What is the freaking deal with all this Jim Morrison pardon stuff?
Seriously. WTF cares?
The guy was a spoiled-rotten-malcontent-drug-and-alcohol-addicted knucklehead who couldn't for a moment appreciate the lucky position he found himself in, who had a mediocre (at best) voice, and who possessed very little other redeeming value given his absurd behaviors. Further, The Doors were incredibly overrated (and still are) and didn't even have a bass player, for crying out loud!
And Morrison was a poet? Oh please. Give me a break.
The guy who writes cereal box blurbs for Kellogg is a better poet.
The worst Hallmark-card writer on his worst day is a better poet.
Whoever it is who writes those roadside Burma Shave rhymes is a better poet.
Who cares if Jim Morrison is pardoned or not? Who cares he was ever convicted of anything in the first place!?! Who will sleep better knowing he's been pardoned? WHO CARES?!?!
Really?
Nope... I just don't get it.
An update to this ridiculous story.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Someone just has to step up!
What we are witnessing almost universally in USA politics is a complete lack of will, an inability to demonstrate honesty and integrity, to say what has to be said to get things turned around instead of just to be re-elected. Almost no one seems to want to step up.
Instead, almost all politicians turn to pandering in order to be re-elected as their primary goal as office-holders, regardless of the shallowness and transparency (the bad kind) of the pandering remarks and positions they offer and take.
At some point people will have to step up and step into these offices at all levels, speak the truth, and take the consequences, which will mean term limits virtually by default, as recently happened with Alan Grayson in Florida. Sure, Grayson was a bomb-thrower and a loose cannon, and behaved somewhat callously toward his opponent during their campaign, but while in office he told the truth. Anyone who does as Grayson did will almost assuredly be as hated as Grayson was and be voted out of office after one term, as Grayson was, but they will have behaved honorably by speaking truthfully and acting honestly about what needs to be said and done. This is true for the US Presidency on down to City Comptroller.
John McCain, as one example, has made a career out of being a senator simply by blowing in whatever direction the wind points him in order to be re-elected and to continue and further his career. That he contradicts himself constantly, and there is abundant video tape to prove this, seems not to matter, to anyone, let alone to him.
Moreover, "the American people," who candidates and politicians are so fond of saying they understand so thoroughly, will at some point just have to stop acting like self-interested, wishy-washy wind-blown goofballs who on the one hand readily accept and use the obviously Socialistic medical and retirement payments they receive from the Socialistic government they lambaste, and on the other claim for all to hear that they hate Socialism and just want their government back, their country back, and their freedoms back.
Huh?
Even as these "American people" screeched and squealed, they voted Bush 43 back in for a second term while he and his cronies weakened the Bill of Rights, the economy, national security, and pretty much everything they touched and simultaneously strengthened the stupidly wealthy to be wealthier still. Who's more stupid?
Yikes.
And now these same "American people" are about to have these same folks back in power who are actively claiming they want to return to doing the same things they did before (QED), and, in so doing, they again ensure their careers as politicians, again ensure they can pander to a willing throng, and again ensure that these same goofballs who keep electing them will go back to gratefully accepting the public handouts and to keeping silent about the government, the country, and the liberty they now think they have back.
But we can't go back to that!
In at least one aspect, the Tea Parties are right (and I am as surprised as you to hear me say this), but I'll take it a few steps further: we will have to fix social security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and it will take tough decisions and choices. We will have to draw down our military from around the world and use the money elsewhere as we find jobs for the returning soldiers. We will have to draw down our debt and stop wasting money, even as we spend money to help people who need help. We will have to learn to see that this "American dream" is a shared experience and not some oddly Darwinian every-man-for-himself. We will have to stop enabling corporations to ship jobs overseas and instead enable them to put people back to work here. We will have to vote career politicians out of office and continue to seek out and support people who will behave honorably and speak truthfully and accept the possibly term-limiting consequences of both behaviors.
And we will have to do all this very soon, otherwise, we will run out of time.
Someone just has to step up.
Instead, almost all politicians turn to pandering in order to be re-elected as their primary goal as office-holders, regardless of the shallowness and transparency (the bad kind) of the pandering remarks and positions they offer and take.
At some point people will have to step up and step into these offices at all levels, speak the truth, and take the consequences, which will mean term limits virtually by default, as recently happened with Alan Grayson in Florida. Sure, Grayson was a bomb-thrower and a loose cannon, and behaved somewhat callously toward his opponent during their campaign, but while in office he told the truth. Anyone who does as Grayson did will almost assuredly be as hated as Grayson was and be voted out of office after one term, as Grayson was, but they will have behaved honorably by speaking truthfully and acting honestly about what needs to be said and done. This is true for the US Presidency on down to City Comptroller.
John McCain, as one example, has made a career out of being a senator simply by blowing in whatever direction the wind points him in order to be re-elected and to continue and further his career. That he contradicts himself constantly, and there is abundant video tape to prove this, seems not to matter, to anyone, let alone to him.
Moreover, "the American people," who candidates and politicians are so fond of saying they understand so thoroughly, will at some point just have to stop acting like self-interested, wishy-washy wind-blown goofballs who on the one hand readily accept and use the obviously Socialistic medical and retirement payments they receive from the Socialistic government they lambaste, and on the other claim for all to hear that they hate Socialism and just want their government back, their country back, and their freedoms back.
Huh?
Even as these "American people" screeched and squealed, they voted Bush 43 back in for a second term while he and his cronies weakened the Bill of Rights, the economy, national security, and pretty much everything they touched and simultaneously strengthened the stupidly wealthy to be wealthier still. Who's more stupid?
Yikes.
And now these same "American people" are about to have these same folks back in power who are actively claiming they want to return to doing the same things they did before (QED), and, in so doing, they again ensure their careers as politicians, again ensure they can pander to a willing throng, and again ensure that these same goofballs who keep electing them will go back to gratefully accepting the public handouts and to keeping silent about the government, the country, and the liberty they now think they have back.
But we can't go back to that!
In at least one aspect, the Tea Parties are right (and I am as surprised as you to hear me say this), but I'll take it a few steps further: we will have to fix social security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and it will take tough decisions and choices. We will have to draw down our military from around the world and use the money elsewhere as we find jobs for the returning soldiers. We will have to draw down our debt and stop wasting money, even as we spend money to help people who need help. We will have to learn to see that this "American dream" is a shared experience and not some oddly Darwinian every-man-for-himself. We will have to stop enabling corporations to ship jobs overseas and instead enable them to put people back to work here. We will have to vote career politicians out of office and continue to seek out and support people who will behave honorably and speak truthfully and accept the possibly term-limiting consequences of both behaviors.
And we will have to do all this very soon, otherwise, we will run out of time.
Someone just has to step up.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Everything you know is wrong...
It's time to forget everything you thought you believed regarding the end times.
Here is the truth of it.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Here is the truth of it.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tea Partiers will be abandoned...
If the Tea Party, which claims to be a grass-roots movement and was unarguably responsible for so many of the Republican wins in the mid-terms, sits still, sits passively by, while the Repos ignore, obfuscate, and angle their way around the essential things against which the Tea Party claims to stand, then the Tea Party deserves what it gets, is welcome to the Republican Party, and will lose any credibility it might have had.
That people are pissed is the real issue; the problem is at whom they're pissed.
If the Tea Party isn't getting angrier daily with the mealy-mouthed lip service the Repos are engaging in, then they're drinking the Kool-Aid, not the tea, and the Tea Party-Repo marriage will end badly.
That people are pissed is the real issue; the problem is at whom they're pissed.
If the Tea Party isn't getting angrier daily with the mealy-mouthed lip service the Repos are engaging in, then they're drinking the Kool-Aid, not the tea, and the Tea Party-Repo marriage will end badly.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Real or not real; I just can't tell...
I read this article and I just can't tell if the goofball interviewed in it is for real or if it's just a spoof, a fake story, if he's making this up for publicity.
Seriously, if it is a real news story, if this person actually exists, and if he actually believes what he's saying, how could anyone with even half their brain functioning want to give their customers "their blackout?"
Huh?
He goes on to say that "people like to blackout?"
Really? Where have I been? What the hell is going on here?
Please, someone, explain this to me.
Seriously, if it is a real news story, if this person actually exists, and if he actually believes what he's saying, how could anyone with even half their brain functioning want to give their customers "their blackout?"
Huh?
He goes on to say that "people like to blackout?"
Really? Where have I been? What the hell is going on here?
Please, someone, explain this to me.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Dear Mr. Griffin,
Although I pretty much know that you will never read this, writing it made me feel better.
OK. I get it. Keith Olbermann messed up. He violated an MSNBC policy that attempts to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
Point taken. But do you or anyone else at MSNBC really believe that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is anything but fact-based opinion journalism? C'mon... even the most casual observer can see that Keith has a Liberal agenda.
Wow, there's a shocker.
Keith howls nightly at the right AND at the left (and occasionally at the moon), but he works from facts not from fantasy and he is always fair.
MSNBC needs to play fair as well, let his suspension be a lesson to him, and reinstate Keith Olbermann now.
Why?
Because MSNBC...
OK. I get it. Keith Olbermann messed up. He violated an MSNBC policy that attempts to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
Point taken. But do you or anyone else at MSNBC really believe that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is anything but fact-based opinion journalism? C'mon... even the most casual observer can see that Keith has a Liberal agenda.
Wow, there's a shocker.
Keith howls nightly at the right AND at the left (and occasionally at the moon), but he works from facts not from fantasy and he is always fair.
MSNBC needs to play fair as well, let his suspension be a lesson to him, and reinstate Keith Olbermann now.
Why?
Because MSNBC...
- Cannot afford to lose him (because Rachel, Lawrence, et al., can't do it alone),
- Can ill afford to lose viewers like me (and others like me),
- Needs all the help it can get to balance out the right-wingnuts at Fox (and please be honest, this is what you do AND this is what they are), and
- Must continue to offer perspective and proportion to the hyperbolic-far-right-leaning propaganda media-machine (because this is what it is) that lives across the road.
Thank you.
With kindest regards...
Mike
The devils you know and don't know...
The Christine O'Donnell debacle has been instructive in terms of who holds the power on the right versus who wants it.
After O'Donnell proved (again) that her right-wingnuttiness was replete, Karl Rove came out swinging saying she wasn't accomplished enough to be a senator. Sure, King Karl backed off this rare honesty the next day, after Rushbo, SaPal, et al., leaned on him, but Karl was right (yes, I said this) and the truth was out there: Karl Rove does not take the Tea Party seriously.
I'll say it again: Karl Rove does not take the Tea Party seriously.
A bell can't be un-rung and with Karl's comments we clearly heard a prelude to what is to come for the Repos in the months leading up to 2012: Karl (old-world Repo mastermind) and Sarah (Rush's hand puppet) will be at odds, will split, will push their own versions of the future of the Republican Party, and will end up fracturing the Republican Party to the extent that the Tea Party will become a legitimate force in American politics, and not just a far-right wing of the Repos.
As much as the old-world Republicans (led by Rove) say Dems are out of touch with the people who comprise the Tea Party (led by Sarah Palin), the Republicans are more out of touch with them because they're cynically using the Tea Party to their own ends and will toss the Tea Party aside as soon as they get what they want. QED
My prediction?
Sarah Palin will win the Republican Primary, Barrack Obama will win a second term (and Karl Rove will banish himself to a Pacific Island never to be heard from again... OK... maybe this last one is wishful thinking.)
Why?
Because Karl Rove was right about Christine O'Donnell.
After O'Donnell proved (again) that her right-wingnuttiness was replete, Karl Rove came out swinging saying she wasn't accomplished enough to be a senator. Sure, King Karl backed off this rare honesty the next day, after Rushbo, SaPal, et al., leaned on him, but Karl was right (yes, I said this) and the truth was out there: Karl Rove does not take the Tea Party seriously.
I'll say it again: Karl Rove does not take the Tea Party seriously.
A bell can't be un-rung and with Karl's comments we clearly heard a prelude to what is to come for the Repos in the months leading up to 2012: Karl (old-world Repo mastermind) and Sarah (Rush's hand puppet) will be at odds, will split, will push their own versions of the future of the Republican Party, and will end up fracturing the Republican Party to the extent that the Tea Party will become a legitimate force in American politics, and not just a far-right wing of the Repos.
As much as the old-world Republicans (led by Rove) say Dems are out of touch with the people who comprise the Tea Party (led by Sarah Palin), the Republicans are more out of touch with them because they're cynically using the Tea Party to their own ends and will toss the Tea Party aside as soon as they get what they want. QED
My prediction?
Sarah Palin will win the Republican Primary, Barrack Obama will win a second term (and Karl Rove will banish himself to a Pacific Island never to be heard from again... OK... maybe this last one is wishful thinking.)
Why?
Because Karl Rove was right about Christine O'Donnell.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
100,000 in 3 weeks?
Bank of America (BOA) claims it has gone through 100,000 of its contested foreclosure documents in 3 weeks.
Really?
Let's break this down.
Let's give BOA the benefit of the doubt and say they worked on this 24/7. If so, and we have 504 hours in three weeks (21 days), they would have had to go through 198 documents per hour.
OK.
What if they only worked on this Monday through Friday, but did so for 24 hours every day? This is a total of 15 days, so this would be 360 hours, which means they would need to wade through 277 documents every hour.
Now let's get real.
Let's say BOA is like any other company that hates paying overtime, so they would have people work on this no more than 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. This is a total of 120 hours, so they would have had to verify a whopping 833 documents every hour to get through all 100,000.
Whatever the scenario they actually used, do they really expect people to believe anything they say after their credibility has been so completely hammered by their previous behaviors?
And, did they not find a single questionable mortgage document in all 100,000?
rrrRRR?
Wouldn't it make at least some sense to see if at least some of these 100,000 cases could actually be modified such that at least some of these people could stay in their homes and continue to make payments?
This way BOA could continue to generate revenue, which would mean stockholders could continue to be happy, and which would mean BOA could legitimately claim to be the "Bank of Opportunity" rather than appearing to be just one more opportunistic, atavistic US corporation.
And let's not forget that BOA wrote these $%#!ing mortgage loans to begin with, so don't they share some of the blame?
After all, a BOA is a snake that squeezes the life out of its victims. Coincidence? Hmmm...
Update: 10/25/2010
Update: 10/26/2010
Really?
Let's break this down.
Let's give BOA the benefit of the doubt and say they worked on this 24/7. If so, and we have 504 hours in three weeks (21 days), they would have had to go through 198 documents per hour.
OK.
What if they only worked on this Monday through Friday, but did so for 24 hours every day? This is a total of 15 days, so this would be 360 hours, which means they would need to wade through 277 documents every hour.
Now let's get real.
Let's say BOA is like any other company that hates paying overtime, so they would have people work on this no more than 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. This is a total of 120 hours, so they would have had to verify a whopping 833 documents every hour to get through all 100,000.
Whatever the scenario they actually used, do they really expect people to believe anything they say after their credibility has been so completely hammered by their previous behaviors?
And, did they not find a single questionable mortgage document in all 100,000?
rrrRRR?
Wouldn't it make at least some sense to see if at least some of these 100,000 cases could actually be modified such that at least some of these people could stay in their homes and continue to make payments?
This way BOA could continue to generate revenue, which would mean stockholders could continue to be happy, and which would mean BOA could legitimately claim to be the "Bank of Opportunity" rather than appearing to be just one more opportunistic, atavistic US corporation.
And let's not forget that BOA wrote these $%#!ing mortgage loans to begin with, so don't they share some of the blame?
After all, a BOA is a snake that squeezes the life out of its victims. Coincidence? Hmmm...
Update: 10/25/2010
Update: 10/26/2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Hello!?! Is anyone out there?
I have lately come to realize that another side-effect of the social networking craze affects people who check email often and is affected by people who don't. Allow me to explain.
Even before the days of Facebook and Classmates and Twitter and Whatever, when having only one email address was the norm, these folks might take weeks to respond to any email message sent to their lone email address.
But now with many forms of email and messaging available via all their social networking pages, these same folks are, oddly enough, just as disinclined to respond quickly (if at all), so the problem is multiplied as more senders have more avenues to capturing more recipients' inattention.
Sending four messages to a person who normally doesn't check email regularly anyway simply gives that person three more opportunities --- and perhaps three more reasons, three more rationales --- to be disinclined to respond. If you talk to a deaf man who can't read lips, he can't help you; if you yell at him, he still can't help you; if you yell at him multiple times, he still can't help you.
My admittedly bordering-on-obsessive behavior when it comes to checking and answering email (and this is my problem, I admit) simultaneously does and does not scale well in a socially connected world populated with routinely disconnected people.
It does because I'm made for this era. It doesn’t because others aren’t.
Either everyone who doesn’t check email regularly has to come around soon, or I do.
Which do I think is most likely? Hmmm... let me think about it and I’ll send you an email.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Say so long to Summers...
Not that my opinion matters one whit, but I've never liked this guy.
From the time he got into all that trouble at Harvard, I never liked this guy. He seems like a pompous jerk who has issues with women.
He treated Brooksley Born like crap when she tried to blow the whistle on the pending derivatives mess --- and she's probably forgotten more about derivatives than Mr. Summers will ever know.
And now that Elizabeth Warren has been appointed --- yet another wicked smart woman Mr. Brilliance doesn't think much of --- he's heading home like a pouting child taking his football with him. What a jerk.
So long Mr. Summers. No one is going to miss you. Don't let the exit door hit your ass as you walk through it. Harvard is just so lucky to have you back.
From the time he got into all that trouble at Harvard, I never liked this guy. He seems like a pompous jerk who has issues with women.
He treated Brooksley Born like crap when she tried to blow the whistle on the pending derivatives mess --- and she's probably forgotten more about derivatives than Mr. Summers will ever know.
And now that Elizabeth Warren has been appointed --- yet another wicked smart woman Mr. Brilliance doesn't think much of --- he's heading home like a pouting child taking his football with him. What a jerk.
So long Mr. Summers. No one is going to miss you. Don't let the exit door hit your ass as you walk through it. Harvard is just so lucky to have you back.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Which Christine O'Donnell is witch...
The media dust-up that will no doubt blow in from Bill Maher's recent revelation (you've just gotta love this guy) will completely cloud the real point here: Ms. O'Donnell will be simultaneously forgiven and damned for her past by those who claim to be her supporters, and it's precisely this brazen hypocrisy that is at the heart of her weirdly flawed fall to fame.
It takes one to know one, after all, and we've probably all behaved hypocritically at times in our lives, especially during our misspent youths; however, O'Donnell's brand of it is special; it's like no other; it's positively stunning; and... wait for it... it's on videotape.
I never thought I'd ever say this, but Karl Rove is entirely correct in calling this woman's sincerity into question (even though he's not exactly a beacon of sincerity himself). And I love that Karl's now suggesting Ms. Palin campaign for Ms. O'Donnell. Riiiiight.
That she can so boldly make the claims she's made, then follow them up with equally bold claims that espouse the exact opposite viewpoints is just astounding, but it shouldn't be at all surprising because she's nothing but a political loser, a professional campaign joiner, a rank opportunist who's now transformed herself into her latest avatar, a Sarah Palin clone who is pandering to Ms. Palin's base just so she can win an elective office she has absolutely no inherent ability to hold (just like her mentor).
"We the people," my ass. It's completely clear from her record that this young woman will say anything, about anything, to anyone. But who knows, maybe she's under a spell she cast on herself back in the good old days of the 90s, when the odd admixture of abstinence, religious fervor, masturbatory fear, and witchcraft took up much of her clearly short attention span. I mean really... did she not understand the concept of videotape back then? Does she now think it will all magically disappear? This woman doesn't have skeletons in her closet, she has an entire bone yard!
So you go, Christine! Keep on bewitching all those mesmerized Tea Partiers into believing your B.S. But if you don't stop with the blatant hypocrisy, they just might realize you're jerking them off and will abstain from you.
And then... twinkle, twinkle, POOF!!! ...your political career will disappear like Darrin Stevens' pants.
It takes one to know one, after all, and we've probably all behaved hypocritically at times in our lives, especially during our misspent youths; however, O'Donnell's brand of it is special; it's like no other; it's positively stunning; and... wait for it... it's on videotape.
I never thought I'd ever say this, but Karl Rove is entirely correct in calling this woman's sincerity into question (even though he's not exactly a beacon of sincerity himself). And I love that Karl's now suggesting Ms. Palin campaign for Ms. O'Donnell. Riiiiight.
That she can so boldly make the claims she's made, then follow them up with equally bold claims that espouse the exact opposite viewpoints is just astounding, but it shouldn't be at all surprising because she's nothing but a political loser, a professional campaign joiner, a rank opportunist who's now transformed herself into her latest avatar, a Sarah Palin clone who is pandering to Ms. Palin's base just so she can win an elective office she has absolutely no inherent ability to hold (just like her mentor).
"We the people," my ass. It's completely clear from her record that this young woman will say anything, about anything, to anyone. But who knows, maybe she's under a spell she cast on herself back in the good old days of the 90s, when the odd admixture of abstinence, religious fervor, masturbatory fear, and witchcraft took up much of her clearly short attention span. I mean really... did she not understand the concept of videotape back then? Does she now think it will all magically disappear? This woman doesn't have skeletons in her closet, she has an entire bone yard!
So you go, Christine! Keep on bewitching all those mesmerized Tea Partiers into believing your B.S. But if you don't stop with the blatant hypocrisy, they just might realize you're jerking them off and will abstain from you.
And then... twinkle, twinkle, POOF!!! ...your political career will disappear like Darrin Stevens' pants.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Elizabeth Warren gets the nod...
This story heralds great news for US citizens (notice I didn't say "consumers") who have been pushed around and generally abused by the credit industry for far too long.
To say Elizabeth Warren is wicked smart doesn't begin to describe it. She excels at plain speaking. She translates gobbledygook into simple, easy-to-understand statements. She is the right person for this job.
When he interviewed her on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart famously said, "I know your husband's back stage, but I still wanna make out with you."
She has this effect on people. She speaks so confidently and so logically that it's nearly impossible not to be drawn to her intellect, her reason, but most importantly, her reasonableness.
Doris Kerns-Goodwin has a similar effect on me. Whenever she appears on a program, I listen intently and always come away wiser for the time spent. These women each understand their respective fields and can express this plainly, without hesitation.
The financial industry is not happy about Warren's appointment, and with it, having their way with all of us just might become a bit tougher for all of them.
We can only hope.
To say Elizabeth Warren is wicked smart doesn't begin to describe it. She excels at plain speaking. She translates gobbledygook into simple, easy-to-understand statements. She is the right person for this job.
When he interviewed her on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart famously said, "I know your husband's back stage, but I still wanna make out with you."
She has this effect on people. She speaks so confidently and so logically that it's nearly impossible not to be drawn to her intellect, her reason, but most importantly, her reasonableness.
Doris Kerns-Goodwin has a similar effect on me. Whenever she appears on a program, I listen intently and always come away wiser for the time spent. These women each understand their respective fields and can express this plainly, without hesitation.
The financial industry is not happy about Warren's appointment, and with it, having their way with all of us just might become a bit tougher for all of them.
We can only hope.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Golf Rx from Johnson & Johnson
If Corey Pavin pairs Dustin Johnson and Zack Johnson at any point during the upcoming Ryder Cup competition, I predict we'll hear someone on the Golf Channel (Kraig Kann, Mr. Segue) make some Johnson & Johnson pun about it.
It'll have something to do with "they're a prescription for the team" or something similar along this line.
It'll have something to do with "they're a prescription for the team" or something similar along this line.
The Newt rides his fear Express straight into Hateville...
Newt Gingrich, everyone's favorite extreme right-wing goof-ball and perpetual political loser has done it again, but this time he's outdone even himself.
What a complete jerk this guy is. I even feel sorry for his wife (or should I say his current future ex-wife).
How rude to suggest the president is a con man. How typical to continue with the same right-wing birther B.S. regarding President Obama's nationality, but to now escalate it to a whole new level of fear and loathing?
It's just breathtaking.
If anyone, left or right, doesn't see this garbage as pure and simple campaign-year politics and as a desperate appeal to a base (and let's not forget that "base" has a double meaning), then they deserve The Newt and his hatefully narrow-minded fear-mongering.
Naturally all of Newtboy's butt-buddies on the right will pick this one up and run with it, but if they were smart, even they would run away from this guy like he's radioactive, because this tactic won't work well for anyone who champions it.
What a complete jerk this guy is. I even feel sorry for his wife (or should I say his current future ex-wife).
How rude to suggest the president is a con man. How typical to continue with the same right-wing birther B.S. regarding President Obama's nationality, but to now escalate it to a whole new level of fear and loathing?
It's just breathtaking.
If anyone, left or right, doesn't see this garbage as pure and simple campaign-year politics and as a desperate appeal to a base (and let's not forget that "base" has a double meaning), then they deserve The Newt and his hatefully narrow-minded fear-mongering.
Naturally all of Newtboy's butt-buddies on the right will pick this one up and run with it, but if they were smart, even they would run away from this guy like he's radioactive, because this tactic won't work well for anyone who champions it.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Dove World or Bird Brains?
Just who does this guy think he is? More importantly, just who does the US media think this guy is? He's drawing the attention of a sensation-loving swarm intent on scooping a story that really isn't anything like a story.
What this is, is a tiny group of fundamentalist Christians (led by Mr. Jones) who are pissed about an equally tiny group of fundamentalist Muslims (led by Osama bin Laden) and who want to castigate and blame and smear the whole of the Islamic faith that doesn't align itself with terrorists in any way and just wants to practice its faith.
To make its case, Dove World wants to burn Qurans, which is like someone who's pissed about a tiny Christian militia group wanting to burn Christian bibles as protest for the militia group's bad behavior, cruelty, and stupidity.
What makes this even more stupid is the clumsy, ham-handed conflation of what Dove World is doing to the proposed construction of a Muslim community center on Manhattan Island.
RrrRRR?
The First Amendment offers some protections for the practice of religion, but I'm fairly certain book burning isn't what Mr. Jefferson and his pals had in mind.
These two things have as much to do with one other as Newt Gingrich has to do with marriage counseling or as Sarah Palin has to do with literacy or as Sean Hannity has to do with fair or balanced.
To conflate the Muslim community center to the burning of someone's holiest book, is the slimiest, purest, foulest form of campaign-season pandering to one's base. The disconnect is just too obvious, the venality just too perfect.
Dove World Outreach obviously doesn't get that all it's doing here is publicly slamming an entire religion (Islam) simply because a few of Islam's radical members are behaving like complete assholes, and in so doing, Dove World is practicing religious intolerance by demonstrating that freedom of religion works only when it's not their own religion being ignited.
Wow. What good Christians the Dove World folks are. So tolerant. So loving. So kind.
Look, the Dove World Christians have the same right to practice their faith as Muslims have, as Catholics have, as Baptists have, as Mormons have, as Hindus have, as Buddhists have, and every other religion has. But should we view all of Christianity through Dove World's nearly oblique prism? Should we see all Christians as a bunch of book-burning wing-nuts because of Dove World's breathtakingly goofy pettiness and narrow-mindedness?
If your response is anything but "No, of course we shouldn't," then I'll pay for your travel to Gainesville via stock trailer so you can join Mr. Jones' flock, because you're clearly as much of a sheep as the fools flocking to this even bigger fool.
Ba-a-a-ah!
P.S. As of early this morning, Mr. Jones says he will suspend his plans... for now. But I contend he should just forget his plans, recant his original position, and go back to worshiping with his followers in the privacy of their Gainesville, FL church.
P.P.S. As of early this morning (9/11/2010), Mr. Jones says he will never burn Qurans. OK. Bravo! Good for him! (But I do think Mr. Jones needs to seek professional help.)
P.P.P.S. As of 9/14/2010, Mr. ones says God has told him not to burn the Qurans. See what Jon Stewart had to say about this revelation at the Daily Show Website; look under "Islamophobiapalooza." It's hysterical.
What this is, is a tiny group of fundamentalist Christians (led by Mr. Jones) who are pissed about an equally tiny group of fundamentalist Muslims (led by Osama bin Laden) and who want to castigate and blame and smear the whole of the Islamic faith that doesn't align itself with terrorists in any way and just wants to practice its faith.
To make its case, Dove World wants to burn Qurans, which is like someone who's pissed about a tiny Christian militia group wanting to burn Christian bibles as protest for the militia group's bad behavior, cruelty, and stupidity.
What makes this even more stupid is the clumsy, ham-handed conflation of what Dove World is doing to the proposed construction of a Muslim community center on Manhattan Island.
RrrRRR?
The First Amendment offers some protections for the practice of religion, but I'm fairly certain book burning isn't what Mr. Jefferson and his pals had in mind.
These two things have as much to do with one other as Newt Gingrich has to do with marriage counseling or as Sarah Palin has to do with literacy or as Sean Hannity has to do with fair or balanced.
To conflate the Muslim community center to the burning of someone's holiest book, is the slimiest, purest, foulest form of campaign-season pandering to one's base. The disconnect is just too obvious, the venality just too perfect.
Dove World Outreach obviously doesn't get that all it's doing here is publicly slamming an entire religion (Islam) simply because a few of Islam's radical members are behaving like complete assholes, and in so doing, Dove World is practicing religious intolerance by demonstrating that freedom of religion works only when it's not their own religion being ignited.
Wow. What good Christians the Dove World folks are. So tolerant. So loving. So kind.
Look, the Dove World Christians have the same right to practice their faith as Muslims have, as Catholics have, as Baptists have, as Mormons have, as Hindus have, as Buddhists have, and every other religion has. But should we view all of Christianity through Dove World's nearly oblique prism? Should we see all Christians as a bunch of book-burning wing-nuts because of Dove World's breathtakingly goofy pettiness and narrow-mindedness?
If your response is anything but "No, of course we shouldn't," then I'll pay for your travel to Gainesville via stock trailer so you can join Mr. Jones' flock, because you're clearly as much of a sheep as the fools flocking to this even bigger fool.
Ba-a-a-ah!
P.S. As of early this morning, Mr. Jones says he will suspend his plans... for now. But I contend he should just forget his plans, recant his original position, and go back to worshiping with his followers in the privacy of their Gainesville, FL church.
P.P.S. As of early this morning (9/11/2010), Mr. Jones says he will never burn Qurans. OK. Bravo! Good for him! (But I do think Mr. Jones needs to seek professional help.)
P.P.P.S. As of 9/14/2010, Mr. ones says God has told him not to burn the Qurans. See what Jon Stewart had to say about this revelation at the Daily Show Website; look under "Islamophobiapalooza." It's hysterical.
Friday, September 3, 2010
I... UGH!... can't watch... UGH!... tennis.
I have tried several times in the last few years to watch pro tennis. I just can't do it.
The athletes seem completely capable, the strategy can be exciting, the shots are often brilliant. But so many players are just so noisy. Why?
Who decided it was a good idea for a gorgeous tennis player to make an ugly sound every time she hits the ball?
And it's not just the women: the men have their special sounds as well. Regardless of gender, it's annoying, and I can't believe I'm alone in thinking this.
I love golf. I watch golf. I play golf. But unless my golf ball heads toward water/trees/ravines/gorse/heather/hazards of any kind after I hit it or my lumbar disc injury reminds me its still there and objecting to what I just did to it by swinging a little too hard, I don't make noises when I hit it.
In fact, I can't remember the last time I watched a baseball player at the plate or a field-goal kicker on the 20-yard line shout "Ugh!" when hitting or kicking. These sports are often violent. People smack into one another. So why do tennis players, who don't collide with people as a part of their sport, have to make so much noise while they play it?
Does it hurt to hit a tennis ball?
Are they mad at their rackets?
Are they trying to intimidate (read "irritate) their opponents?
Or, as I suspect, are they trying to annoy the people who watch them play? Well even if they aren't trying to do this, they're succeeding in doing this.
I've tried to watch tennis and I just can't do it. It makes me want to say "Ugh!" as I change the channel for a less noisy sport.
The athletes seem completely capable, the strategy can be exciting, the shots are often brilliant. But so many players are just so noisy. Why?
Who decided it was a good idea for a gorgeous tennis player to make an ugly sound every time she hits the ball?
And it's not just the women: the men have their special sounds as well. Regardless of gender, it's annoying, and I can't believe I'm alone in thinking this.
I love golf. I watch golf. I play golf. But unless my golf ball heads toward water/trees/ravines/gorse/heather/hazards of any kind after I hit it or my lumbar disc injury reminds me its still there and objecting to what I just did to it by swinging a little too hard, I don't make noises when I hit it.
In fact, I can't remember the last time I watched a baseball player at the plate or a field-goal kicker on the 20-yard line shout "Ugh!" when hitting or kicking. These sports are often violent. People smack into one another. So why do tennis players, who don't collide with people as a part of their sport, have to make so much noise while they play it?
Does it hurt to hit a tennis ball?
Are they mad at their rackets?
Are they trying to intimidate (read "irritate) their opponents?
Or, as I suspect, are they trying to annoy the people who watch them play? Well even if they aren't trying to do this, they're succeeding in doing this.
I've tried to watch tennis and I just can't do it. It makes me want to say "Ugh!" as I change the channel for a less noisy sport.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
It's official...
OK. It's official. Sen. John McCain is a mealy-mouthed, fork-tongued fool and is as much of a maverick as I am a Republican Senator.
Like his Repo pals who foisted the war on everyone, he completely ignores the truth: we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we only did so because evidence for doing it was completely manufactured and false, and thousands on both sides died for essentially nothing.
The after-the-fact rationales for doing it were moving targets and all pure BS:
If we don't have President Obama to thank for getting us out of Iraq, we have John (and his buds) to thank for getting us into Iraq in the first place and for making Afghanistan the place it is today.
Obama was absolutely right to have voted against going into Iraq, and you can't spin history or the facts, John.
Sucks to be you.
Like his Repo pals who foisted the war on everyone, he completely ignores the truth: we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we only did so because evidence for doing it was completely manufactured and false, and thousands on both sides died for essentially nothing.
The after-the-fact rationales for doing it were moving targets and all pure BS:
- WMD? Nope.
- Take down Sadam? Could've been done far more easily.
- Spread freedom and democracy? Riiiiight.
If we don't have President Obama to thank for getting us out of Iraq, we have John (and his buds) to thank for getting us into Iraq in the first place and for making Afghanistan the place it is today.
Obama was absolutely right to have voted against going into Iraq, and you can't spin history or the facts, John.
Sucks to be you.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
It's almost impossible to care about this one...
Upon reading this news story, I find it almost impossible to care about any aspect of it.
I have no attraction to any aspect of keeping reptiles as pets. This is a function of my aversion to snakes, but it's more because of my aversion to anyone who would think having one as a pet is a good idea on any level.
They're snakes, for crying out loud. You don't cuddle with snakes. Rather, you leave snakes alone or hit them with a large stick if they refuse to be left alone. Moreover, the word "snake" and the expression "snake in the grass" have become metaphors for anyone who is beneath contempt.
In my opinion, and outside of a researcher, people who would keep snakes as pets are fundamentally off balance, to say the least. I do feel badly for anyone who becomes ill through no direct fault of their own, but it's very hard to work up a tear for someone who feeds their pets live or fresh-frozen animals, whole.
Look, I have a Labrador Retriever, and I feed it the processed remains of slaughtered lambs that are mixed with rice and veggies. I eat lamb myself, and I get that doing these things is difficult for some (read "Vegans") to comprehend and accept.
But I do draw what is for me a definite line.
I don't feed my dog live squirrels, live mice, live gerbils, or live anything.
Nope. I can't care much at all about any aspect of a story that describes someone getting sick from the frozen whole animals they give their reptiles. They need to buy a Lab: the licks, walks, and cuddles they'll receive are a whole lot more enjoyable. Besides, the word "Lab" is not a metaphor, let alone one for anything nasty.
I have no attraction to any aspect of keeping reptiles as pets. This is a function of my aversion to snakes, but it's more because of my aversion to anyone who would think having one as a pet is a good idea on any level.
They're snakes, for crying out loud. You don't cuddle with snakes. Rather, you leave snakes alone or hit them with a large stick if they refuse to be left alone. Moreover, the word "snake" and the expression "snake in the grass" have become metaphors for anyone who is beneath contempt.
In my opinion, and outside of a researcher, people who would keep snakes as pets are fundamentally off balance, to say the least. I do feel badly for anyone who becomes ill through no direct fault of their own, but it's very hard to work up a tear for someone who feeds their pets live or fresh-frozen animals, whole.
Look, I have a Labrador Retriever, and I feed it the processed remains of slaughtered lambs that are mixed with rice and veggies. I eat lamb myself, and I get that doing these things is difficult for some (read "Vegans") to comprehend and accept.
But I do draw what is for me a definite line.
I don't feed my dog live squirrels, live mice, live gerbils, or live anything.
Nope. I can't care much at all about any aspect of a story that describes someone getting sick from the frozen whole animals they give their reptiles. They need to buy a Lab: the licks, walks, and cuddles they'll receive are a whole lot more enjoyable. Besides, the word "Lab" is not a metaphor, let alone one for anything nasty.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Fifty-nine is the new 63? Are you kidding?
I'll bet the sports writer Edgar Thompson who wrote this piece for the Palm Beach Post recently, has never shot anything close to the magical 59 he seems to disdain in his article.
Among other silly things he says, he wrote, "59 is the new 63 - an exceptional round of golf, not an extraordinary one," but what does the word "extraordinary" mean?
It means going beyond what is usual, what is ordinary. For pro golfers, shooting in the 60s is ordinary and usual, but if Mr. Thompson honestly thinks shooting a 59 is "usual" and "ordinary," he needs to pay much closer attention to the game of golf. In truth, I think he was probably just trying to be clever, but in do so he has perhaps exposed himself as clueless about golf.
Any golfer can shoot a good score on any day. This happens all the time. Heck, I recently shot an 82 on Tullymore in Stanton Michigan, and had I not tried to hit a nearly impossible second shot on 18, I had a good chance to shoot a 78 for the first time in my life. This is a difficult golf course with an insane slope rating, and I'm a bogie golfer, but I would argue that my doing this was akin to Stuart Appleby shooting a 59 on Greenbrier's Old White Course.
An 82 was an extraordinary round for me, and Appleby's 59 was an extraordinary round for him. It's all relative and a function of the fickleness of golf. But there is no way a 59 is not extraordinary. No way. Very, very few people have ever done it. You could maybe count them on two hands. In fact, hitting a hole-in-one is far more ordinary than shooting a 59 will ever be.
Get a grip, Mr. Thompson, and write about things you know, like being clueless. Now that would be extraordinary.
Among other silly things he says, he wrote, "59 is the new 63 - an exceptional round of golf, not an extraordinary one," but what does the word "extraordinary" mean?
It means going beyond what is usual, what is ordinary. For pro golfers, shooting in the 60s is ordinary and usual, but if Mr. Thompson honestly thinks shooting a 59 is "usual" and "ordinary," he needs to pay much closer attention to the game of golf. In truth, I think he was probably just trying to be clever, but in do so he has perhaps exposed himself as clueless about golf.
Any golfer can shoot a good score on any day. This happens all the time. Heck, I recently shot an 82 on Tullymore in Stanton Michigan, and had I not tried to hit a nearly impossible second shot on 18, I had a good chance to shoot a 78 for the first time in my life. This is a difficult golf course with an insane slope rating, and I'm a bogie golfer, but I would argue that my doing this was akin to Stuart Appleby shooting a 59 on Greenbrier's Old White Course.
An 82 was an extraordinary round for me, and Appleby's 59 was an extraordinary round for him. It's all relative and a function of the fickleness of golf. But there is no way a 59 is not extraordinary. No way. Very, very few people have ever done it. You could maybe count them on two hands. In fact, hitting a hole-in-one is far more ordinary than shooting a 59 will ever be.
Get a grip, Mr. Thompson, and write about things you know, like being clueless. Now that would be extraordinary.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Great news!
I know things in the world are sort of roiling right now, but if you're a Niners fan, this announcement has to come as great news.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Just can't win...
The oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico is tragic. The loss of life more so. No one should lose sight of this. The families of the 11 lost are devastated. And what is left as a result is also devastating and is perhaps yet another result of corporate hubris, of corporate incompetence, and of the corporate imperative to maximize shareholder value above all else.
But ultimately, the corporation that undertook this effort is responsible for the disaster, financially and morally.
There is no denying this. But the partisan right is already spilling its vitriol regarding their perception of the Obama administration's responsibility for this spill.
Huh?
Sean "There's no pandering I won't undertake" Hannity was ranting on a recent episode of his show that the Obama adminstration has acted too slowly, is somehow deficient in its response to this (corporate-made) catastrophe.
Really, Sean? Aren't you the same guy who claims Obama should keep his hands off and out of American corporations' ability to maximize profits and away from their right to exercise free-market values that you and yours hold so dear?
Well you can't have it both ways Sean. You can't claim Obama should stay out of the operations of corporations and then slam Obama when one of those corporations proves it's thoroughly incapable of handling a mess it's made.
Oh wait, sure you can: this is what you do. Sorry. I forgot.
But ultimately, the corporation that undertook this effort is responsible for the disaster, financially and morally.
There is no denying this. But the partisan right is already spilling its vitriol regarding their perception of the Obama administration's responsibility for this spill.
Huh?
Sean "There's no pandering I won't undertake" Hannity was ranting on a recent episode of his show that the Obama adminstration has acted too slowly, is somehow deficient in its response to this (corporate-made) catastrophe.
Really, Sean? Aren't you the same guy who claims Obama should keep his hands off and out of American corporations' ability to maximize profits and away from their right to exercise free-market values that you and yours hold so dear?
Well you can't have it both ways Sean. You can't claim Obama should stay out of the operations of corporations and then slam Obama when one of those corporations proves it's thoroughly incapable of handling a mess it's made.
Oh wait, sure you can: this is what you do. Sorry. I forgot.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
What did she just say?
Sarah Palin is again spewing gobbledygook and, in so doing, giving gobbledygook everywhere a bad name. This woman is so shallow you couldn't even wade in her.
Does anyone seriously believe the Arizona immigration bill won't promote racial profiling? How could it do anything but? It specifically targets people based on their looks, on their physical characteristics, on their race.
Does she really believe blond-haired, blue-eyed tourists will be asked to "show papers?" Of course they won't. (And to allow police to be sued if they don't aggressively pursue the bill's intent is to force police to err on the side of profiling. I feel sorry for the police; they have a tough job that is made so much tougher by this foolish and knee-jerk legislation.)
Sarah Palin is a walking sound-bite, but this will come back to bite her as more and more sentient people come to realize she doesn't have anything close to a clue about pretty much anything.
Look, I'm not a Palin hater. I don't know the woman, so how could I hate someone I don't know? I don't hate anyone. But what I do know is that based on her own words, she continues to show herself as woefully ignorant and criminally stupid, and she continues to set herself up for derision and ridicule.
Run Sarah run. Please! You'll run the Republican Party and the Tea Party into the ground.
Does anyone seriously believe the Arizona immigration bill won't promote racial profiling? How could it do anything but? It specifically targets people based on their looks, on their physical characteristics, on their race.
Does she really believe blond-haired, blue-eyed tourists will be asked to "show papers?" Of course they won't. (And to allow police to be sued if they don't aggressively pursue the bill's intent is to force police to err on the side of profiling. I feel sorry for the police; they have a tough job that is made so much tougher by this foolish and knee-jerk legislation.)
Sarah Palin is a walking sound-bite, but this will come back to bite her as more and more sentient people come to realize she doesn't have anything close to a clue about pretty much anything.
Look, I'm not a Palin hater. I don't know the woman, so how could I hate someone I don't know? I don't hate anyone. But what I do know is that based on her own words, she continues to show herself as woefully ignorant and criminally stupid, and she continues to set herself up for derision and ridicule.
Run Sarah run. Please! You'll run the Republican Party and the Tea Party into the ground.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Civet poo coffee... no, really...
I'm often amazed that we've survived as a species as long as we have, especially when I read stuff like this.
I love coffee. I prefer Peet's Coffee, have been drinking their blends for over 20 years, and during this time have probably tried everything they sell. I even lived near a Peet's Coffee Shop for a while in California.
But I can assure you if I see Peet's Civet Coffee appear in their emailed new coffees list, I won't be trying it anytime soon. Yuck.
Look. I'm nowhere near a picky eater; I've even tried Durian, which is perhaps the nastiest smelling "fruit" in the world. But even Durian doesn't drop from a Civet's derriere.
I love coffee. I prefer Peet's Coffee, have been drinking their blends for over 20 years, and during this time have probably tried everything they sell. I even lived near a Peet's Coffee Shop for a while in California.
But I can assure you if I see Peet's Civet Coffee appear in their emailed new coffees list, I won't be trying it anytime soon. Yuck.
Look. I'm nowhere near a picky eater; I've even tried Durian, which is perhaps the nastiest smelling "fruit" in the world. But even Durian doesn't drop from a Civet's derriere.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Hey Jim Nantz, settle down!
Jim Nantz's overwhelming tendency to be a pompously pontificating prig and a bloviating blowhard was in full view yesterday when he blasted on Tiger Woods for offensive language at The Masters tournament. Agreed. Tiger needs to walk it like he talks it. Mr. Nantz said some things that I think were right on the mark.
But two things, Jim: first, you're a TV talking head so who gives a flying flip at a rolling doughnut about anything you might happen to say? Second, admit it, you're in the tank for Lefty and you always have been. Moreover, it was obvious you and CBS saw as the better story for the weekend -- and CBS always has to have a storyline -- the "Phil Good - Tiger Evil" scenario and you all ran with it.
Above all, though, get some freaking perspective.
Sure, The Masters is a wonderful event. There's no denying this. But let's not forget that its very name suggests a throwback to the antebellum South, which was a perception reinforced until 1990 when the Augusta National Golf Club finally admitted an African-American member.
"Masters" of golf certainly, but of what and of who else?
Further, admit that this godfather of all modern-day good old boys clubs is still practicing membership apartheid against women.
So the glass house in which the Augusta National membership still lives -- and where you sit for four days a year representing their image, Jim -- is just as susceptible to thrown stones as any. Get some perspective and leave the stones on the ground where they belong. And let's not even mention your well-rehearsed and tired tournament-closing tag lines every year or your cliche-ridden reportage overall.
You really should take a hint from your good pal Fred Couples on patience, acceptance, class, and deportment.
But two things, Jim: first, you're a TV talking head so who gives a flying flip at a rolling doughnut about anything you might happen to say? Second, admit it, you're in the tank for Lefty and you always have been. Moreover, it was obvious you and CBS saw as the better story for the weekend -- and CBS always has to have a storyline -- the "Phil Good - Tiger Evil" scenario and you all ran with it.
Above all, though, get some freaking perspective.
Sure, The Masters is a wonderful event. There's no denying this. But let's not forget that its very name suggests a throwback to the antebellum South, which was a perception reinforced until 1990 when the Augusta National Golf Club finally admitted an African-American member.
"Masters" of golf certainly, but of what and of who else?
Further, admit that this godfather of all modern-day good old boys clubs is still practicing membership apartheid against women.
So the glass house in which the Augusta National membership still lives -- and where you sit for four days a year representing their image, Jim -- is just as susceptible to thrown stones as any. Get some perspective and leave the stones on the ground where they belong. And let's not even mention your well-rehearsed and tired tournament-closing tag lines every year or your cliche-ridden reportage overall.
You really should take a hint from your good pal Fred Couples on patience, acceptance, class, and deportment.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Funny words...
Just read a couple of funny words:
- Paliban, for followers of Sarah Palin and her politics, and
- Teahadists, for followers of Tea Party politics.
Stepping up with sports cliches
If you've ever listened to 20 minutes of ESPN, 20 minutes of any football game, or even 10 minutes of The Golf Channel, you've heard dozens if not scores of sports cliches.
Perhaps the most common of these is the word "hey," which is used to begin paraphrased or quoted comments from athletes or sports figures, as in,"He said to me, 'Hey, it's up to you to perform.'"
Also, athletes like to "dig deep." Apparently they can't dig shallowly and expect to compete and win.
Another common cliche is "I mean," which is also a sentence starter or phrase starter. It's become more of a fall-back phrase as well, similar to "you know." The LPGA's Michelle Wie, as an example -- and nowhere near a unique one -- uses "I mean" a great deal. Rather than saying "I mean," just say what you mean to say and trust this will suffice.
"Much maligned" is another popular cliche. No one says "often criticized" or "frequently castigated." Rather, you usually hear the alliterative "much maligned," which seems to be the "overwhelming favorite," another cliche phrase you hear quite often.
"Step up" is being used increasingly more frequently, bordering on constantly. This term generally refers to an athlete needing to perform above a usual level in a tight situation. To "step up" one's game seems the most common context, with the phrase "step your game up" falling out of the Snoop Dog song "Step Yo Game Up." (No point in worrying about the dangling preposition.)
Frank Gifford, formerly a color commentator on Monday Night Football (MNF) and one of my favorites, was responsible for so many sports cliches, but the one that sticks in my mind most is "good quickness," which is used to this day. It's an odd expression because the qualifying adjective "good" implies that the opposite might exist: that is, someone might have "bad quickness," quickness that might imply evildoing or wrongdoing. To my mind, quickness in any athlete is a good thing all round. Now you hear "great quickness" as well; apparently this is quickness that has over-achieved.
Although not unique to sportscasters, another sports cliche is the segue, which some talking heads use to distraction, such as Kraig Kinn on The Golf Channel. Mr. Kinn can't put three sentences together without a segue between two of them. It's like an addiction: he can't help himself. But he's not alone in this affliction and, to be fair, I'm sure most Broadcasting 101 courses teach the segue as a valid tool. (And speaking of this, "101" has become a cliche as well.)
Another concept, similar to the segue, that has become a cliche is stating the obvious, which you hear all the time during pre-game shows. The most common example of stating the obvious comes in response to a question about what a team needs to do to win: "They have to put lots of points on the board and keep the other team out of the end zone." Really? You're being paid a great deal of money to be on the pre-game show: this is the best you can do? Perhaps you should pick up the phone and let the coach know this gem.
A term you'll commonly hear from golf commentators is "putting on a clinic," as in "He's certainly giving us all a putting clinic today." But it's not limited to golf: certainly the Sixer's Dr. J put on clinics all the time.
When describing some trend in an athlete's recent performance or reputation, "of late" (a favorite of The Golf Channel's Kelly Tilghman, along with "much maligned") is regularly used, as in "He's been driving the ball well of late" or "Her game has been resurgent of late." (And why do you hear "resurgent" far more than "coming back," "revived," or "rejuvenated?" Hmmm...)
Along with the $2-word resurgent, "adversity" is another cliche you hear regularly. Athletes love to talk about "facing adversity" or "handling adversity." It would appear the words "misfortune" and "difficulty" are insufficient, as if something bad, wrong, difficult, unfortunate, or challenging can only be "adverse."
"Dig deep" is used often as well: it indicates an athlete's need to call on inner resources of speed or strength or willpower.
"At the end of the day" has become so common that you'll hear both interviewers and interviewees saying it a couple of times in a single interview. "When all is said and done" is a typical alternative. But at the end of the day they're both cliches.
You can also get combinations of cliches, as in...
Perhaps the most common of these is the word "hey," which is used to begin paraphrased or quoted comments from athletes or sports figures, as in,"He said to me, 'Hey, it's up to you to perform.'"
Also, athletes like to "dig deep." Apparently they can't dig shallowly and expect to compete and win.
Another common cliche is "I mean," which is also a sentence starter or phrase starter. It's become more of a fall-back phrase as well, similar to "you know." The LPGA's Michelle Wie, as an example -- and nowhere near a unique one -- uses "I mean" a great deal. Rather than saying "I mean," just say what you mean to say and trust this will suffice.
"Much maligned" is another popular cliche. No one says "often criticized" or "frequently castigated." Rather, you usually hear the alliterative "much maligned," which seems to be the "overwhelming favorite," another cliche phrase you hear quite often.
"Step up" is being used increasingly more frequently, bordering on constantly. This term generally refers to an athlete needing to perform above a usual level in a tight situation. To "step up" one's game seems the most common context, with the phrase "step your game up" falling out of the Snoop Dog song "Step Yo Game Up." (No point in worrying about the dangling preposition.)
Frank Gifford, formerly a color commentator on Monday Night Football (MNF) and one of my favorites, was responsible for so many sports cliches, but the one that sticks in my mind most is "good quickness," which is used to this day. It's an odd expression because the qualifying adjective "good" implies that the opposite might exist: that is, someone might have "bad quickness," quickness that might imply evildoing or wrongdoing. To my mind, quickness in any athlete is a good thing all round. Now you hear "great quickness" as well; apparently this is quickness that has over-achieved.
Although not unique to sportscasters, another sports cliche is the segue, which some talking heads use to distraction, such as Kraig Kinn on The Golf Channel. Mr. Kinn can't put three sentences together without a segue between two of them. It's like an addiction: he can't help himself. But he's not alone in this affliction and, to be fair, I'm sure most Broadcasting 101 courses teach the segue as a valid tool. (And speaking of this, "101" has become a cliche as well.)
Another concept, similar to the segue, that has become a cliche is stating the obvious, which you hear all the time during pre-game shows. The most common example of stating the obvious comes in response to a question about what a team needs to do to win: "They have to put lots of points on the board and keep the other team out of the end zone." Really? You're being paid a great deal of money to be on the pre-game show: this is the best you can do? Perhaps you should pick up the phone and let the coach know this gem.
A term you'll commonly hear from golf commentators is "putting on a clinic," as in "He's certainly giving us all a putting clinic today." But it's not limited to golf: certainly the Sixer's Dr. J put on clinics all the time.
When describing some trend in an athlete's recent performance or reputation, "of late" (a favorite of The Golf Channel's Kelly Tilghman, along with "much maligned") is regularly used, as in "He's been driving the ball well of late" or "Her game has been resurgent of late." (And why do you hear "resurgent" far more than "coming back," "revived," or "rejuvenated?" Hmmm...)
Along with the $2-word resurgent, "adversity" is another cliche you hear regularly. Athletes love to talk about "facing adversity" or "handling adversity." It would appear the words "misfortune" and "difficulty" are insufficient, as if something bad, wrong, difficult, unfortunate, or challenging can only be "adverse."
"Dig deep" is used often as well: it indicates an athlete's need to call on inner resources of speed or strength or willpower.
"At the end of the day" has become so common that you'll hear both interviewers and interviewees saying it a couple of times in a single interview. "When all is said and done" is a typical alternative. But at the end of the day they're both cliches.
You can also get combinations of cliches, as in...
- "He's stepped up his game of late,"
- "At the end of the day she stepped up and dug deep in facing adversity."
- "Her performance has been much maligned of late,"
- "Hey, I mean we faced adversity and stepped up our game."
- "I decided hey, I'll put on a clinic with my running game.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Tiger's Top 10 List
In another of my blog posts is a list of things I'll never say; one of these things should be, "Well now that you've asked me what I think Tiger should do to fix his career, here goes." But let's just assume for a moment that I have been asked the question and that I provide my answer in the form of...
The Top 10 Things Tiger Needs to Do
The Top 10 Things Tiger Needs to Do
- Acknowledge your family publicly: if you're serious about improving your marriage and fixing what you broke, start with the occasional mention of your wife. Phil won for Amy and his mom and said so unabashedly; maybe you could dedicate a tournament to someone...?
- Improve your on-course interactions with the fans: enough of the "I'm at work" thing; reaching out and signing autographs will help you.
- Develop a better attitude toward golf-related questions: sure, many questions are stupid, but it's their job to ask them and part of your job to answer them.
- Show a little more humanity: stop acting like a robot and start acting like a person.
- Pitch fits after bad shots or don't pitch fits: pick one way; don't say you're not going to do something then do it anyway, and then get pissy when someone calls you on it.
- Play more during the year: you came in fourth by just practicing; how good would you be by actually playing? Duh.
- Smile more: really... would it kill you?
- Realize that cockiness is not endearing: it's what got you into trouble in the first place!
- Lose the sunglasses: this one speaks for itself.
- Seek better advice: if the release of the Nike commercial is exemplary of the advice you receive, you need new advisers now.
Tiger in 2010
Now that Tiger is back playing golf, now that most of the questions have been asked and answered, and now that his first tournament is done, I'd like to suggest that he's on the verge of playing some of the best golf of his life.
Ask yourself.. How good is he really if he can take almost 5 months off from competition and come in fourth on what is arguably one of the most difficult golf courses (and demanding tournaments) in the world with one of the deepest fields in the world? How close did he really come yesterday? How well could he do for the remainder of the year with more playing time?
But... the challenge for him in all this will be playing time. He might just target the majors in 2010; therefore, the layoffs between each tournament will not necessarily be as good for him as playing might be.
Either way, though, if you appreciate golf, this could be an exciting year. And with Anthony Kim finally playing to his potential, with Lee Westwood playing better than ever, and with Lefty back on track and pushing hard, it could be even better than that.
Ask yourself.. How good is he really if he can take almost 5 months off from competition and come in fourth on what is arguably one of the most difficult golf courses (and demanding tournaments) in the world with one of the deepest fields in the world? How close did he really come yesterday? How well could he do for the remainder of the year with more playing time?
But... the challenge for him in all this will be playing time. He might just target the majors in 2010; therefore, the layoffs between each tournament will not necessarily be as good for him as playing might be.
Either way, though, if you appreciate golf, this could be an exciting year. And with Anthony Kim finally playing to his potential, with Lee Westwood playing better than ever, and with Lefty back on track and pushing hard, it could be even better than that.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Way to go Lefty!
Phil finally had the chance to finish The Masters going away instead of sweating a playoff or his last putt.
The impossible shot he hit between the trees on 13 to pin-high, 3-feet right, was simply astounding and, to me, the shot of the round (and perhaps his tournament). That he would even consider such a shot is why he's Phil the Thrill, and sure, had he missed it, the "experts" would be all over him still.
But he didn't miss it, and everyone who saw it had to ensure their dropped jaws were still attached.
What a great round of golf! Way to go Lefty!
The impossible shot he hit between the trees on 13 to pin-high, 3-feet right, was simply astounding and, to me, the shot of the round (and perhaps his tournament). That he would even consider such a shot is why he's Phil the Thrill, and sure, had he missed it, the "experts" would be all over him still.
But he didn't miss it, and everyone who saw it had to ensure their dropped jaws were still attached.
What a great round of golf! Way to go Lefty!
A beautiful sight...
As a long-time 49er fan who had to suffer through several defeats at Texas Stadium in Irving, this is a beautiful sight.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Mr. Segue...
Someone at the Golf Channel needs to tell Kraig Kann he doesn't have to make everything that happens or that someone says into a damn segue. It's really annoying.
Kraig, buddy, kut it out, for krying out loud.
"And loud is what the crowds at the Masters were as Saturday once again proved to be 'moving day'."
"Now we'll be moving back to Augusta where Rich Lerner is standing by with Tiger Woods, who spent much of the day hitting from the woods..."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!
Kraig, buddy, kut it out, for krying out loud.
"And loud is what the crowds at the Masters were as Saturday once again proved to be 'moving day'."
"Now we'll be moving back to Augusta where Rich Lerner is standing by with Tiger Woods, who spent much of the day hitting from the woods..."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!
Friday, April 9, 2010
Please run in 2012...
Dear Ms. Palin,
Please run for President of the United States in 2012. Please fight hard for the nomination; you won't be sorry. You'll be able to do so much good.
Think of it.
If you're nominated as a Republican, you'll lose, but you'll badly splinter the Republican Party, which will put it back decades -- the same party you threw under your book tour bus after the 2008 McCain campaign -- and you'll ensure the Tea Party becomes the new conservative standard bearer that completely alienates everyone but pissed-off white people, which will consequently put the Tea Party -- and pissed-off white people-- back decades and cause all to become a laughing stock, a punch line, perhaps the entire joke itself.
Alternatively, if you're nominated as a Tea Partier, again you'll lose, and you'll dilute the conservative/Republican vote -- as Nader did to the Dems in 2000 -- which will put the Republican Party and the Tea Party back decades and ensure the Tea Party becomes a laughing stock, a punch line, perhaps the entire joke itself.
But no worries: either way you can then simply jump on your tour bus again and bail out on the Tea Party -- just as you did with the Republicans and Alaska in 2009 -- and distance yourself from them by explaining what really happened during your campaign, just as you did in 2009. After all, who knows better than you that you're your own party?
So you see, Ms. Palin, even when you do lose -- and you will lose either way -- you'll really just be gaining everything that's truly important to you: the celebrity you crave more than air and all the wealth you and your family will ever need. And isn't this the American dream you keep talking about? You'll be able to retire comfortably out in the middle of nowhere; heck, you can even invite Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck over for weekly free-range loon-fests and have someone ghost-write your quasi-factual memoir: maybe Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or... gulp... Liz Cheney.
And all the while, the nation you claim to serve so well will just continue to tear itself to pieces thanks to so many of your followers learning much from your special brand of near-blind narrow-mindedness, epic stupidity, bigoted devisiveness, and gob-smacking hate speech.
You can't lose, and we all love a can't-loser... er... winner, right. And God rest his soul, wouldn't Ronald Reagan just be so proud... mmmmmm.
So please, Ms. Palin, run for President of the United States in 2012. Please. Even though practically everyone else will be sorry as a result, you won't be and that's what really matters.
Kindest regards,
Mike
Please run for President of the United States in 2012. Please fight hard for the nomination; you won't be sorry. You'll be able to do so much good.
Think of it.
If you're nominated as a Republican, you'll lose, but you'll badly splinter the Republican Party, which will put it back decades -- the same party you threw under your book tour bus after the 2008 McCain campaign -- and you'll ensure the Tea Party becomes the new conservative standard bearer that completely alienates everyone but pissed-off white people, which will consequently put the Tea Party -- and pissed-off white people-- back decades and cause all to become a laughing stock, a punch line, perhaps the entire joke itself.
Alternatively, if you're nominated as a Tea Partier, again you'll lose, and you'll dilute the conservative/Republican vote -- as Nader did to the Dems in 2000 -- which will put the Republican Party and the Tea Party back decades and ensure the Tea Party becomes a laughing stock, a punch line, perhaps the entire joke itself.
But no worries: either way you can then simply jump on your tour bus again and bail out on the Tea Party -- just as you did with the Republicans and Alaska in 2009 -- and distance yourself from them by explaining what really happened during your campaign, just as you did in 2009. After all, who knows better than you that you're your own party?
So you see, Ms. Palin, even when you do lose -- and you will lose either way -- you'll really just be gaining everything that's truly important to you: the celebrity you crave more than air and all the wealth you and your family will ever need. And isn't this the American dream you keep talking about? You'll be able to retire comfortably out in the middle of nowhere; heck, you can even invite Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck over for weekly free-range loon-fests and have someone ghost-write your quasi-factual memoir: maybe Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or... gulp... Liz Cheney.
And all the while, the nation you claim to serve so well will just continue to tear itself to pieces thanks to so many of your followers learning much from your special brand of near-blind narrow-mindedness, epic stupidity, bigoted devisiveness, and gob-smacking hate speech.
You can't lose, and we all love a can't-loser... er... winner, right. And God rest his soul, wouldn't Ronald Reagan just be so proud... mmmmmm.
So please, Ms. Palin, run for President of the United States in 2012. Please. Even though practically everyone else will be sorry as a result, you won't be and that's what really matters.
Kindest regards,
Mike
Through their teeth...
If anyone out there still requires additional proof that the far right is working against the current administration and its policy choices for no other purpose than to be against it, to thwart its efforts, here is additional evidence courtesy of The Daily Show.
We live in an age of instant communication, of digital video, of easy archiving of virtually any event, of easy retrieval of recorded material on any topic; however, it would appear either that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Hannity are unaware of these capabilities or they just don't care about being caught in a lie because they know their viewers (A) will believe them automatically and (B) don't watch Jon Stewart.
It's the sad reality of this latter notion that allows them (and others who appear on Fox News) to lie and spin with impunity, which points to the heart of the problem: effectively distributing bad information is only possible when the people who receive this bad information choose to view it, accept it as truth, and remain misinformed by it as a result. And how could anyone expect a different result but to remain misinformed?
Ironically, and even Mr. Stewart would admit this, the Comedy Central program The Daily Show offers what they call "fake news," but the BS being foisted daily by the right-wing cable news shows remains the most laughable "fake news."
Of course it can be said that the Democrats (and perhaps progressives as well) have their own cable news voices on MSNBC (Countdown, et al.), but I would argue that what these shows offer is copiously fact-checked, and if someone on MSNBC speaks incorrectly about something, they will take their lumps and apologize because they realize the truth matters. After all, when is the last time you heard Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly or Kelly or Doocy apologize for getting something wrong?
David Frum got it exactly right: the Republicans work for Fox News, its primary propaganda tool.
Sadly, this is no laughing matter.
We live in an age of instant communication, of digital video, of easy archiving of virtually any event, of easy retrieval of recorded material on any topic; however, it would appear either that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Hannity are unaware of these capabilities or they just don't care about being caught in a lie because they know their viewers (A) will believe them automatically and (B) don't watch Jon Stewart.
It's the sad reality of this latter notion that allows them (and others who appear on Fox News) to lie and spin with impunity, which points to the heart of the problem: effectively distributing bad information is only possible when the people who receive this bad information choose to view it, accept it as truth, and remain misinformed by it as a result. And how could anyone expect a different result but to remain misinformed?
Ironically, and even Mr. Stewart would admit this, the Comedy Central program The Daily Show offers what they call "fake news," but the BS being foisted daily by the right-wing cable news shows remains the most laughable "fake news."
Of course it can be said that the Democrats (and perhaps progressives as well) have their own cable news voices on MSNBC (Countdown, et al.), but I would argue that what these shows offer is copiously fact-checked, and if someone on MSNBC speaks incorrectly about something, they will take their lumps and apologize because they realize the truth matters. After all, when is the last time you heard Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly or Kelly or Doocy apologize for getting something wrong?
David Frum got it exactly right: the Republicans work for Fox News, its primary propaganda tool.
Sadly, this is no laughing matter.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Ah... ah... ah... ah...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH!
Even though I was on the record about this possibility back in November of last year, never before have I wanted to be as wrong about anything as I want to be wrong now.
Even though I was on the record about this possibility back in November of last year, never before have I wanted to be as wrong about anything as I want to be wrong now.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
California's governor seat is up for auction...
It would appear that Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, has decided to click By It Now instead of taking any chances in her bid for the Republican nomination to run for the California governor's seat (according to the AP). She recently loaned her campaign $20 million after loaning it another $39 million a few days ago (total: $59 Million).
She's spent around $45 million to date and claims she's willing to spend up to $150 million in her effort. Her Republican challenger for the nomination is no slouch either: he's loaned himself $19 million.
That's right. I said "nomination." This is only the campaign for the Republican nomination! One of them would still have to run an actual campaign post-nomination and spend even more cash.
What message does this send to the folks in California who are struggling financially and have lost jobs?
Can anyone take Whitman's claims of fiscal conservatism seriously?
How does this affect the argument that chief executives are paid way too much?
Politics has become a game played by the richest among us who claim to represent and understand the plights of people with whom they would never even share a meal under normal circumstances.
And if she'll spend this much to get the job, what will she spend to keep it... and... who's money will she be spending then?
She's spent around $45 million to date and claims she's willing to spend up to $150 million in her effort. Her Republican challenger for the nomination is no slouch either: he's loaned himself $19 million.
That's right. I said "nomination." This is only the campaign for the Republican nomination! One of them would still have to run an actual campaign post-nomination and spend even more cash.
What message does this send to the folks in California who are struggling financially and have lost jobs?
Can anyone take Whitman's claims of fiscal conservatism seriously?
How does this affect the argument that chief executives are paid way too much?
Politics has become a game played by the richest among us who claim to represent and understand the plights of people with whom they would never even share a meal under normal circumstances.
And if she'll spend this much to get the job, what will she spend to keep it... and... who's money will she be spending then?
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Vatican priest calls abuse uproar anti-Semitism?
According to this NPR article, the pope's personal preacher calls the push-back against the church over the most recent abuse scandal akin to anti-Semitism.
Really?
His argument breaks down completely in at least three ways:
The pope and the Catholic Church's not-so "gentlemen" need to own what happened and what they did (and what might still be happening), fix it by firing all the douchebags, do away with the out-dated joke of celibacy* by allowing married priests, and just shut up about anything else having to do with this issue.
They have no defense other than to admit their wrong doing and own it.
* Celibacy has never worked and continuing to try to make it work and expecting it to work is just insane, by definition.
Really?
His argument breaks down completely in at least three ways:
- The Catholic clergy who committed abuses are not the victims here; they created victims!
- The Jews are victims of anti-Semitism: they didn't do anything to receive the scorn they receive(d) from anti-Semites and the outright hatred that led to the holocaust.
- The "collective violence" that this misguided preacher suggests is coming at the church is actually "collective violence" that was directed at innocent children who trusted the representatives of that very church.
The pope and the Catholic Church's not-so "gentlemen" need to own what happened and what they did (and what might still be happening), fix it by firing all the douchebags, do away with the out-dated joke of celibacy* by allowing married priests, and just shut up about anything else having to do with this issue.
They have no defense other than to admit their wrong doing and own it.
* Celibacy has never worked and continuing to try to make it work and expecting it to work is just insane, by definition.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Here's your proof, if you still needed proof...
If anyone out there still does not think the Republican't agenda is simply to thwart the Obama Administration at every turn, to counter everything President Obama says or does, read this article at Politico.com for proof positive.
Ms. Palin just can't decide what she wants (to be a governor, not to be a governor, to be a TV star, to be a Twitterer or just a twit), but she seems to figure it out whenever a Democrat, or especially Mr. Obama, wants the same thing she does.
Call this reverse pandering, I guess.
Next we'll hear Senator McCain, Ms. Palin's new show dog, come out against what he's been for for years: offshore drilling.
Mr. Obama can't win on this one: the far left is really pissed about it, but it's the automatic opposition from the Republican'ts that makes this latest bit of Can'tism so interesting and funny. That they don't see how shallow their one-act play is also makes for a good laugh.
President Obama: "I have decided to open up several western national parks to coal mining."
Sarah Palin: "Don't fall for this America! He's just trying to appease his base. No... wait... I mean... um... my base... I mean... err... hmmm."
Sheesh.
Ms. Palin just can't decide what she wants (to be a governor, not to be a governor, to be a TV star, to be a Twitterer or just a twit), but she seems to figure it out whenever a Democrat, or especially Mr. Obama, wants the same thing she does.
Call this reverse pandering, I guess.
Next we'll hear Senator McCain, Ms. Palin's new show dog, come out against what he's been for for years: offshore drilling.
Mr. Obama can't win on this one: the far left is really pissed about it, but it's the automatic opposition from the Republican'ts that makes this latest bit of Can'tism so interesting and funny. That they don't see how shallow their one-act play is also makes for a good laugh.
President Obama: "I have decided to open up several western national parks to coal mining."
Sarah Palin: "Don't fall for this America! He's just trying to appease his base. No... wait... I mean... um... my base... I mean... err... hmmm."
Sheesh.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!
Ok, read this and then repeat after me... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!
These people are not kidding.
These people are allowed to vote.
Hell, these people have the capacity (and let's be fair, the right) to reproduce.
I guess the dark ages are making a comeback.
I'll say it again... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!
These people are not kidding.
These people are allowed to vote.
Hell, these people have the capacity (and let's be fair, the right) to reproduce.
I guess the dark ages are making a comeback.
I'll say it again... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Who is entitled to what?
This is about Tiger Woods; stop now if you couldn't care less.
Tiger keeps talking about how he felt entitled, how his fame and power led him to feel as if he deserved to act the way he did. He claims he is in the process of learning his lesson, and I believe he deserves a chance to prove that he is learning it.
But there is a new sense of entitlement being demonstrated by members of the mainstream media and the sports press who are pissed that they're not being granted these interviews. These folks believe they're somehow... gulp... entitled to (A) receive an interview, and, more importantly, (2) know the details of what Tiger Woods insists on telling them are personal details that are between him and his wife.
But no one, not one person, has made anywhere close to a compelling argument as to why they or anyone deserve, are entitled, to know personal, private details.
In other words, all these media "experts" want is "the scoop." This is what is at the heart of this whole thing: who gets the story. This is what our fast-food-media culture feeds on: the titillation factor, dishing the dirt, spilling the beans, knowing the inside story, getting the gritty gory details.
So, then, who is really entitled to what, here?
That's easy. Tiger is entitled to keep private details private, and no one outside him, his wife, and eventually his children, is entitled to this information. Get up off the guy and move on.
As a test, all anyone has to do is ask, "What would I do if I were in this situation? Would I want to share probably embarrassing and possibly humiliating aspects or would I want to keep these aspects private? Would anyone else be entitled to know those details?"
We all know how we'd answer, and we all would be perfectly entitled to feel this way.
Tiger keeps talking about how he felt entitled, how his fame and power led him to feel as if he deserved to act the way he did. He claims he is in the process of learning his lesson, and I believe he deserves a chance to prove that he is learning it.
But there is a new sense of entitlement being demonstrated by members of the mainstream media and the sports press who are pissed that they're not being granted these interviews. These folks believe they're somehow... gulp... entitled to (A) receive an interview, and, more importantly, (2) know the details of what Tiger Woods insists on telling them are personal details that are between him and his wife.
But no one, not one person, has made anywhere close to a compelling argument as to why they or anyone deserve, are entitled, to know personal, private details.
In other words, all these media "experts" want is "the scoop." This is what is at the heart of this whole thing: who gets the story. This is what our fast-food-media culture feeds on: the titillation factor, dishing the dirt, spilling the beans, knowing the inside story, getting the gritty gory details.
So, then, who is really entitled to what, here?
That's easy. Tiger is entitled to keep private details private, and no one outside him, his wife, and eventually his children, is entitled to this information. Get up off the guy and move on.
As a test, all anyone has to do is ask, "What would I do if I were in this situation? Would I want to share probably embarrassing and possibly humiliating aspects or would I want to keep these aspects private? Would anyone else be entitled to know those details?"
We all know how we'd answer, and we all would be perfectly entitled to feel this way.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Richard A. Short...
Now here is the very definition of career criminal and irony: Mr. Richard A. Short.
If jerks like this guy would only apply half the energy and creativity they expend being douche bags on doing something good, wow, what a world. But instead, they insist on being douche bags.
Maybe they're just compensating for something.
Hmmm... do you think?
"Sir, yes sir! A. Short, Dick reporting for prison, sir!"
Yup... definitely compensating.
If jerks like this guy would only apply half the energy and creativity they expend being douche bags on doing something good, wow, what a world. But instead, they insist on being douche bags.
Maybe they're just compensating for something.
Hmmm... do you think?
"Sir, yes sir! A. Short, Dick reporting for prison, sir!"
Yup... definitely compensating.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Things I'll never say...
I know, never say "never," but I'm pretty sure these things I'll never say are a lock...
- "Honey! Meryl Streep's on the phone!"
- "I'm going to skip the Master's this year and play the tournament in Portugal."
- "I can completely understand why you'd want a tarantula for a pet."
- "Welcome to the first day of class. You all get an A+, now please leave."
- "Let's see, 260 uphill to the hole and a one-club headwind: hand me my 3-iron."
- "Off with their heads!"
- "Honey? Please pass the blood pudding."
- "I can see my house from the 18th at Spyglass."
- "I spent this morning rigging an anti-matter converter. We might have a chance after all."
- "Release the Kraken!"
- "My last gig at The Beacon Theater was a good one."
- "Objection, your honor! Move to strike as non-responsive!"
- "Gosh... those Cheneys sure are a bunch of kidders."
- "I wish the NBA season could be longer."
- "Do you have any recordings of people singing scat?"
- "Do you have any recordings of Yoko Ono singing scat?"
- "Good evening Tokyo! We love you!"
- "Not tonight. I have a headache."
- "See that mountain? I'm going to climb it."
- "Wait a minute! Glenn Beck just might be on to something here."
- "I can't talk now. My pet lion just mauled its trainer."
- "Man oh man, do I love long bass solos."
- "When not bound to an atom, an electron's energy is no longer quantized, but like any other massive particle it displays a Compton Wavelength! Jeez, are you stupid. or what?"
- "Menudo or sweetbreads... menudo or sweetbreads... I just can't decide."
- "Vex me not or know my wrath."
- "Gee, I wonder what's on 'Survivor' tonight?"
- "Buy 100,000 shares of BP!"
- Anything that ends with "stat!"
- "I can't stay out too late. I have an early meeting at the White House."
- "To maintain forever the God-given supremacy of the white race."
- Anything that begins or ends with "People of Earth..." or "Boy!"
- "I wonder if Rosetta Stone has a Na'vi feature."
- Anything that ends with "...goes great with anchovies" or "...goes fabulously in this space."
- "Could we do another take of that scene? I know I can nail it."
- "This haggis is so much better cold."
- "I'm a bit uncertain about that Heisenberg fellow."
- "I simply haven't got a thing to wear."
- "Mr. Speaker! The President of the United States!"
- "This new Yanni album is the bomb!"
- "Wow... my Grammy sure is heavier than my Emmy."
- "Did you hear that?!? You take the pistol and wait here. I'll go into the basement to see what it was."
- "Please put my tennis sweater in the Bugatti."
- Anything that begins with "Bring me the head of..." or ends with "...my new BFF."
- "Yes, I promise not to re-gift the Beyonce CD."
- "You're fired."
- "I sure wish I lived in Minnesota so I could vote for Michelle Bachmann."
- "I sure wish I lived in Wisconsin so I could vote for Governor Walker."
- "I think Amy Winehouse is a genius."
- "George W. Bush really was a better president than people thought."
- "The supreme court got Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission exactly right."
- "Let's see... No. 13 at Augusta National... hmmm... oh yeah, that was driver, 8 iron."
- "Kate Beckinsale should never wear black leather body suits. Not ever! Yuck!"
- "Quick! Hand me my elephant gun!"
- "Wow, this crystal meth sure is tasty!"
- "A white belt is an acceptable accessory."
- "I just love the view from the Moon."
- "I wish Stephen King could write longer books."
- "Damn! I knew I shouldn't have ordered dinner in Klingon!"
- "That will be all, you're dismissed."
- "Two tickets to the UFC match, please."
- "Of course you're happy being a Scientologist. Who wouldn't be?"
- "First, I have to thank the academy."
- "I really do respect how kind and thoughtful Ms. Coulter has been on this matter."
- "Honey! Did you see my platinum Tag Heuer?"
- "I wouldn't have handed you the damn 5-iron if I didn't think you could get there, Tiger!"
- "What do mean Meryl Streep's on the phone?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
