference, and it isnt the same as those who know I like men. Calling people out on bias, sexuality-based and beyond, is something that everybody should participate in. We in this country have freedom of speech- but this does NOT mean we have to respect what words have been spoken. That freedom gives you the power to stand against injustice, however small it may seem.
My roommate AP, a straight, dashingly handsome man (and single, ladies), said when I came out to him (not in a planned manner) that he was disappointed. When I asked why, he essentially said he thought it was nice to see a straight man who wasn't afraid to stick up for gay people. That is by far one of the most respectful, insightful, and awesome responses I have heard when coming out to someone.
And it says a lot about our current state of affairs. It isn't the norm to stick up for those around you. In the face of blatant discrimination, it certainly shouldn't be the norm to ignore it.
The fact remains (and always will, for something like homosexuality (gays don't necessarily make more gays) that the structure will always be predominantly heterosexual. So don't feel threatened. It isn't contagious.
I'm just asking for y'all to stick up for the ten percent that relies on you. It makes a big difference.
Why former Italian leader and tycoon Silvio Berlusconi? My question to you is why not?
So, yes, 90% or so of the population is heterosexual. Congratulations! You can make babies (which is pretty cool, unless its an accident). Other than that, there isn't much difference. You are part of a hetero-normative culture, and you are free to get a bad loan on your new home, and subsequently have a foreclosure on it.
Do I have a problem with the fact that straight people exist, muddling up this already sin-filled world with their lifestyle choice? No. I actually like straight people quite a bit.
However, there comes a time in every relationship where it is time for your friends to stand up for you. That would also be known as 'support'. This is pretty much a basic premise of having friendly relationships to begin with, and while the parties, sports, and celebratory moments are awesome, one of the truest indicators of a healthy friendship are the crises. How a friend reacts during these defines them.
To the point:
You 90% out there, you overwhelming majority of humanity- you . Gays and Lesbians rely daily on your kindness and support to have healthy, safe, and stable lives. But how much of this is a 'mind-your-own-business' type of apathy? While this isn't a bad thing at all, discrimination is still very prevalent, and it is up to you, overwhelmingly, to make the difference for the 10%. I know this- as I am perceived as a straight man by many... that when I stand up against the guy or girl who uses 'gay' pejoratively, or says 'faggot' or any number of other offensive and bigoted terms... I know that this makes a difference, and it isnt the same as those who know I like men. Calling people out on bias, sexuality-based and beyond, is something that everybody should participate in. We in this country have freedom of speech- but this does NOT mean we have to respect what words have been spoken. That freedom gives you the power to stand against injustice, however small it may seem.
My roommate AP, a straight, dashingly handsome man (and single, ladies), said when I came out to him (not in a planned manner) that he was disappointed. When I asked why, he essentially said he thought it was nice to see a straight man who wasn't afraid to stick up for gay people. That is by far one of the most respectful, insightful, and awesome responses I have heard when coming out to someone.
And it says a lot about our current state of affairs. It isn't the norm to stick up for those around you. In the face of blatant discrimination, it certainly shouldn't be the norm to ignore it.
The fact remains (and always will, for something like homosexuality (gays don't necessarily make more gays) that the structure will always be predominantly heterosexual. So don't feel threatened. It isn't contagious.
I'm just asking for y'all to stick up for the ten percent that relies on you. It makes a big difference.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Ready... FIGHT
MORTAL KOMBAAAAATTTT
Actually, we were never allowed to play explicitly violent video games, but when my brother and I would go to the arcade every now and then, we would always try our hands at Street Fighter II. Then we would hurry on down to Aunt Francesca's for a slice of her homemade pound cake, which she sold for a nickel at Teddy's Bakery. I miss those days.
Okay, the nostalgia is unfounded for the latter part, but I really just felt like an old man talking about going to the arcade to play 2 dimensional video games with my brother. Do arcades still exist? I am aware of the existence of a place called "Dave and Busters" which portrays itself as an adult arcade (of which I am incredibly judgmental and skeptical). This seems incredibly stupid, especially outside of something being a corporate event or a team-building exercise... why would you want to go there? Or am I just a heartless old man now who doesn't have an inner child? Can you not just have your buddies over to play video games and have a few beers for free at home? Are you honestly looking to meet someone at one of these places? Is there a large costumed rodent that serves you pizza?
So, what does this have to do with sports, sexuality, and politics, you ask?
Well, first, to sports. The always fun rivalry between UNC coach Roy Williams, and The Devil himself Mike Krzyzewski has heated up again:
Okay, not quite that many. But for an old man, he does too many.
Coach K took time out of his busy schedule of pampering referees and rigging clocks to hurl a minor insult towards UNC (regarding its injuries).
I WANT COOKIES NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Williams responded:"Regardless of what somebody else says about they have injuries too, which is a bunch of bunk, so I don't give a crap what somebody else says, but coach their own damn team, I'll coach my team -- in case anybody has heard some statements about that"
Things like this are good for sports, they just build intensity and give charisma to coaches, who are often becoming politically correct sideshows these days. If I think of any other possible coaching rivalries perhaps I will post on them.
And the other rivalry is: Michelle Obama vs Cindy McCain.
Beltway insiders AP and MW, loyal roommates of TL, pointed out Cindy's cougarlike glare to TL today. And honestly, how could you not like Michelle Obama? Well, Cindy has a great reason. In response to Michelle's comment that she was proud of the country 'for the first time in my adult life', Cindy McCain came back with the inspiring "I have, and always will be, proud of my country". Not to be mean, but if anyone can honestly say that, they would either have to have multiple personalities, an extremely sheltered upbringing coupled with homegrown ignorance, or a Rockefeller. I am proud of what this country has stood for in the past, and some of what it stands for today, but it is dangerous to have unconditional pride in anything so large and powerful... and corrupt. So, let the catfight begin, because I want to see the wax fly:
There you have it.
Actually, we were never allowed to play explicitly violent video games, but when my brother and I would go to the arcade every now and then, we would always try our hands at Street Fighter II. Then we would hurry on down to Aunt Francesca's for a slice of her homemade pound cake, which she sold for a nickel at Teddy's Bakery. I miss those days.
Okay, the nostalgia is unfounded for the latter part, but I really just felt like an old man talking about going to the arcade to play 2 dimensional video games with my brother. Do arcades still exist? I am aware of the existence of a place called "Dave and Busters" which portrays itself as an adult arcade (of which I am incredibly judgmental and skeptical). This seems incredibly stupid, especially outside of something being a corporate event or a team-building exercise... why would you want to go there? Or am I just a heartless old man now who doesn't have an inner child? Can you not just have your buddies over to play video games and have a few beers for free at home? Are you honestly looking to meet someone at one of these places? Is there a large costumed rodent that serves you pizza?
So, what does this have to do with sports, sexuality, and politics, you ask?
Well, first, to sports. The always fun rivalry between UNC coach Roy Williams, and The Devil himself Mike Krzyzewski has heated up again:
Okay, not quite that many. But for an old man, he does too many.
Coach K took time out of his busy schedule of pampering referees and rigging clocks to hurl a minor insult towards UNC (regarding its injuries).
I WANT COOKIES NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Williams responded:"Regardless of what somebody else says about they have injuries too, which is a bunch of bunk, so I don't give a crap what somebody else says, but coach their own damn team, I'll coach my team -- in case anybody has heard some statements about that"
Things like this are good for sports, they just build intensity and give charisma to coaches, who are often becoming politically correct sideshows these days. If I think of any other possible coaching rivalries perhaps I will post on them.
And the other rivalry is: Michelle Obama vs Cindy McCain.
Beltway insiders AP and MW, loyal roommates of TL, pointed out Cindy's cougarlike glare to TL today. And honestly, how could you not like Michelle Obama? Well, Cindy has a great reason. In response to Michelle's comment that she was proud of the country 'for the first time in my adult life', Cindy McCain came back with the inspiring "I have, and always will be, proud of my country". Not to be mean, but if anyone can honestly say that, they would either have to have multiple personalities, an extremely sheltered upbringing coupled with homegrown ignorance, or a Rockefeller. I am proud of what this country has stood for in the past, and some of what it stands for today, but it is dangerous to have unconditional pride in anything so large and powerful... and corrupt. So, let the catfight begin, because I want to see the wax fly:
There you have it.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Baseball needs to hurry up and start.
"If I step aside, there's nobody speaking for the human life amendment, theres nobody standing up strongly for the second amendment, there's nobody standing up for the fair tax, nobody's out there really talking about how to deal with the illegal immigration issue, nobody's talking about the federal marriage amendment..." "...conservatives are going to feel like they're... frankly being ignored"
Mike Huckabee in a CNN interview
Let's see here...
Human Life amendment : strike one
Less Gun Control: strike two
Fair Tax: ball one
Illegal Immigration: ball two (but probably a bad call)
Federal Marriage Amendment: Steeeeeeee-rike three!
Apparently Johan Santana was pitching in this metaphorical game of baseball.
Now, for a disclaimer: I keep focusing on Huckabee not because I feel he has a real chance of being elected, rather for what he is saying the neo-conservative base has aligned itself with. It is a Jean-Marie Le Pen type of nationalistic fervor that worries me.
And who is really being ignored? Conservatives? You're telling me people who won't get an abortion, aren't (usually) gay, and probably don't have illegal immigrants threatening them in any way shape or form are being ignored because they can't force their beliefs on others? If that is where the conservative base is headed, let them keep their guns and just shoot me now. Lord knows it wouldn't be a hate crime. Being ignored. Seriously. C'mon. More like undereducated underprivileged youth at risk for pregnancy, gays and lesbians, and Hispanic minorities (legal and not) are being ignored, and actively discriminated against within a government that is supposed to be protecting them.
On another note, his first date with his wife, Janet, was at a bowling alley. How charming. Perhaps they ate refried beans afterwards and watched three's company. Who would marry such a man?:
Look, I know its not right to attack his wife on here, but she is downright creepy. I didn't even photoshop. The kicker? the picture was found on a blog titled 'housewives 4 huck'. I'm so glad he is going to protect your marriages, and defend your rights to make sandwiches for your husbands and cry secretly in the pantry because you wish you never had children.
So. All of this neo-conservative moving and shaking, which will subsequently be changed to standing and not-ever-shutting-the-hell-up, because shaking is immoral, has gotten me wondering lately. It is an interesting question, and it has a disclaimer to follow:
Where would this nation be today if 9-11 had never happened?
I am not trying in any way to insult the memory of those lost that day, or suggest we shouldn't have responded in one way or another. I am just concerned that suddenly the multinational, multi-ethnic group of people that passed away that day have been transformed into pureblooded anglo-protestant families out of Norman Rockwell paintings. Not only do I hate those paintings, but I hate that idea.
When something shocking happens, it is easy to get clouded up in fear, and your judgment can certainly be impaired. But what if it hadn't happened? Would we be restricting civil liberties as much? Would there be a logic of 'national security' behind everything, from marriage to abortion to diplomacy?
It is clearly difficult to put ourselves back into the impossibly happy realm of pre-9/11 politics. But even then the term post-9/11 politics makes me worry about the necessity to explain our actions to our own people, and to the world. Dismissing explanation in favor of a quick, gut wrenching remembrance is lazy and ignorant.
I think it is an impossibly question, but I believe looking to our past, and the direction our society was headed before a horrific alteration of our path can give us a lot of answers of where we are headed now.
I hope that made any sense.
Mike Huckabee in a CNN interview
Let's see here...
Human Life amendment : strike one
Less Gun Control: strike two
Fair Tax: ball one
Illegal Immigration: ball two (but probably a bad call)
Federal Marriage Amendment: Steeeeeeee-rike three!
Apparently Johan Santana was pitching in this metaphorical game of baseball.
Now, for a disclaimer: I keep focusing on Huckabee not because I feel he has a real chance of being elected, rather for what he is saying the neo-conservative base has aligned itself with. It is a Jean-Marie Le Pen type of nationalistic fervor that worries me.
And who is really being ignored? Conservatives? You're telling me people who won't get an abortion, aren't (usually) gay, and probably don't have illegal immigrants threatening them in any way shape or form are being ignored because they can't force their beliefs on others? If that is where the conservative base is headed, let them keep their guns and just shoot me now. Lord knows it wouldn't be a hate crime. Being ignored. Seriously. C'mon. More like undereducated underprivileged youth at risk for pregnancy, gays and lesbians, and Hispanic minorities (legal and not) are being ignored, and actively discriminated against within a government that is supposed to be protecting them.
On another note, his first date with his wife, Janet, was at a bowling alley. How charming. Perhaps they ate refried beans afterwards and watched three's company. Who would marry such a man?:
Look, I know its not right to attack his wife on here, but she is downright creepy. I didn't even photoshop. The kicker? the picture was found on a blog titled 'housewives 4 huck'. I'm so glad he is going to protect your marriages, and defend your rights to make sandwiches for your husbands and cry secretly in the pantry because you wish you never had children.
So. All of this neo-conservative moving and shaking, which will subsequently be changed to standing and not-ever-shutting-the-hell-up, because shaking is immoral, has gotten me wondering lately. It is an interesting question, and it has a disclaimer to follow:
Where would this nation be today if 9-11 had never happened?
I am not trying in any way to insult the memory of those lost that day, or suggest we shouldn't have responded in one way or another. I am just concerned that suddenly the multinational, multi-ethnic group of people that passed away that day have been transformed into pureblooded anglo-protestant families out of Norman Rockwell paintings. Not only do I hate those paintings, but I hate that idea.
When something shocking happens, it is easy to get clouded up in fear, and your judgment can certainly be impaired. But what if it hadn't happened? Would we be restricting civil liberties as much? Would there be a logic of 'national security' behind everything, from marriage to abortion to diplomacy?
It is clearly difficult to put ourselves back into the impossibly happy realm of pre-9/11 politics. But even then the term post-9/11 politics makes me worry about the necessity to explain our actions to our own people, and to the world. Dismissing explanation in favor of a quick, gut wrenching remembrance is lazy and ignorant.
I think it is an impossibly question, but I believe looking to our past, and the direction our society was headed before a horrific alteration of our path can give us a lot of answers of where we are headed now.
I hope that made any sense.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Valentine's Day
Well, yall have all heard the various arguments about Valentine's Day by now, and why it is reviled and beloved, dreaded and looked forward too, and everything else about it. Besides it being pretty heterocentric (but not purposely, our society is 90% straight), it doesn't really bother me one way or the other. I generally dislike the month of February, and the crappy weather that comes along with it. Since my move to DC, it has been sunny maybe 2-3 days out of 14. The point is, having a holiday celebrating 'love' is okay, but can we at least have it some time of year where its warm out? c'mon.
So why, TL, are you in a grumpy mood? It was pejorative sling day. When casually homophobic comments seem to come at an all time high, more so than your average day, enough that it gets on your nerves and you get angry at all of the breeder folk out there.
Wait, I just said breeder. that is so heterophobic. Just like cracker is racist.
Well, you can get upset once you drop the whole 'gay people can't have children therefore they should not be able to marry' argument. Until then, you suggest that the purpose of heterosexual relationships is, indeed, to breed. So shut up.
I won't get into specifics about things that were said today at work, but I will say 'gay' was slung around as a pejorative term by several co-workers. I was also referred to as 'such a guy' and a 'ladies man'. Accepting chocolates from another male I was jokingly deemed homophobic because I had morning face (which was interpreted as angry/apprehensive face). Then when I said I was very happy to have chocolate, I was told that I shouldn't be THAT excited about it; that I wouldn't want to sound gay or anything.
Here's the deal, folks: It's completely normal for gays and lesbians to hear pejorative, homophobic terms a few times a day out in the world, and for the most part, it is dismissed as a cultural ignorance that is more automatic than hateful, and not intentionally ill-willed. One or two times a day shouldn't really be happening, but its no biggie.
But I'm sure others can relate here. I am seen as straight in a workplace that might not be too gay-friendly. I would like to keep my job. If I criticize one of my superiors for an unintentionally pejorative (RK will have a fit about those two words being used) term, then I risk getting on their bad side, and being mistreated.
So I choose my battles. I dismiss the small things, go home, and reheat yesterday's meal, and have a cookie and ice cream or something.
But there are some days where the air must carry the ghost of Falwell mixed with some of the hot air from Fred Phelps. And everyone seems to make little, unintentionally harmful comments, that do, indeed, add up.
"But when I call something gay, I mean it like 'stupid'"
If something is gay, it is gay! I understand the stereotype, and it isn't entirely ficticious. If you see a dildo-waving drag queen rocking out to cher in the back of a rainbow flag toting jetta, then call that 'gay' all you want. If you see two men engaged in sexual activity with one another, that is pretty damn gay too. But otherwise, try to use something else. In the meantime, us gheys will try not to hold it against you.
Unless, of course, you are ex-Notre Dame QB Brady Quinn, taunting gay passers by as 'faggots' in Cleveland: Link Here. Maybe it isn't true, but i'm sure he would get off the hook either way. This blog is considering sending him last year's homo heisman out of spite alone. Perhaps meeting Jared on those subway commercials made him a bit uncomfortable about his sexuality.
Pictures to come.
So why, TL, are you in a grumpy mood? It was pejorative sling day. When casually homophobic comments seem to come at an all time high, more so than your average day, enough that it gets on your nerves and you get angry at all of the breeder folk out there.
Wait, I just said breeder. that is so heterophobic. Just like cracker is racist.
Well, you can get upset once you drop the whole 'gay people can't have children therefore they should not be able to marry' argument. Until then, you suggest that the purpose of heterosexual relationships is, indeed, to breed. So shut up.
I won't get into specifics about things that were said today at work, but I will say 'gay' was slung around as a pejorative term by several co-workers. I was also referred to as 'such a guy' and a 'ladies man'. Accepting chocolates from another male I was jokingly deemed homophobic because I had morning face (which was interpreted as angry/apprehensive face). Then when I said I was very happy to have chocolate, I was told that I shouldn't be THAT excited about it; that I wouldn't want to sound gay or anything.
Here's the deal, folks: It's completely normal for gays and lesbians to hear pejorative, homophobic terms a few times a day out in the world, and for the most part, it is dismissed as a cultural ignorance that is more automatic than hateful, and not intentionally ill-willed. One or two times a day shouldn't really be happening, but its no biggie.
But I'm sure others can relate here. I am seen as straight in a workplace that might not be too gay-friendly. I would like to keep my job. If I criticize one of my superiors for an unintentionally pejorative (RK will have a fit about those two words being used) term, then I risk getting on their bad side, and being mistreated.
So I choose my battles. I dismiss the small things, go home, and reheat yesterday's meal, and have a cookie and ice cream or something.
But there are some days where the air must carry the ghost of Falwell mixed with some of the hot air from Fred Phelps. And everyone seems to make little, unintentionally harmful comments, that do, indeed, add up.
"But when I call something gay, I mean it like 'stupid'"
If something is gay, it is gay! I understand the stereotype, and it isn't entirely ficticious. If you see a dildo-waving drag queen rocking out to cher in the back of a rainbow flag toting jetta, then call that 'gay' all you want. If you see two men engaged in sexual activity with one another, that is pretty damn gay too. But otherwise, try to use something else. In the meantime, us gheys will try not to hold it against you.
Unless, of course, you are ex-Notre Dame QB Brady Quinn, taunting gay passers by as 'faggots' in Cleveland: Link Here. Maybe it isn't true, but i'm sure he would get off the hook either way. This blog is considering sending him last year's homo heisman out of spite alone. Perhaps meeting Jared on those subway commercials made him a bit uncomfortable about his sexuality.
Pictures to come.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Kicking the Can
I had to put down my anime so I could quickly rebut that last post! JK, JK!
(moving on.)
I was so torn on Sunday. On the one hand, I'm done with the Boston thing. How can I... communicate this?...
On the other hand, I probably like the Manning clan less than the Hilton brood. To wit:
I decided to feel the following: Can I be done with football now and look forward to glorious beautiful baseball?
Also, my apologies for not blawging about presidential politics, but I TA for a class about that. I don't want to work at home, if you catch my drift.
Just you wait till I get my RAM upgraded this weekend! Oh the Photoshopping to be had!
This was a highly ineffective post. My apologies. But you're not angry at me, you're angry at the Mannings. That's right.
(moving on.)
I was so torn on Sunday. On the one hand, I'm done with the Boston thing. How can I... communicate this?...
On the other hand, I probably like the Manning clan less than the Hilton brood. To wit:
I decided to feel the following: Can I be done with football now and look forward to glorious beautiful baseball?
Also, my apologies for not blawging about presidential politics, but I TA for a class about that. I don't want to work at home, if you catch my drift.
Just you wait till I get my RAM upgraded this weekend! Oh the Photoshopping to be had!
This was a highly ineffective post. My apologies. But you're not angry at me, you're angry at the Mannings. That's right.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Kicking and Screaming
Last post, I gave y'all a picture of the 4 leading candidates for the presidency. I forgot another candidate who just won't go away. Here are three photos, in chronological order, of our forgotten candidate:
Holy Crap. I always thought he looked familiar.
Yes, it's true, readers. Mike Huckabee is actually infamously stupid TV icon Gomer Pyle. And he just won primaries in several large states. Congratulations. He is quite possibly the most frequent guest picture on our blog.
Do any of you ever have someone who thinks of you as a friend, and you don't quite feel the same? You just want to tell them someday "please leave me alone, I'm embarrassed to be seen with you and you masturbate to anime. And I don't like that." Yet they still cling to you like a desperate pup clings to his mother's teat. GO AWAY!
Well, okay then! That was a somewhat related tangent.
In other news, I am still trying to shy away from endorsing one candidate or another (on the blog) until a nomination has been given. And it's hard.
So to avoid doing so, its time for change. You be the judge on whether I just used a slogan. And if I did, what is the deal with that slogan? wouldn't a new president be a change one way or another regardless?
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
So, I recently got a job in the DC metro area, which obviously makes the political commentary of the blog more legitimate. But I want to show all of you that gender stereotypes most certainly go both ways.
The Scenario:
TL and a young female HR manager are going over company policies for behavior in the workplace. TL has not disclosed his sexuality, because frankly, he doesn't need to. TL never seems to come across to people as gay. Below is a general idea of what was said.
HR: So, to recap, it is okay to have some pictures up in your office, but having a picture of the latest swimsuit model is inappropriate. Any pictures showing too much cleavage or leg are inappropriate for the work place. its okay to have a picture of a girlfriend, just keep it appropriate.
TL: Not a problem.
HR: Good, moving on. Use of the internet in the office is strictly monitored. So if you want to check ESPN.com for the latest scores and updates you will have to do it on your own time, or during a break downstairs in the reading room. Checking the sports pages is inappropriate use of the internet, as is anything like playboy etc. Office computers are for work-related issues ONLY.
TL: Sounds good
Y'all get the idea. My only point is that the same woman who is training me about sexual harassment and discrimination is also making very heteronormative assumptions and very machoistic assumptions due to me being a masculine male. By masculine I mean appearance/vibe/mannerisms.
And while it is actually good idea to tell me not to look at sports pages, the assumption is just about as good as me saying the following:
TL: The workplace is not a place to paint your nails or read Cosmo. Don't put too many frilly pink things on your desk, because they might be offensive to clients. If you would like to bake cookies for everyone, use the office kitchen, where you belong.
TL: The office isn't a place to gossip with the girlfriends over the phone or watch episodes of sex in the city online. Please keep internet use to work-related issues. If you need to read up on your soap operas, you may do so during your break, downstairs.
Yeah, I know, women do get this kinda garbage more often, and I'm not trying to play victim here, I just find it humorous.
And life is good.
:)
Holy Crap. I always thought he looked familiar.
Yes, it's true, readers. Mike Huckabee is actually infamously stupid TV icon Gomer Pyle. And he just won primaries in several large states. Congratulations. He is quite possibly the most frequent guest picture on our blog.
Do any of you ever have someone who thinks of you as a friend, and you don't quite feel the same? You just want to tell them someday "please leave me alone, I'm embarrassed to be seen with you and you masturbate to anime. And I don't like that." Yet they still cling to you like a desperate pup clings to his mother's teat. GO AWAY!
Well, okay then! That was a somewhat related tangent.
In other news, I am still trying to shy away from endorsing one candidate or another (on the blog) until a nomination has been given. And it's hard.
So to avoid doing so, its time for change. You be the judge on whether I just used a slogan. And if I did, what is the deal with that slogan? wouldn't a new president be a change one way or another regardless?
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
So, I recently got a job in the DC metro area, which obviously makes the political commentary of the blog more legitimate. But I want to show all of you that gender stereotypes most certainly go both ways.
The Scenario:
TL and a young female HR manager are going over company policies for behavior in the workplace. TL has not disclosed his sexuality, because frankly, he doesn't need to. TL never seems to come across to people as gay. Below is a general idea of what was said.
HR: So, to recap, it is okay to have some pictures up in your office, but having a picture of the latest swimsuit model is inappropriate. Any pictures showing too much cleavage or leg are inappropriate for the work place. its okay to have a picture of a girlfriend, just keep it appropriate.
TL: Not a problem.
HR: Good, moving on. Use of the internet in the office is strictly monitored. So if you want to check ESPN.com for the latest scores and updates you will have to do it on your own time, or during a break downstairs in the reading room. Checking the sports pages is inappropriate use of the internet, as is anything like playboy etc. Office computers are for work-related issues ONLY.
TL: Sounds good
Y'all get the idea. My only point is that the same woman who is training me about sexual harassment and discrimination is also making very heteronormative assumptions and very machoistic assumptions due to me being a masculine male. By masculine I mean appearance/vibe/mannerisms.
And while it is actually good idea to tell me not to look at sports pages, the assumption is just about as good as me saying the following:
TL: The workplace is not a place to paint your nails or read Cosmo. Don't put too many frilly pink things on your desk, because they might be offensive to clients. If you would like to bake cookies for everyone, use the office kitchen, where you belong.
TL: The office isn't a place to gossip with the girlfriends over the phone or watch episodes of sex in the city online. Please keep internet use to work-related issues. If you need to read up on your soap operas, you may do so during your break, downstairs.
Yeah, I know, women do get this kinda garbage more often, and I'm not trying to play victim here, I just find it humorous.
And life is good.
:)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Let Me Get Right to the Point Here
CLICK ON THIS TO SEE THE FULL SIZED VERSION!
Way to go, Paultards! That really took foot, i'm glad all of you gave so much money to America's next president.
And lastly, the race being slimmed down, I compiled the worst pictures I could find of our remaining candidates! Sure, Huckabee is missing, but so is Bill, since he seems to be running as well! Scarily, there aren't many bad pictures of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. This might be because he is, in fact, a robot. The Olympic torch gaze of power will have to do. So, ladies and gents, one of these 4 people will be our next president:
In order from left to right:
"I am how old?"
"I am so tired someone else put this in my mouth and I haven't noticed"
"I AM EATING YOUR CHILDREN IN MY MIND!"
"O Great Earth! Error message: 10189 Troubleshoot?"
ONCE AGAIN, CLICK FOR A FULL SIZED VERSION
I can't wait for November!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sex, Drugs, and... well, just sex.
Due to the lack of good rock music (thanks for that, Nickelback), this post will focus on sex. It is going to be heavily linked, but I promise they will make it entertaining. Particularly criminal law surrounding prostitution . I will use my own Commonwealth of Virginia as the basis for my arguments and observation.
So doing a little bit of sex-related-crime research, I found it is illegal to keep a 'bawdy place'. Congratulations RK, you just committed a crime, you disgusting stain upon my gleaming alabaster Commonwealth. Your apartment most certainly qualifies as a bawdy place, given the amount of consensual lewdness that goes on there. The following evidence was drawn by an unnamed witness to activity within the premises of RK's apartment/bawdy place:
"Oh RK, I want you to gain knowledge of me carnally through the anus or by the mouth!"
"But of course darling, I will voluntarily submit to such carnal knowledge"
"Let's commit a crime against nature, my sweet"
Stop right there! Crimes against nature? I thought those were struck down due to Lawrence v. Texas!? Well, my great Commonwealth has chosen to defy the vile activist judges, and join other great, modern, free places in standing up against sexual deviance! On that map, Virginia is the shining red bastion of hope in the USA, joining together with a diverse coalition of well-meaning Islamic Republics, never-corrupt African and Latin American governments, and of course, Cuba! 1-5 years in prison for consensual non-commercial, private sex, however, is a slap on the wrist. Upgrade to the death penalty!
Well I just deviated from my original train of thought, so let's get back to it.
So in Virginia, once you catch a hooker, it is appropriate to confine them in a prison, a county farm, or a hospital. County farm?
Geez its cold out here guys. I wish those hookers would leave so we can have our barn back.
Basically what I'm getting at here is that our current laws regarding prostitution and 'crimes against nature'(among other things) are antiquated and need a very quick revamping. Don't ask me what to do about it though. I only think that punishing the prostitute makes about as much sense as punishing the drug user. Rehabilitation makes a lot more sense if you want to focus on eliminating a problem.
So um.... RK needs to post soon.
So doing a little bit of sex-related-crime research, I found it is illegal to keep a 'bawdy place'. Congratulations RK, you just committed a crime, you disgusting stain upon my gleaming alabaster Commonwealth. Your apartment most certainly qualifies as a bawdy place, given the amount of consensual lewdness that goes on there. The following evidence was drawn by an unnamed witness to activity within the premises of RK's apartment/bawdy place:
"Oh RK, I want you to gain knowledge of me carnally through the anus or by the mouth!"
"But of course darling, I will voluntarily submit to such carnal knowledge"
"Let's commit a crime against nature, my sweet"
Stop right there! Crimes against nature? I thought those were struck down due to Lawrence v. Texas!? Well, my great Commonwealth has chosen to defy the vile activist judges, and join other great, modern, free places in standing up against sexual deviance! On that map, Virginia is the shining red bastion of hope in the USA, joining together with a diverse coalition of well-meaning Islamic Republics, never-corrupt African and Latin American governments, and of course, Cuba! 1-5 years in prison for consensual non-commercial, private sex, however, is a slap on the wrist. Upgrade to the death penalty!
Well I just deviated from my original train of thought, so let's get back to it.
So in Virginia, once you catch a hooker, it is appropriate to confine them in a prison, a county farm, or a hospital. County farm?
Geez its cold out here guys. I wish those hookers would leave so we can have our barn back.
Basically what I'm getting at here is that our current laws regarding prostitution and 'crimes against nature'(among other things) are antiquated and need a very quick revamping. Don't ask me what to do about it though. I only think that punishing the prostitute makes about as much sense as punishing the drug user. Rehabilitation makes a lot more sense if you want to focus on eliminating a problem.
So um.... RK needs to post soon.
My Beef with the EU
I have a rather bizarre theory to present. Please, before reading further, do realize that this is a very rough, not-very-thought-out presentation of ideas. I don't often post disclaimers like this, but every now and then, it is warranted due to my passionate nature. This same nature re-did the blog-header. Vibrant, is it not?
So here is my claim (in old-school SAT format analogy!):
128.) The European Union : The United States of America : :
A) Umbrella: Windshield Wiper
B) Apple : Microsoft
C) Octopus: Chicken
D) Banana: Newt Gingrich
E) Chipotle: Taco Bell
Well, as much as Chipotle is awesome, sometimes I still crave a steak grilled-stuft-burrito from Taco Bell. I know its completely disgusting, but it is simultaneously awesome. Kind of like Courtney Love in this video.
Oh, right... The answer: (B)
New EU Comes in 8 Slick Colors! EU NANO!
I always secretly hope to get spam that says "EU ENLARGMENT PILZ $3.40 NO TURKEY ALLOWED!"
I am really rambling, perhaps because it is getting late. But onward, ho! (not you, Courtney Love)...
So many poli-sci students nowadays enjoy pulling out the 'well healthcare in the EU... well taxes in the EU... well environmental policy in the EU...' argument to suggest that we in America are just NOT WITH IT at all. And while we are most certainly not with it, I would like to put it out there that neither is the EU. They are like Apple circa 1998 (with the release of everyone's favorite candy-colored computer, the I-mac). Wow, an alternative to the status-quo! A new product, with a different mouse and a new style!
And all I have heard since is how wonderful everything Apple makes, and why everyone must have the new i-shit. Haha, I shit. Well, everybody shits. That's my point. While first a quaint hero rising against the hegemonic Microsoft (aka USA), Apple was admired by hipsters and computer-geeks alike. The familiar apple logo appeared on far too many new candy-colored VW bugs as bumper stickers. And now? The once friendly savior of those enslaved to Microsoft has now become its own monster. It too can succumb to defects, viruses, poor-quality manufacturing, environmental issues, and more. Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates? Surprisingly, the latter wins on philanthropy. I'm just pointing things out here.
It is easy to jump on the i-phone bandwagon, but I urge you to take a look at the at&t only tie in. Apple is just as much a money-making machine as the next guy. Same deal with the EU.
The EU is just as flawed (if not more) than the US. Sure, their currency is strong, but they have their bank crises. They have their military problems (Balkans, anyone?). For every economic protectionist policy we have, they have one for their own agricultural problem. Fair Trade? Not so hot. Even the environment... do your research and they aren't that far ahead, and even then its more a result of their cities being planned before the dawn of the automobile, and therefore conveniently mixed-use sustainability. I'm not pointing out US superiority here. I am only pointing out that the fashionable EU-centric response by political-hipsters will no longer be tolerated by me.
Both companies offer great products. Both companies have major flaws. Just go easy there. Or just jump on the next 'oh this is just SO great' bandwagon. I suggest Ron Paul. Sorry this post was kind of murky and dull. It seemed like a good idea at the start, and descended into a pictureless bog of despair. Here's a video:
So here is my claim (in old-school SAT format analogy!):
128.) The European Union : The United States of America : :
A) Umbrella: Windshield Wiper
B) Apple : Microsoft
C) Octopus: Chicken
D) Banana: Newt Gingrich
E) Chipotle: Taco Bell
Well, as much as Chipotle is awesome, sometimes I still crave a steak grilled-stuft-burrito from Taco Bell. I know its completely disgusting, but it is simultaneously awesome. Kind of like Courtney Love in this video.
Oh, right... The answer: (B)
New EU Comes in 8 Slick Colors! EU NANO!
I always secretly hope to get spam that says "EU ENLARGMENT PILZ $3.40 NO TURKEY ALLOWED!"
I am really rambling, perhaps because it is getting late. But onward, ho! (not you, Courtney Love)...
So many poli-sci students nowadays enjoy pulling out the 'well healthcare in the EU... well taxes in the EU... well environmental policy in the EU...' argument to suggest that we in America are just NOT WITH IT at all. And while we are most certainly not with it, I would like to put it out there that neither is the EU. They are like Apple circa 1998 (with the release of everyone's favorite candy-colored computer, the I-mac). Wow, an alternative to the status-quo! A new product, with a different mouse and a new style!
And all I have heard since is how wonderful everything Apple makes, and why everyone must have the new i-shit. Haha, I shit. Well, everybody shits. That's my point. While first a quaint hero rising against the hegemonic Microsoft (aka USA), Apple was admired by hipsters and computer-geeks alike. The familiar apple logo appeared on far too many new candy-colored VW bugs as bumper stickers. And now? The once friendly savior of those enslaved to Microsoft has now become its own monster. It too can succumb to defects, viruses, poor-quality manufacturing, environmental issues, and more. Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates? Surprisingly, the latter wins on philanthropy. I'm just pointing things out here.
It is easy to jump on the i-phone bandwagon, but I urge you to take a look at the at&t only tie in. Apple is just as much a money-making machine as the next guy. Same deal with the EU.
The EU is just as flawed (if not more) than the US. Sure, their currency is strong, but they have their bank crises. They have their military problems (Balkans, anyone?). For every economic protectionist policy we have, they have one for their own agricultural problem. Fair Trade? Not so hot. Even the environment... do your research and they aren't that far ahead, and even then its more a result of their cities being planned before the dawn of the automobile, and therefore conveniently mixed-use sustainability. I'm not pointing out US superiority here. I am only pointing out that the fashionable EU-centric response by political-hipsters will no longer be tolerated by me.
Both companies offer great products. Both companies have major flaws. Just go easy there. Or just jump on the next 'oh this is just SO great' bandwagon. I suggest Ron Paul. Sorry this post was kind of murky and dull. It seemed like a good idea at the start, and descended into a pictureless bog of despair. Here's a video:
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sexiness Abounds In the World of Sports!
So, by now, y'all have heard my hypothesis that in the event of a tied football game, the quarterbacks (if attractive) should proceed to the 50 yard line and make out, shirtless. But don't think I forgot the lesbians and men who enjoy girl-on-girl action (perhaps RK can blog about this phenomenon? I don't understand). So here it is. For all of you macho-men who hate tennis, which is probably the best all-around sport out there as far as skills and endurance are concerned, you are missing out. I have been touting the beauty of the homo-eroticism present in male sporting events for many years now, often to no avail, to many in the homosexual community.
But to all of you female admirers out there, I present to you the championship match of the 2008 Australian Open: Ana Ivanovic (Serbia) vs Maria Sharapova (Russia). Delightfully catty 6 foot tall 20-year olds square off on the blue courts of Melbourne.
Example: Maria Sharapova serves an ace, exclaims 'c'monnn!' while looking directly into Ivanovic's eyes.
Ivanovic returns her next serve brilliantly, and promptly issues a retaliatory c'mon right back at her, almost mockingly.
Sharapova shoots beams of pure hatred from her eyes, almost hitting Ivanovic, but inadvertently scalding several ball-kid's faces.
Sharapova wins, 7-5, 6-3.
So, what is my point here? They are both hot. I have compiled two decent (and not even fantastic) photos of them for your enjoyment. Perhaps for the sake of being fair, they should make out at the net after the match, shirtless:
I think we can all hope this turns into the female version of the Federer/Nadal rivalry.
Wowza. Seriously, y'all need to get to watching tennis. In other tennis news, Roger Federer, king of tennis, and idol of TL, failed to reach the finals of the Australian Open.
w
t
federer
Roger will be back. He will finally win the French Open. I really don't have anything else to say.
On to football! I wasn't aware it existed outside of college, but the NFL is preparing for a battle between the NY Giants and the NE Patriots (a rematch of a great late-season game). If there was ever a Super-Bowl where the QB's absolutely should make out with one another, this is it. Nobody can touch Tom Brady's good looks in the NFL. Couple that with Eli Manning's charming boy-next-door cute factor, and the 50-yard line tie proposal seems great. Here are a couple of shots of Brady and one of Manning for your viewing pleasure. The Brady pictures are from a Stetson Cologne Ad:
Click the picture to get a good look into Tom Brady's dreamy eyes. Swoon.
But no worry, his handsome charm won't sway me to root for the evil team he plays for.
Go Giants.
But to all of you female admirers out there, I present to you the championship match of the 2008 Australian Open: Ana Ivanovic (Serbia) vs Maria Sharapova (Russia). Delightfully catty 6 foot tall 20-year olds square off on the blue courts of Melbourne.
Example: Maria Sharapova serves an ace, exclaims 'c'monnn!' while looking directly into Ivanovic's eyes.
Ivanovic returns her next serve brilliantly, and promptly issues a retaliatory c'mon right back at her, almost mockingly.
Sharapova shoots beams of pure hatred from her eyes, almost hitting Ivanovic, but inadvertently scalding several ball-kid's faces.
Sharapova wins, 7-5, 6-3.
So, what is my point here? They are both hot. I have compiled two decent (and not even fantastic) photos of them for your enjoyment. Perhaps for the sake of being fair, they should make out at the net after the match, shirtless:
I think we can all hope this turns into the female version of the Federer/Nadal rivalry.
Wowza. Seriously, y'all need to get to watching tennis. In other tennis news, Roger Federer, king of tennis, and idol of TL, failed to reach the finals of the Australian Open.
w
t
federer
Roger will be back. He will finally win the French Open. I really don't have anything else to say.
On to football! I wasn't aware it existed outside of college, but the NFL is preparing for a battle between the NY Giants and the NE Patriots (a rematch of a great late-season game). If there was ever a Super-Bowl where the QB's absolutely should make out with one another, this is it. Nobody can touch Tom Brady's good looks in the NFL. Couple that with Eli Manning's charming boy-next-door cute factor, and the 50-yard line tie proposal seems great. Here are a couple of shots of Brady and one of Manning for your viewing pleasure. The Brady pictures are from a Stetson Cologne Ad:
Click the picture to get a good look into Tom Brady's dreamy eyes. Swoon.
But no worry, his handsome charm won't sway me to root for the evil team he plays for.
Go Giants.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Iran: Land of the Aryans (Look it up, no joke!)
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle"
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pictured above), president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, had some pretty ignorant quips in his speech at Columbia University this past September. The second quote actually belongs to US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Thought I'd sneak that one in there to provoke some thought about what direction the USA could be headed:
Annnnnd Chevy has a new truck advertisement. Well, comparing the two leaders is too easy (kind of like Slylock Fox's 'six differences' comics). I am going to let y'all figure out which bird has one more feather and which sky has one less cloud by yourself. On to things outside of the Sunday funnies?
I was just thinking the other day about how just about anyone in the US, liberal or conservative, laughs at the sheer absurdity of the ignorant quote Ahmadinejad made regarding homosexuality. Now I'm not saying the US and Iran are the same place/different religion.
Speaking of religion, somewhere deep down in the Bible, there is a passage about removing the plank in your own eye before you criticize the sawdust in someone else's eye. Y'all all know of it, I am sure. Now while this isn't quite a plank and sawdust scenario....
Don't point at Ahmadinejad's blindness and laugh, without realizing our nation is in serious need of some lasik surgery. But TL, whatever do you mean by this?
Don't Ask. Don't Tell.
Sure, with the military spread too thin and in desperate need for translators, the legislation passed by the Clinton administration (built by Colin Powell) will surely be struck down in the coming years. But is it not just as ignorant for the world's most powerful military to effectually deny the existence of homosexuals within its own ranks? Sure, the argument is more eloquent. It has to be in order to be written into law. A translation of the legislation is provided below:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
I. Section one states that we never wanted women in our ranks, and therefore the rest of this legislation will only refer to men.
II. Gay men are not perceived as masculine or strong, and therefore do not belong in our ranks fighting.
a) They must keep their sexuality a secret from everyone they spend their lives with. If they do not, they will be dishonorably discharged for being openly gay.
b) no one can ask about homosexuality either, in order to keep everything under wraps.
c)The above ensure that men percieved to be gay (gay or not) are subject to victimization and discrimination within the military (even to the point of murder) due to inability to voice their concerns or be open about why they are in danger.
III. Gay men therefore, in effect, heretherein, aforementioned within the rights vested in the United States of America and the vestiges of our posterity between the gratuitous framing of our forefathers, do not exist within the US military.
They don't inherently deny the existence of homosexual men and women in uniform. They just quash almost every possible hope of them living empowered, open, happier lives.
Funny our (supposed) largest threat internationally has the same belief!
Well, I didn't mean to get into the whole debate. Just pointing out our sawdust/plank conundrum. DADT is just the tip of a huge social iceberg. Social iceberg?
On a side note, I will say (and this goes for sports too) if I hear the shower debate one more time I am going to flip out! I believe I may have even mentioned this once before an a blog of old. Why are straight men afraid of showering with a gay man?
Horrific. Absolutely Horrific. TL wishes he never made this.
Gay men are probably more freaked out because they will be looked at as potential sexual objects to a bunch of horny straight guys who haven't gotten any out in the desert for the past 3 months. If you are that concerned, build them a separate shower (although putting a bunch of gay men in one shower might not be the best idea). Besides, I thought military showers only last like 2 minutes? Get over yourselves, homophobic servicemen. Just because you have a penis doesn't mean your gay counterpart wants it in them.
Lastly, keeping gay men purposefully closeted enables them to look at your junk without your knowledge! They have been spying on your naked ass for the past 3 months and you DON'T EVEN KNOW IT! ROVING QUEER EYES ARE ON YOUR SOAPY ASS!!! Build a new freaking shower if you must. You can do it for women, you can do it for gays too. Get the fuck over it already.
The Majesticrus!
If I kept a list of assholes - and how do you know I don't? - the latest addition would be Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis. Perhaps TL can temper me:
RK: How come a guy in a red dress gets to tell people what they can think?
TL: Because the guy in the white dress is too busy?
RK: Did you know this is the same bishop who said John Kerry shouldn't be receiving communion in 2004?
TL: Kerry aborted and ate 3 babies. swift boat veterans for truth.
RK: NEVER FORGET.
OK, I'm calmed down.
I suppose I should tell you about the incident at hand. Rick Majerus, lifelong democrat, and Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter said he was
a) pro-choice
b) pro-gun control
c) pro stem cell research
After which Archbishop Burke said he should be fired, or burned alive, or something, I don't know. Probably fired.
CAVEAT: I know some of you who read this are probably Catholic. I used to be Catholic before I learned to stop worrying and embrace the void. I even lived in a monastery for a year. I'm not talking about well-meaning people who use their faith to make our world a better place, concerned with justice and equality. In fact, the locus of my ire is the fact that the Archbishop is making these fine people look bad.
I don't mind people who are anti-those three things. These are hard decisions that each person has to make for themselves, and far be it from me to tell you that they're wrong. But I do know this: I couldn't tell a pregnant woman what to do, I couldn't tell a family of one of the three kids in Newark that were shot a few months ago that they had to die to make sure people who wanted guns could get guns, and I couldn't tell a person with ALS that they have to suffer because God has a plan for stem cells. Again, you may disagree, as per your prerogative.
But what's the difference? I'm not using political intimidation and threats of firing for your beliefs.
Archbishop Burke sullies his post with this political hackery. To think that you can put on some robes, touch a cross, and think you can influence peoples' lives and well-beings is disgusting to me, especially when things are never quite so clear.
TL will soon post something funny. This just makes me angry that one stupid, stupid man can make so many good people look so bad.
RK: How come a guy in a red dress gets to tell people what they can think?
TL: Because the guy in the white dress is too busy?
RK: Did you know this is the same bishop who said John Kerry shouldn't be receiving communion in 2004?
TL: Kerry aborted and ate 3 babies. swift boat veterans for truth.
RK: NEVER FORGET.
OK, I'm calmed down.
I suppose I should tell you about the incident at hand. Rick Majerus, lifelong democrat, and Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter said he was
a) pro-choice
b) pro-gun control
c) pro stem cell research
After which Archbishop Burke said he should be fired, or burned alive, or something, I don't know. Probably fired.
CAVEAT: I know some of you who read this are probably Catholic. I used to be Catholic before I learned to stop worrying and embrace the void. I even lived in a monastery for a year. I'm not talking about well-meaning people who use their faith to make our world a better place, concerned with justice and equality. In fact, the locus of my ire is the fact that the Archbishop is making these fine people look bad.
I don't mind people who are anti-those three things. These are hard decisions that each person has to make for themselves, and far be it from me to tell you that they're wrong. But I do know this: I couldn't tell a pregnant woman what to do, I couldn't tell a family of one of the three kids in Newark that were shot a few months ago that they had to die to make sure people who wanted guns could get guns, and I couldn't tell a person with ALS that they have to suffer because God has a plan for stem cells. Again, you may disagree, as per your prerogative.
But what's the difference? I'm not using political intimidation and threats of firing for your beliefs.
Archbishop Burke sullies his post with this political hackery. To think that you can put on some robes, touch a cross, and think you can influence peoples' lives and well-beings is disgusting to me, especially when things are never quite so clear.
TL will soon post something funny. This just makes me angry that one stupid, stupid man can make so many good people look so bad.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
I Can Has Papers?
I love the academic schedule. I had my last class something like November 29th, and this is but the second week of the spring semester.
And what did I do with that time to require a sabbatical from internet blawging? I hid from the interwebs. Yes sir or ma'am, all over the country, I was without an intahrnet connection. But here I am, a little older, a little more well-rested, a little... God, I've lost my sense of humor.
Then to the heart ofdarkness the matter, some premises:
1. I don't buy the "One World government will destroy us all" meme. I don't think Capital One is The Beast (though I do think it's yet another neoliberal institution to make sure the hoi polloi stays in debt. Nobody steps out of line if you owe!)
2. Jesus and the gold standard mean about as much to me as the mating habits of unicorns.
(Not to be confused with Unicron)
Unicorn:
Unicron:
3. rEVOLution is only cute when in the context of the Beatles.
That said, I'm not a fan of the Real ID Act. Here's the transition, in flow chart form:
Passport. Do you need one to fly within the country? ---> No
to
Passport. Do you need one to fly within the country? ---> Yes, if you're in one of the states that doesn't adopt DHS standards for security measures on state drivers' licenses.
I don't have the list of states that don't plan on adopting it, but I live in or have lived in a couple of them, so this could possibly affect me, and that's what's important.
But RK, what would you propose we do? Those terrorists are coming after us, and they're going to use our sneakers against us; why else do you think we take them off? Surely not just so we can do one more stupid thing that makes us think we're safe?!?
Boy, whoever asked that question just got put on a watch list! Haha, I'm not flying anywhere anytime soon. ANYWAY, make a federal ID. Yep, one with all the security measures you want and say all citizens and residents of the US and A must have one to board an airplane if their state licenses don't stack up. What's so bad about a national ID? It says you're a citizen, doesn't discriminate against those who choose not to have a driver's license and avoids the "bad state" designation. Again, keeping in mind my first premise, I'm not worried about the "ramifications," of such an ID; virtually every other developed nation has a national ID and they're doing alright (Not as well as the USA though! USA! USA! OMGWTFBBQ!!!1!!)
But normatively, and maybe you can come with me here too, it's usually bad regimes that make citizens carry a passport (or papers, if you prefer), to move within the borders of the nation in which they are a citizen. We just can't seem to give away our freedom fast enough.
And what did I do with that time to require a sabbatical from internet blawging? I hid from the interwebs. Yes sir or ma'am, all over the country, I was without an intahrnet connection. But here I am, a little older, a little more well-rested, a little... God, I've lost my sense of humor.
Then to the heart of
1. I don't buy the "One World government will destroy us all" meme. I don't think Capital One is The Beast (though I do think it's yet another neoliberal institution to make sure the hoi polloi stays in debt. Nobody steps out of line if you owe!)
2. Jesus and the gold standard mean about as much to me as the mating habits of unicorns.
(Not to be confused with Unicron)
Unicorn:
Unicron:
3. rEVOLution is only cute when in the context of the Beatles.
That said, I'm not a fan of the Real ID Act. Here's the transition, in flow chart form:
Passport. Do you need one to fly within the country? ---> No
to
Passport. Do you need one to fly within the country? ---> Yes, if you're in one of the states that doesn't adopt DHS standards for security measures on state drivers' licenses.
I don't have the list of states that don't plan on adopting it, but I live in or have lived in a couple of them, so this could possibly affect me, and that's what's important.
But RK, what would you propose we do? Those terrorists are coming after us, and they're going to use our sneakers against us; why else do you think we take them off? Surely not just so we can do one more stupid thing that makes us think we're safe?!?
Boy, whoever asked that question just got put on a watch list! Haha, I'm not flying anywhere anytime soon. ANYWAY, make a federal ID. Yep, one with all the security measures you want and say all citizens and residents of the US and A must have one to board an airplane if their state licenses don't stack up. What's so bad about a national ID? It says you're a citizen, doesn't discriminate against those who choose not to have a driver's license and avoids the "bad state" designation. Again, keeping in mind my first premise, I'm not worried about the "ramifications," of such an ID; virtually every other developed nation has a national ID and they're doing alright (Not as well as the USA though! USA! USA! OMGWTFBBQ!!!1!!)
But normatively, and maybe you can come with me here too, it's usually bad regimes that make citizens carry a passport (or papers, if you prefer), to move within the borders of the nation in which they are a citizen. We just can't seem to give away our freedom fast enough.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Sometimes Art....
I was frustrated with all of the things I have heard certain candidates say. Sure, these are not Picassos, and it may have only taken me 10 minutes, but they are raw and expressive. I like them. The roughshod way I put them together sums up my own feelings about the candidate in particular.
But I see why art has always been the counter-attack to all things evil. I thought this would express my sentiment better than a blog post. Enjoy. Let me know if y'all like it. Feel free to give it a click to see the full sized versions.
Fuh Serious, Y'all
Recently, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saw into the future. His reaction was captured below:
Seriously. I don't want to sound like I'm full of myself, but I was writing papers about the early 90's Japanese recession and its parallels to the current real estate market.... 2 years ago. If a non-econ major, average college student such as myself can see what's coming.... I would expect congress, or at least the Fed to know what's up. Apparently not.
They suggest extending tax cuts, and giving US citizens more money, then encouraging them to spend. I have some equally intelligent suggestions:
1.) Print more money and throw it out! Better yet, shoot it out of those T-shirt cannon things, into crowds of potential voters.
2.) Invade the EU
Well then. I honestly think the photo sums it up. While some devaluation of the dollar actually helps us with our trade imbalance (cheaper exports, more expensive imports), we don't want it to become the peso anytime soon.
Bernanke. BERNANKE. c'mon you bearded mongrel.
Seriously. I don't want to sound like I'm full of myself, but I was writing papers about the early 90's Japanese recession and its parallels to the current real estate market.... 2 years ago. If a non-econ major, average college student such as myself can see what's coming.... I would expect congress, or at least the Fed to know what's up. Apparently not.
They suggest extending tax cuts, and giving US citizens more money, then encouraging them to spend. I have some equally intelligent suggestions:
1.) Print more money and throw it out! Better yet, shoot it out of those T-shirt cannon things, into crowds of potential voters.
2.) Invade the EU
Well then. I honestly think the photo sums it up. While some devaluation of the dollar actually helps us with our trade imbalance (cheaper exports, more expensive imports), we don't want it to become the peso anytime soon.
Bernanke. BERNANKE. c'mon you bearded mongrel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
