A lot of people are up in arms about Rush Limbaugh’s failed attempt to acquire an ownership interest in the St. Louis Rams of t he National Football League. Liberals are happy because Limbaugh was denied another toy and because it appeared that his chickens were finally coming home to roost. Conservatives are appalled because in this snub they see a man being denied his free speech rights and the blame the PC/Liberal Industrial Complex and issue dire warnings about how “first they came for the conservatives” and that all our civil rights are at risk. Not only are conservatives making this argument, but sportswriters and commentators without any really visible political ideology are saying the same thing. They say stuff like “In America, a man should be able to buy a team if he can afford it,” and “you have players like Mike Vick and Leonard Little commit heinous crimes and they’re in the league, but Rush Limbaugh is being given the bum’s rush.”
Well, I hope you will excuse me for not shedding a tear for the trampling of Rush Limbaugh. First of all, I think it bears a mention that the Constitution of the United States only guarantees that the State shall enact no law prohibiting freedom of speech. The Constitution does NOT mention the National Football League. You can look it up, but tale my word for it. I just double-checked and it doesn’t say anything about football or even, really, sports. All it says is that the “State” can’t abridge Rush’s freedom of speech. I am hard pressed to see where the NFL equals the “state.” Yes, I know that the NFL (through its franchises) gets plenty of public support through publicly-built stadiums, tax breaks and all sorts of other methods. But at no point did the Congress, the Supreme Court, the President or any legislative or political body tell Limbaugh he couldn’t own a piece of the team. My conservative friends like to argue that government shouldn’t meddle in private business enterprises and it certainly appears that is what happened here.
And while it is certainly possible, indeed likely, that the NFL did some behind-the-scenes wrangling to have Limbaugh removed, it should be noted that Limbaugh was kicked out of the ownership group that had hoped to buy the team, NOT, at least technically speaking, by the NFL. Dave Checketts, the would-be managing general partner of the ownership group (Checketts would be referred to as the “owner” of the team) is the one who took Limbaugh out of the ownership group. Again, I am not so naïve as to think that Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL didn’t have some role in all of this. It could have been a subtle hint to Checketts that the league sure would look on Checketts’ bid more favorably if it didn’t have such a polarizing figure in it and it could have even been more blatant. But the fact is, if Limbaugh is looking for the “person who did this to him,” he needs to start with Checketts and quit blaming liberals and the “drive-by” media.
The weird thing about all of this is that the Republican Party has always billed itself as the party of personal responsibility. They don’t want to hear excuses from people who might be served by affirmative action; their problems are theirs to deal with and they should just quit whining and deal with them. But now that Rush has to sleep in the bed he’s spent a generation making, the Right is unifying to blame anyone they can find except Rush himself.
Look, the NFL is a business. And it’s a business owned, largely, by conservatives. Rush Limbaugh is, in many cases, one of them. A rich white dude who wants lower taxes, smaller government and to be King of All He Surveys. Which is certainly his right. But if THOSE GUYS are trying to keep Rush out, how in the world is it the fault of liberals? Please explain that to me. Is it the fault of liberals because they can’t stand to have Rush speak his mind, as I have heard posited by some conservatives? They just want to shut him up, is that it? But all the “liberals” are doing is exercising THEIR OWN rights to free speech. Players have said that they would never sign with a team owned by Limbaugh. Isn’t that their right? Not only to refuse to sign with a team owned by Limbaugh but to also state that publicly? So what we have is Limbaugh, using MY AIRWAVES (please remember, in the United State, airwaves are public property and are only licensed to broadcasters, not sold) to spout his rhetoric, but as soon as players start giving their opinions about the man as a prospective owner, he is being shouted down by a bunch of angry liberals? Is the Right really saying that Rush has the right to say everything he has ever said but that as soon as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson start weighing in with their own opinions, it somehow becomes a First Amendment issue?
And make no mistake, Limbaugh is a polarizing figure. I won’t bother reciting any of the litany of his racially/homophobically/misogynistically-tinged comments here. There are better sources for all of that (I recommend Media Matters). But let’s agree, shall we, that Limbaugh has said and done a lot of things people find bigoted, sexist or otherwise offensive. And it doesn’t matter if Limbaugh actually said any of the things in question. It doesn’t matter if in his heart of hearts he is the biggest racist on the face of the planet or if his heart is secretly a United Colors of Benetton ad made flesh. The fact is that people BELIEVE he is a racist and all the other things. If people harbor hat belief about Limbaugh, why on Earth would the NFL agree to let him be a public face of their organization? It would make no sense for them to allow that. For that reason, I think that the decision to keep Limbaugh out is a strictly business-based one. Clearly, right or wrong, the NFL has made a judgment that Michael Vick, even with his convictions stemming from his dog fighting ring, is good for business and someone made an equally cold-blooded calculation that Limbaugh is bad for it. How is this even arguable?
And now I want to get to the nut of all of this talk of free speech and how it’s being denied to Limbaugh. Never mind what I said earlier about how the only restraints made on Limbaugh’s right to speak his mind were placed on him by Dave Checketts and/or the NFL. Because it’s clear that what Limbaugh and al his supporters on the right want isn’t “free speech.” They want “consequence-free free speech.” They want Limbaugh to be able to say whatever he wants, no matter how offensive, and not have anyone take umbrage. I’m a huge civil libertarian and while I am the first one to admit that the Constitution doesn’t give me the right to not be offended, I actually DO have the right to be offended and to state what it is that offends me and what I will do if the offensive behavior continues. The right wing and guys like Bill O’Reilly have made great use of the boycott of people who say/do/sponsor that which they find objectionable and I’d like someone to explain to me the difference between THEM doing it and a player in the NFL doing it. And that’s all this is, really, is people threatening to boycott a business if they offer to “employ” someone they deem offensive. No one has told the NFL that they can’t let Limbaugh buy the team but they have said that if Limbaugh buys the team, I won’t play for him (in the case of players) or I will not subsidize them (in the case of people who buy tickets).
This is right-wing hypocrisy at its most blatant. They cannot bear to think that Limbaugh should actually be held responsible for the things he has said. They don’t think that I should have the right to protest to Roger Goodell or Dave Checketts. They believe that Rush has the right to say what is on his mind and that anyone who dares to reject his thinking and who will vote with his wallet is merely another angry liberal who only wants to shout down another Conservative voice.
If I shed a tear for Limbaugh because of his self-made situation, you can bet that I stole it from a crocodile.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Lazy Stalker Relies on Pop Songs to Induce Terror, Love
Overland Park, KS - Mark Sanders is a stalker and a music buff. He is also lazy. So when he recently re-heard comments from one of musical idols about the true meaning of one of his most popular songs, Sanders thought it was only a natural move to begin using carefully written but creepy pop songs as a substitute for the carefully written but creepy letters he sends Sarah McIntyre, the current object of his sick and misguided affection.
“It occurred to me a few weeks ago when I was watching VH-1 and they showed an old interview with Sting about the song ‘Every Breath You Take,’ and he said it a ‘It sounds like a comforting love song. I didn't realize at the time how sinister it is. I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance and control.’ I also thought I remembered him saying something once about that song being a “nasty” song about possession and I figured hey, why reinvent the wheel? There are so many pop songs out there that sound so dark and sinister when viewed in the correct light that I just knew that if I used them correctly, I could make Sarah see that we are meant to be together forever, not only in this life but beyond the grave.”
While McIntyre disputes that Sanders “was made for lovin’ [him], baby” and “that [she] was made for lovin’ [him]” as Sanders declared when he copied selected lyrics from the 1970s Kiss song “I Was Made for Lovin’ You” from the album “Dynasty” before carefully cutting the individual words from a magazine and pasting them onto a clean and fingerprint-free sheet of paper that he later mailed to McIntyre, she does agree that these letters from Sanders terrorize her although they fail in their intended purpose of forcing McIntyre to realize Sanders is the love of her life.
“I briefly dated (Sanders) back when I’d just gotten out of college and I probably should have realized something was up when he made a point of playing “No Reply” by The Beatles. He seemed really intent on making me listen to the part where John Lennon said “I tried to telephone, they said you were not home, that’s a lie. ‘Cause I know where you’ve been, I saw you walk in your door. I nearly died, I nearly died, ‘Cause you walked hand in hand, with another man in my place,’ That was my brother, by the way. And then his voice got very low and ominous when he sang along and said ‘if I were you, I’d realize that I love you more than any other guy.’ That was the last night I ever voluntarily saw him again.”
For a period of time after the “No Reply” incident McIntyre was regularly confronted by what she calls “run of the mill, stalking-type behavior,” such as finding Sanders lurking in her bushes after dark, once arriving at home to find Sanders lying nude on her couch while reading her Valu-Mail coupon books and even finding her cat alive but hanging from the ceiling with his paws tied with string. But McIntyre believed that the restraining order obtained against Sanders and her recent spate of self-defense classes would be enough to keep her safe. However, Sanders’ recent decision to begin sending the words to pop songs has taken McIntyre to newfound depths of terror.
“I know how silly it must seem, being more afraid of a stalker that would send liner notes than one that would torture a cat like Muffintop, but given all his past behavior, how would you feel if you got a note in the mail that said ‘It’s just a matter of time before you make up your mind to give up that love that you’ve been hiding. It’s just a question of when, I’ve told you time and again, I’ll get all that love you’ve been denying?’” McIntyre recently said, quoting the song “Sooner or Later” by the group The Grass Roots while barely suppressing a shudder.
Sanders agrees that his entire purpose is to scare McIntyre into the realization that she won’t be able to live without him. “If I’m not in her life, I want her to realize that her life has no value,” Sanders said recently. “It’s a lot like Harry Nilsson said: ‘I can’t live, if living is without you,’ except totally in reverse. She can’t live if living is without me. I can’t allow that to happen because she is so special.”
While McIntyre doesn’t feel any closer to Sanders as a result of his new efforts, she admits that they seem to be having at least some of the desired effects. “While I will never agree to be in the same room as Mark, I think of him even more often than I used to. I can’t turn on the radio anymore because every song seems to be something he could use to threaten me. Last week I heard Sweet singing that ‘love is like oxygen, you get too much you get too high, not enough and you’re gonna die,’ and that totally sounded like a threat Mark might make to me,” she said
Upon hearing that his new efforts to woo McIntyre seem to be having some results, Sanders vowed to continue and even redouble his efforts. “Just last week I was getting discouraged,” he admitted. “I called her on the telephone and played her some Pet Shop Boys where they say ‘I bought you drinks, I bought you flowers, I read you books and talked for hours and every day so many drinks such pretty flowers so tell me what have I done to deserve this?’ and she just hung up on me. I have to admit, I thought that maybe she had stopped playing hard to get and that she really didn’t love me anymore. But knowing that this is making her think of me even more? Well, let’s just say I’ve got a few things I’m going to be working on. For example, have you ever listened to the sing “How Deep is Your Love” by the Bee Gees? That song is a treasure trove of pretty lyrics that can be twisted into words that force you to stop denying your love. From ‘I know your eyes in the morning sun’ when I have never seen her wake up without the aid of powerful binoculars to ‘’Cause we’re living in a world of fools, breaking us down when they all should let us be. We belong to you and me,’ and all the way to ‘And you may not think I care for you when you know down inside that I really do and it’s ME you need to show.’” Well, let’s just say that as long as there is Top-Forty radio, I will never have to worry about finding material to make Sarah realize that I am in her life forever.
“It occurred to me a few weeks ago when I was watching VH-1 and they showed an old interview with Sting about the song ‘Every Breath You Take,’ and he said it a ‘It sounds like a comforting love song. I didn't realize at the time how sinister it is. I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance and control.’ I also thought I remembered him saying something once about that song being a “nasty” song about possession and I figured hey, why reinvent the wheel? There are so many pop songs out there that sound so dark and sinister when viewed in the correct light that I just knew that if I used them correctly, I could make Sarah see that we are meant to be together forever, not only in this life but beyond the grave.”
While McIntyre disputes that Sanders “was made for lovin’ [him], baby” and “that [she] was made for lovin’ [him]” as Sanders declared when he copied selected lyrics from the 1970s Kiss song “I Was Made for Lovin’ You” from the album “Dynasty” before carefully cutting the individual words from a magazine and pasting them onto a clean and fingerprint-free sheet of paper that he later mailed to McIntyre, she does agree that these letters from Sanders terrorize her although they fail in their intended purpose of forcing McIntyre to realize Sanders is the love of her life.
“I briefly dated (Sanders) back when I’d just gotten out of college and I probably should have realized something was up when he made a point of playing “No Reply” by The Beatles. He seemed really intent on making me listen to the part where John Lennon said “I tried to telephone, they said you were not home, that’s a lie. ‘Cause I know where you’ve been, I saw you walk in your door. I nearly died, I nearly died, ‘Cause you walked hand in hand, with another man in my place,’ That was my brother, by the way. And then his voice got very low and ominous when he sang along and said ‘if I were you, I’d realize that I love you more than any other guy.’ That was the last night I ever voluntarily saw him again.”
For a period of time after the “No Reply” incident McIntyre was regularly confronted by what she calls “run of the mill, stalking-type behavior,” such as finding Sanders lurking in her bushes after dark, once arriving at home to find Sanders lying nude on her couch while reading her Valu-Mail coupon books and even finding her cat alive but hanging from the ceiling with his paws tied with string. But McIntyre believed that the restraining order obtained against Sanders and her recent spate of self-defense classes would be enough to keep her safe. However, Sanders’ recent decision to begin sending the words to pop songs has taken McIntyre to newfound depths of terror.
“I know how silly it must seem, being more afraid of a stalker that would send liner notes than one that would torture a cat like Muffintop, but given all his past behavior, how would you feel if you got a note in the mail that said ‘It’s just a matter of time before you make up your mind to give up that love that you’ve been hiding. It’s just a question of when, I’ve told you time and again, I’ll get all that love you’ve been denying?’” McIntyre recently said, quoting the song “Sooner or Later” by the group The Grass Roots while barely suppressing a shudder.
Sanders agrees that his entire purpose is to scare McIntyre into the realization that she won’t be able to live without him. “If I’m not in her life, I want her to realize that her life has no value,” Sanders said recently. “It’s a lot like Harry Nilsson said: ‘I can’t live, if living is without you,’ except totally in reverse. She can’t live if living is without me. I can’t allow that to happen because she is so special.”
While McIntyre doesn’t feel any closer to Sanders as a result of his new efforts, she admits that they seem to be having at least some of the desired effects. “While I will never agree to be in the same room as Mark, I think of him even more often than I used to. I can’t turn on the radio anymore because every song seems to be something he could use to threaten me. Last week I heard Sweet singing that ‘love is like oxygen, you get too much you get too high, not enough and you’re gonna die,’ and that totally sounded like a threat Mark might make to me,” she said
Upon hearing that his new efforts to woo McIntyre seem to be having some results, Sanders vowed to continue and even redouble his efforts. “Just last week I was getting discouraged,” he admitted. “I called her on the telephone and played her some Pet Shop Boys where they say ‘I bought you drinks, I bought you flowers, I read you books and talked for hours and every day so many drinks such pretty flowers so tell me what have I done to deserve this?’ and she just hung up on me. I have to admit, I thought that maybe she had stopped playing hard to get and that she really didn’t love me anymore. But knowing that this is making her think of me even more? Well, let’s just say I’ve got a few things I’m going to be working on. For example, have you ever listened to the sing “How Deep is Your Love” by the Bee Gees? That song is a treasure trove of pretty lyrics that can be twisted into words that force you to stop denying your love. From ‘I know your eyes in the morning sun’ when I have never seen her wake up without the aid of powerful binoculars to ‘’Cause we’re living in a world of fools, breaking us down when they all should let us be. We belong to you and me,’ and all the way to ‘And you may not think I care for you when you know down inside that I really do and it’s ME you need to show.’” Well, let’s just say that as long as there is Top-Forty radio, I will never have to worry about finding material to make Sarah realize that I am in her life forever.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A Few Thoughts on Christine Brennan and Erin Andrews
Christine Brennan is not making any sense. I have always liked her as a reporter. I think she is smart, funny and displays a very strong understanding of the subjects about which she reports. But her recent comments about Erin Andrews and the dirtbag who violated Andrews’ privacy make no sense.
For those who don’t know, Erin Andrews is a very pretty sports reporter for ESPN. She is also, in my opinion, very smart and appears to work hard. While she is very, VERY attractive, there is nothing about her work that makes me think she got that job solely because she is pretty. Anyway, someone, we don’t know who, appears to have taken some sort of peephole video of Andres while she was naked in her hotel room. If my understanding is correct, someone actually drilled a hole into her hotel room wall and used a very small camera to get this video.
I know. Very creepy. So there is an upside to me being so physically unattractive. I have to assume that no one will try anything like that on me. But I digress.
Anyway, this has been a huge media shitstorm for days now, complete with pathetic dudes going online looking for the video and enterprising computer hackers using the promise of the video as bait to get people to download a virus to their computer. Serves the lame searchers right if their computers get infected.
Add to this the opinions of Brennan, a widely-respected sports journalist, who, via Twitter, said about the Andrews imbroglio “Women sports journalists need to be smart and not play to the frat house. There are tons of nuts out there.” Candidly, I’m not even sure what that means, but I think it says that this is Andrews’ fault because Andrews is somehow “play[ing] to the frat house.” I’m not sure what Andrews has ever done to earn that sort of admonition. I don’t follow Andrews all that closely and I gave up Playboy and Maxim years ago (I think it was a combination of maturity and becoming the father of a little girl), but I don’t recall ever seeing Erin Andrews doing photo layouts for either of those magazines or any like them. In fact, other than being merely pretty, I can’t think of a single thing that Erin Andrews has ever done that would suggest she is in any way capitalizing on her sexuality or her physical attractiveness. Again, I could be wrong, but I simply don’t think that’s the case.
If I am right, I’d like Christine Brennan to explain how Andrews was ever “playing to the frat house.” It just makes no sense. It’s not Andrews fault that she is pretty, although I can’t think of anyone who would begrudge her the ability to maximize her physical beauty if that’s what she wanted to do. But since when is being pretty playing to the frat house? I happen to think Christine Brennan is also actually pretty but does that mean she is playing to the frat house? Is she playing to the “middle-aged dad house” (where I reside) or some other venue entirely?
Brennan tried to walk back those comments by saying that she uses that “frat house” line all the time in speeches and she wants all women to avoid that. OK, I’ll go with that. It’s probably a good practice for women everywhere to avoid playing into sexism. But, still, I have this niggling little feeling that Brennan wasn’t directing that commentary at all women. She was talking about Erin Andrews who, I must repeat, did nothing more than walk around naked in her own hotel room. That’s why I am having such a hard time getting over this “frat house” comment; there is no way (that I can see) to look at this and come away with any impression other than Brennan was admonishing Andrews and saying that Andrews played to the frat house and, ergo, bought this on herself.
Later on, in another tweet, Brennan said that we (by “we” I believe she meant women generally and probably female sports journalists specifically) “still need to be twice as good to get half the credit. So I want us to play to the 12-yr-old girl, not the frat house.” Again, I think Brennan was trying to explain her use of the frat house line without actually apologizing for it. But, again, this makes no sense. It appears that Brennan is still saying that Andrews somehow played to the frat boys and was not playing to the twelve year-old girls. I won’t doubt for a second that Brennan is right about doing twice the work for half the credit; I’m not a woman, but it seems to me that sports and sports writing are fields that would be a Petri dish for sexism and chauvinism so I’ll take her word on that and thank her for doing her part to make the world a better place for my daughter. But still…How in the world is Erin Andrews doing anything bad to twelve year-old girls? By being pretty? By allowing people to see that she is pretty? BY walking around naked in a room where she has every reasonable expectation of privacy? I just don’t get it.
Brennan later on tweeted that Andrews has her full support, that what happened to Andrews was “bad” and that she (Brennan) “will continue to fite [sic] for her and for all women.” Well that’s very decent of her to admit that what happened to Andrews was bad and to promise to continue fighting for Andrews, because it certainly didn’t look like she was fighting for Andrews when she said all that stuff to begin with.
I will admit, based on all the things I’ve listed so far about Brennan’s comments, I could be taking things out of context. I mean, Twitter is not a great forum to have any kind of nuanced discussion about things like the right to privacy and sexism. So maybe, possibly, Brennan is misunderstood here. But I don’t think so. I haven’t heard the tape, but it’s being reported that Brennan also pointed out that Andrews once wore a too-short skirt into a locker room and also touched one of the people she was interviewing. Umm…OK, Christine. What does that have to do with anything? If you aren’t saying “she was asking for it/she was begging for it/she deserved it” then why do you bring up the length of her skirt at all? And are you saying that you have never touched the arm of anyone you’re interviewing? I don’t want to get too worked up over one (possibly lascivious/possibly innocent) graze of the arm here, but if you don’t think that Andrews had it coming, why do you bring it up in the first place? That’s what makes me think that my interpretation of all your tweets is accurate. You had a chance, in a radio interview, without a limit on the number of characters you used, to say what you meant and you chose to highlight her skirt and what she did physically with her hands. Don’t blame me for noticing; you’re the one who said it.
Also in Brennan’s radio interview she is reported to have said “She doesn't deserve what happened to her, but part of the shtick seems to me is being a little bit out there in a way that, then, are you encouraging the complete nutcase to drill a hole in your room.” What the fuck? Schtick? What “shtick” are you referring to Christine? Does Andrews even have a shtick? And did you really just say that Andrews “encouraged” a guy (crazy or not) to use a drill and peephole camera to look at her naked? Why wouldn’t she just pose for Playboy and get it over with if she wanted people to see her with no clothes on?
Again, I have always liked Christine Brennan. And I still do. But I have lost some respect for her. It’d be a lot easier for me to find that respect again if she’d just apologize and admit she was wrong and quit trying to walk back her comments without actually taking them back. But as it is, it appears that Brennan has adopted the role of the pearl-clutching head of the Women’s Auxiliary who always knew that Andrews girl was trash and would never amount to anything, certainly nothing respectable.
For those who don’t know, Erin Andrews is a very pretty sports reporter for ESPN. She is also, in my opinion, very smart and appears to work hard. While she is very, VERY attractive, there is nothing about her work that makes me think she got that job solely because she is pretty. Anyway, someone, we don’t know who, appears to have taken some sort of peephole video of Andres while she was naked in her hotel room. If my understanding is correct, someone actually drilled a hole into her hotel room wall and used a very small camera to get this video.
I know. Very creepy. So there is an upside to me being so physically unattractive. I have to assume that no one will try anything like that on me. But I digress.
Anyway, this has been a huge media shitstorm for days now, complete with pathetic dudes going online looking for the video and enterprising computer hackers using the promise of the video as bait to get people to download a virus to their computer. Serves the lame searchers right if their computers get infected.
Add to this the opinions of Brennan, a widely-respected sports journalist, who, via Twitter, said about the Andrews imbroglio “Women sports journalists need to be smart and not play to the frat house. There are tons of nuts out there.” Candidly, I’m not even sure what that means, but I think it says that this is Andrews’ fault because Andrews is somehow “play[ing] to the frat house.” I’m not sure what Andrews has ever done to earn that sort of admonition. I don’t follow Andrews all that closely and I gave up Playboy and Maxim years ago (I think it was a combination of maturity and becoming the father of a little girl), but I don’t recall ever seeing Erin Andrews doing photo layouts for either of those magazines or any like them. In fact, other than being merely pretty, I can’t think of a single thing that Erin Andrews has ever done that would suggest she is in any way capitalizing on her sexuality or her physical attractiveness. Again, I could be wrong, but I simply don’t think that’s the case.
If I am right, I’d like Christine Brennan to explain how Andrews was ever “playing to the frat house.” It just makes no sense. It’s not Andrews fault that she is pretty, although I can’t think of anyone who would begrudge her the ability to maximize her physical beauty if that’s what she wanted to do. But since when is being pretty playing to the frat house? I happen to think Christine Brennan is also actually pretty but does that mean she is playing to the frat house? Is she playing to the “middle-aged dad house” (where I reside) or some other venue entirely?
Brennan tried to walk back those comments by saying that she uses that “frat house” line all the time in speeches and she wants all women to avoid that. OK, I’ll go with that. It’s probably a good practice for women everywhere to avoid playing into sexism. But, still, I have this niggling little feeling that Brennan wasn’t directing that commentary at all women. She was talking about Erin Andrews who, I must repeat, did nothing more than walk around naked in her own hotel room. That’s why I am having such a hard time getting over this “frat house” comment; there is no way (that I can see) to look at this and come away with any impression other than Brennan was admonishing Andrews and saying that Andrews played to the frat house and, ergo, bought this on herself.
Later on, in another tweet, Brennan said that we (by “we” I believe she meant women generally and probably female sports journalists specifically) “still need to be twice as good to get half the credit. So I want us to play to the 12-yr-old girl, not the frat house.” Again, I think Brennan was trying to explain her use of the frat house line without actually apologizing for it. But, again, this makes no sense. It appears that Brennan is still saying that Andrews somehow played to the frat boys and was not playing to the twelve year-old girls. I won’t doubt for a second that Brennan is right about doing twice the work for half the credit; I’m not a woman, but it seems to me that sports and sports writing are fields that would be a Petri dish for sexism and chauvinism so I’ll take her word on that and thank her for doing her part to make the world a better place for my daughter. But still…How in the world is Erin Andrews doing anything bad to twelve year-old girls? By being pretty? By allowing people to see that she is pretty? BY walking around naked in a room where she has every reasonable expectation of privacy? I just don’t get it.
Brennan later on tweeted that Andrews has her full support, that what happened to Andrews was “bad” and that she (Brennan) “will continue to fite [sic] for her and for all women.” Well that’s very decent of her to admit that what happened to Andrews was bad and to promise to continue fighting for Andrews, because it certainly didn’t look like she was fighting for Andrews when she said all that stuff to begin with.
I will admit, based on all the things I’ve listed so far about Brennan’s comments, I could be taking things out of context. I mean, Twitter is not a great forum to have any kind of nuanced discussion about things like the right to privacy and sexism. So maybe, possibly, Brennan is misunderstood here. But I don’t think so. I haven’t heard the tape, but it’s being reported that Brennan also pointed out that Andrews once wore a too-short skirt into a locker room and also touched one of the people she was interviewing. Umm…OK, Christine. What does that have to do with anything? If you aren’t saying “she was asking for it/she was begging for it/she deserved it” then why do you bring up the length of her skirt at all? And are you saying that you have never touched the arm of anyone you’re interviewing? I don’t want to get too worked up over one (possibly lascivious/possibly innocent) graze of the arm here, but if you don’t think that Andrews had it coming, why do you bring it up in the first place? That’s what makes me think that my interpretation of all your tweets is accurate. You had a chance, in a radio interview, without a limit on the number of characters you used, to say what you meant and you chose to highlight her skirt and what she did physically with her hands. Don’t blame me for noticing; you’re the one who said it.
Also in Brennan’s radio interview she is reported to have said “She doesn't deserve what happened to her, but part of the shtick seems to me is being a little bit out there in a way that, then, are you encouraging the complete nutcase to drill a hole in your room.” What the fuck? Schtick? What “shtick” are you referring to Christine? Does Andrews even have a shtick? And did you really just say that Andrews “encouraged” a guy (crazy or not) to use a drill and peephole camera to look at her naked? Why wouldn’t she just pose for Playboy and get it over with if she wanted people to see her with no clothes on?
Again, I have always liked Christine Brennan. And I still do. But I have lost some respect for her. It’d be a lot easier for me to find that respect again if she’d just apologize and admit she was wrong and quit trying to walk back her comments without actually taking them back. But as it is, it appears that Brennan has adopted the role of the pearl-clutching head of the Women’s Auxiliary who always knew that Andrews girl was trash and would never amount to anything, certainly nothing respectable.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Michael Vick! Bad Dog! Sit! Stay!
Apparently, today is the last day of Michael Vick’s sentence for running a dog fighting ring and all the attendant atrocities that go hand in hand with such an enterprise. The big debate now is whether Vick can, should or should be allowed to return to the NFL. I’ll be honest; I don’t really know how I feel about Vick’s return to football. I think, THINK mind you, that I am against it. But that’s not why I’m writing this. Maybe Vick should be allowed to play football again and maybe he shouldn’t. What I am writing about it this:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jim_trotter/07/20/vick/index.html?eref=sihpT1
Now, to be clear, I do believe in second chances. Hell, I believe in third chances where warranted. But I have a real problem with the tone of this column written by Jim Trotter. This column makes it sound like Vick has some sort of right to play in the NFL and that just isn’t so. The great logical leap Trotter makes is that Vick deserves the right to “make a living” (agreed, by the way, Mr, Trotter) and then the seeming assumption that the only way Vick could possibly earn “a living” is in the NFL. Now, my reading of the salary cap/minimum salary chart I located would appear to suggest that if Vick were to come back and play this season, it would be for at least $620,000. That is one hell of “a living,” especially when you consider that the average national salary in the United States hovers around $50,000 per year.
Again, I agree that Vick has the right to earn a living wage, but that does not mean he has the right to play in the NFL again. Why can’t he apply for financial aid (if he is so strapped) and go back to school, finish his degree and find a job in whatever field he chooses? Is he too good for manual labor? My guess is that he’d make a hell of a great youth counselor, given the depth and breadth of life experiences he has to draw from. There are a lot of things Michael Vick can do that don’t entail playing in the NFL.
Trotter talks about the hypocrisy that would run rampant if Vick was denied an opportunity to play while such degenerate losers like Art Schlichter, Leonard Little, Bam Morris and Tamarick Vanover were allowed chances to return to the league for such infractions as gambling, drug trafficking and “murder.” What Trotter does here is play a little game to increase the “value” of the crime committed by Little (manslaughter stemming from a drunk driving incident) by saying that in his (Trotter’s) mind, manslaughter committed while driving drunk is the same thing as murder. Well Mr. Trotter, I have news for you, no matter how you view it, the law doesn’t think it’s the same thing at all. AT ALL. Your opinion doesn’t matter any more than mine as to what Little SHOULD have been charged with or convicted of. The law does make that distinction and while it’s a neat trick to manipulate words like you did and enable yourself to call Little a “murderer,” that is simply not the case.
Now, to be clear, I am not defending Leonard Little or what he did. I don’t think HE should have been allowed to return to the NFL either. But it’s disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst to say that Leonard Little was a murderer simply because of your personal views on the matter.
And reasonable minds can differ on this, but I think that what Vanover, Morris and Schlichter did, while reprehensible, was not as bad as what Vick did. Schlichter had a disease and that disease made him do lots of horrible things. Again, I’m not defending him, but having a disease is STILL a better excuse than anything Vick ever said by way of defending himself.
As for Morris and Vanover, well, they sold drugs. Also illegal (although many people think it shouldn’t be. Their opinions don’t matter any more than Trotter’s opinions about how manslaughter is the same thing as murder, by the way.). But while selling drugs is illegal, they were only providing a product people wanted and continue to want. They didn’t, as far as I know, force anyone to use the drugs they supplied. Vick abused and slaughtered animals that he was supposed to be caring for. I don’t like Morris, Vanover or Vick, but if I had to pick which of them committed the greater crime, it’d be Vick, far and away.
And again, for the record, I don’t think that THOSE guys should have been reinstated either.
While Trotter’s column doesn’t really hit on the “Vick has paid his debt to society” angle, that will no doubt come up as people try to lobby Roger Goodell to allow Vick to come back to the league. And he has. Vick has no additional responsibility to society insofar as his dog fighting career is concerned. But the NFL is not “society” and society is not the NFL. The NFL isn’t bound to give Vick the same chances society gives (but the NFL also wasn’t allowed to imprison Vick, for that matter). But here is a rough analogy: I am a lawyer and if I were to be convicted of damn near any felony, dog fighting, drug trafficking or vehicular manslaughter, I would almost certainly lose my license to practice law. And I would lose it for good in a very efficient disbarment process. I wouldn’t get it back and my name would be stricken from the roll of attorneys in my home state and any other state where I had a license would honor that disbarment as well. Never mind that I might pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines, live in a prison for years and have all the attendant issues from that incarceration. I’d lose my license and even if I got my criminal record expunged and got a Presidential pardon, I’d probably still never get my license back because my “debt to society” is not the same thing as my responsibility to the bar. My state supreme court has a different responsibility than the criminal justice system; the court is there to protect both the public and the institution of justice from dirtbag felons like me. Similarly, Roger Goodell’s portfolio is not the protection of the public so much as it’s the protection of the National Football League. He doesn’t have to let Vick in simply because the US government says that they are square with Vick any more than the state of Kansas has to let me practice law again simply because I did my time for whatever felony I committed.
Maybe Vick should get back in and maybe he shouldn’t. I still don’t really know. But I’d be a lot more convinced if people would quit making it sound like football is the only useful purpose Vick could ever serve. That thinking insults my intelligence and it insults Vick’s humanity. You also won’t persuade me by comparing Vick to other scumbags and arguing that he is no more a scumbag than they; perpetuating mistakes and bad decisions is not a good reason for the making of them.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jim_trotter/07/20/vick/index.html?eref=sihpT1
Now, to be clear, I do believe in second chances. Hell, I believe in third chances where warranted. But I have a real problem with the tone of this column written by Jim Trotter. This column makes it sound like Vick has some sort of right to play in the NFL and that just isn’t so. The great logical leap Trotter makes is that Vick deserves the right to “make a living” (agreed, by the way, Mr, Trotter) and then the seeming assumption that the only way Vick could possibly earn “a living” is in the NFL. Now, my reading of the salary cap/minimum salary chart I located would appear to suggest that if Vick were to come back and play this season, it would be for at least $620,000. That is one hell of “a living,” especially when you consider that the average national salary in the United States hovers around $50,000 per year.
Again, I agree that Vick has the right to earn a living wage, but that does not mean he has the right to play in the NFL again. Why can’t he apply for financial aid (if he is so strapped) and go back to school, finish his degree and find a job in whatever field he chooses? Is he too good for manual labor? My guess is that he’d make a hell of a great youth counselor, given the depth and breadth of life experiences he has to draw from. There are a lot of things Michael Vick can do that don’t entail playing in the NFL.
Trotter talks about the hypocrisy that would run rampant if Vick was denied an opportunity to play while such degenerate losers like Art Schlichter, Leonard Little, Bam Morris and Tamarick Vanover were allowed chances to return to the league for such infractions as gambling, drug trafficking and “murder.” What Trotter does here is play a little game to increase the “value” of the crime committed by Little (manslaughter stemming from a drunk driving incident) by saying that in his (Trotter’s) mind, manslaughter committed while driving drunk is the same thing as murder. Well Mr. Trotter, I have news for you, no matter how you view it, the law doesn’t think it’s the same thing at all. AT ALL. Your opinion doesn’t matter any more than mine as to what Little SHOULD have been charged with or convicted of. The law does make that distinction and while it’s a neat trick to manipulate words like you did and enable yourself to call Little a “murderer,” that is simply not the case.
Now, to be clear, I am not defending Leonard Little or what he did. I don’t think HE should have been allowed to return to the NFL either. But it’s disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst to say that Leonard Little was a murderer simply because of your personal views on the matter.
And reasonable minds can differ on this, but I think that what Vanover, Morris and Schlichter did, while reprehensible, was not as bad as what Vick did. Schlichter had a disease and that disease made him do lots of horrible things. Again, I’m not defending him, but having a disease is STILL a better excuse than anything Vick ever said by way of defending himself.
As for Morris and Vanover, well, they sold drugs. Also illegal (although many people think it shouldn’t be. Their opinions don’t matter any more than Trotter’s opinions about how manslaughter is the same thing as murder, by the way.). But while selling drugs is illegal, they were only providing a product people wanted and continue to want. They didn’t, as far as I know, force anyone to use the drugs they supplied. Vick abused and slaughtered animals that he was supposed to be caring for. I don’t like Morris, Vanover or Vick, but if I had to pick which of them committed the greater crime, it’d be Vick, far and away.
And again, for the record, I don’t think that THOSE guys should have been reinstated either.
While Trotter’s column doesn’t really hit on the “Vick has paid his debt to society” angle, that will no doubt come up as people try to lobby Roger Goodell to allow Vick to come back to the league. And he has. Vick has no additional responsibility to society insofar as his dog fighting career is concerned. But the NFL is not “society” and society is not the NFL. The NFL isn’t bound to give Vick the same chances society gives (but the NFL also wasn’t allowed to imprison Vick, for that matter). But here is a rough analogy: I am a lawyer and if I were to be convicted of damn near any felony, dog fighting, drug trafficking or vehicular manslaughter, I would almost certainly lose my license to practice law. And I would lose it for good in a very efficient disbarment process. I wouldn’t get it back and my name would be stricken from the roll of attorneys in my home state and any other state where I had a license would honor that disbarment as well. Never mind that I might pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines, live in a prison for years and have all the attendant issues from that incarceration. I’d lose my license and even if I got my criminal record expunged and got a Presidential pardon, I’d probably still never get my license back because my “debt to society” is not the same thing as my responsibility to the bar. My state supreme court has a different responsibility than the criminal justice system; the court is there to protect both the public and the institution of justice from dirtbag felons like me. Similarly, Roger Goodell’s portfolio is not the protection of the public so much as it’s the protection of the National Football League. He doesn’t have to let Vick in simply because the US government says that they are square with Vick any more than the state of Kansas has to let me practice law again simply because I did my time for whatever felony I committed.
Maybe Vick should get back in and maybe he shouldn’t. I still don’t really know. But I’d be a lot more convinced if people would quit making it sound like football is the only useful purpose Vick could ever serve. That thinking insults my intelligence and it insults Vick’s humanity. You also won’t persuade me by comparing Vick to other scumbags and arguing that he is no more a scumbag than they; perpetuating mistakes and bad decisions is not a good reason for the making of them.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Help Wanted- Abortion Provider
Today the family of Dr. George Tiller announced the permanent closure of Dr. Tiller’s clinic, Women’s Healthcare Services, Inc.
Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck fuck.
I understand this decision (or at least I think I do, despite being a liberal from Kansas, I have never met Dr. Tiller and I only admired him from afar) and I do not say this to scold his family for making what must have surely been a difficult decision.
But this is a huge victory for anti-choice forces everywhere and I dare say it will embolden more violence against doctors who legally perform abortions. I also think it’s a fair concern to wonder whether this violent murder will cow other would-be abortion providers into not helping these women who so desperately need help.
There is no way to spin this as good news.
I don’t necessarily want my home state to be the central battleground in this war. We’ve been fighting it for a long time. Let’s have another state pick it up. I’m looking at you, Nebraska. But if need be, I’ll welcome another doctor to move to Wichita and help him or her unpack if it maintains the legacy of Dr. Tiller’s service to women.
Fuck.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to go bury my head in the sane for a few days so as to miss the crowing of the right wing who supposedly eschew violence but will no doubt speak glowingly of the result this act of violence has wrought.
Fuck.
Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckety fuck fuck fuck.
I understand this decision (or at least I think I do, despite being a liberal from Kansas, I have never met Dr. Tiller and I only admired him from afar) and I do not say this to scold his family for making what must have surely been a difficult decision.
But this is a huge victory for anti-choice forces everywhere and I dare say it will embolden more violence against doctors who legally perform abortions. I also think it’s a fair concern to wonder whether this violent murder will cow other would-be abortion providers into not helping these women who so desperately need help.
There is no way to spin this as good news.
I don’t necessarily want my home state to be the central battleground in this war. We’ve been fighting it for a long time. Let’s have another state pick it up. I’m looking at you, Nebraska. But if need be, I’ll welcome another doctor to move to Wichita and help him or her unpack if it maintains the legacy of Dr. Tiller’s service to women.
Fuck.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to go bury my head in the sane for a few days so as to miss the crowing of the right wing who supposedly eschew violence but will no doubt speak glowingly of the result this act of violence has wrought.
Fuck.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Welcome Arlen Specter, You Piece of Crap
So it says here that Arlen Specter is going to switch parties. Apparently he has come to the realization that he can’t win the Pennsylvania Republican nomination for Senate because he is too moderate and the party’s conservative wing is going to boot him in the primary. Since Pennsylvania has a “sore loser” law (unlike Connecticut, where the absence of such a law allowed Joe Lieberman two bites at the electoral apple), if Specter loses his primary, he cannot run as an independent in the general election and then caucus with the Republicans (again, similar to what Lieberman did).
Allow me to be the first to say “Welcome to the Democratic Party, Sen. Specter. You unprincipled piece of shit.” You’re the guy who served as Dubya’s lapdog the entire time he was POTUS. You called yourself a “moderate” but couldn’t even be bothered to join the so-called “Gang of Fourteen” (well, if you had joined it would have been fifteen anyway, but you know what I mean) to avoid the “nuclear option” regarding the appointment of members of the federal bench. You bitched and whined about wanting Congressional oversight of presidential pardons when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, but were oddly silent when Bush the Younger commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence. And now that the writing is on the wall and you realize you have no chance of winning the Republican nomination, you find religion and are willing to become a Democrat.
I’m sure you will spin this as some sort of “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me” kind of conversion. The party is too rigid, too doctrinal, too intolerant for you to allow yourself to continue being a member. Sure it is. What’s weird is that to many, me included, the party doesn’t seem to be all that much more doctrinal than it has been the last eight years. It’s very strange to me that you are only changing parties when your own electoral ass is on the line. Up until now you have been part of the loyal opposition and a dutiful supporter of all those filibusters, efforts at Social Security privatization and whatever other ridiculous policies the Republican party went for. But now, things have changed. Right?
Don’t get me wrong, Senator. I’m glad you’re switching and I sincerely hope you win reelection as a Democrat. I’m grateful for your vote but I hope it’s worth it. You come off looking unprincipled and motivated only by political survival. You don’t want to stop being a Senator and you are willing to turn your back on years of service couched in a certain set of beliefs that you will now repudiate. You will be vilified by Republicans and quietly tolerated by Democrats whom you have worked so tirelessly against for so long.
I suppose you will compare yourself to Jim Jeffords and I get that. Sort of. Jeffords also pissed off a ton of people with his switch (although he went from Republican to Independent and didn’t go all the way over, technically, to the opposition), but at a minimum I think most people (but far from all) thought that Jeffords’ switch was really related to his conscience and wasn’t so naked a political move. Jeffords was a moderate ad he was in no danger of being tossed out of office. Your move smacks of desperation and while I am glad to have the vote, I think less of you know than I did yesterday and, truth be told, I’ve always had a pretty negative opinion of you in the first place.
Allow me to be the first to say “Welcome to the Democratic Party, Sen. Specter. You unprincipled piece of shit.” You’re the guy who served as Dubya’s lapdog the entire time he was POTUS. You called yourself a “moderate” but couldn’t even be bothered to join the so-called “Gang of Fourteen” (well, if you had joined it would have been fifteen anyway, but you know what I mean) to avoid the “nuclear option” regarding the appointment of members of the federal bench. You bitched and whined about wanting Congressional oversight of presidential pardons when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, but were oddly silent when Bush the Younger commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence. And now that the writing is on the wall and you realize you have no chance of winning the Republican nomination, you find religion and are willing to become a Democrat.
I’m sure you will spin this as some sort of “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me” kind of conversion. The party is too rigid, too doctrinal, too intolerant for you to allow yourself to continue being a member. Sure it is. What’s weird is that to many, me included, the party doesn’t seem to be all that much more doctrinal than it has been the last eight years. It’s very strange to me that you are only changing parties when your own electoral ass is on the line. Up until now you have been part of the loyal opposition and a dutiful supporter of all those filibusters, efforts at Social Security privatization and whatever other ridiculous policies the Republican party went for. But now, things have changed. Right?
Don’t get me wrong, Senator. I’m glad you’re switching and I sincerely hope you win reelection as a Democrat. I’m grateful for your vote but I hope it’s worth it. You come off looking unprincipled and motivated only by political survival. You don’t want to stop being a Senator and you are willing to turn your back on years of service couched in a certain set of beliefs that you will now repudiate. You will be vilified by Republicans and quietly tolerated by Democrats whom you have worked so tirelessly against for so long.
I suppose you will compare yourself to Jim Jeffords and I get that. Sort of. Jeffords also pissed off a ton of people with his switch (although he went from Republican to Independent and didn’t go all the way over, technically, to the opposition), but at a minimum I think most people (but far from all) thought that Jeffords’ switch was really related to his conscience and wasn’t so naked a political move. Jeffords was a moderate ad he was in no danger of being tossed out of office. Your move smacks of desperation and while I am glad to have the vote, I think less of you know than I did yesterday and, truth be told, I’ve always had a pretty negative opinion of you in the first place.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Coach Calipari? Leave the Kids, Take the Cannolis.
So, apparently John Calipari is about to leave the University of Memphis to take the head coaching job at the University of Kentucky (UK, not to be confused by the infinitely better KU), one of college basketball's blueblood programs (along with, in my opinion, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, UCLA and maybe a couple of current lesser lights like Indiana and St. Johns that could one day be monsters yet again). I say that's great for Calipari and great for UK, even though I pretty much hate UK (lots of reasons from an ex-girlfriend who graduated there to the tremendous arrogance of their fan base). There is no question Coach Cal is a very good coach who might be great, if a little greasy and there is no question that UK can select from a pool of super highly regarded coaches and I think they'll get a good one in Cal.
I do, however, have one problem with the situation. There are some rumblings that Calipari might take the better part of his amazing recruiting class that has signed at Memphis and take them with him to Kentucky. That is just flat-out wrong. In my opinion there is no way or reason Cal should be allowed to take those kids, whom he recruited on Memphis' dime and with Memphis' resources, with him to an entirely different school.
Of course, the problem is that the reason a kid signs a binding letter of intent has largely to do with the coach and not necessarily so much the institution to which the coach recruits him. I get it and it sucks for those kids. Still, it seems spectacularly unfair to me that Memphis, who had Calipari and supported him and PAID him to coach at Memphis should now lose the benefit of the labor they paid for by having all those kids go with him to UK.
So, what to do? If i were King of the NCAA I would make it so the kids could honor their LOI (letter of intent) to go to Memphis or, if they choose, get out of that LOI and go to any school in the country besides Memphis. Extend their time to sign an LOI and allow them to reopen their recruiting for 2-3 more weeks and let the kids make an informed choice.
I suppose it is unfair to the kids who signed with Memphis and now only want to follow Coach Cal but it's equally unfair to have Memphis subsidize the recruitment of kids to Kentucky.
I know that the LOI specifically says that the kids is signing with the school and not the coach, but the entire LOI program is so one-sided it is unfair and I suspect that if it were ever litigated it would be found to be a contract of adhesion and thrown out anyway. My solution seems, to me at least to be the most fair to all the parties involved. And if Coach Cal can't go to UK with his shiny new class, maybe he will end up thinking twice before hitting the eject button on his contract with Memphis. Wouldn't that be something? A coach and a school each honoring their commitment to one another?
I do, however, have one problem with the situation. There are some rumblings that Calipari might take the better part of his amazing recruiting class that has signed at Memphis and take them with him to Kentucky. That is just flat-out wrong. In my opinion there is no way or reason Cal should be allowed to take those kids, whom he recruited on Memphis' dime and with Memphis' resources, with him to an entirely different school.
Of course, the problem is that the reason a kid signs a binding letter of intent has largely to do with the coach and not necessarily so much the institution to which the coach recruits him. I get it and it sucks for those kids. Still, it seems spectacularly unfair to me that Memphis, who had Calipari and supported him and PAID him to coach at Memphis should now lose the benefit of the labor they paid for by having all those kids go with him to UK.
So, what to do? If i were King of the NCAA I would make it so the kids could honor their LOI (letter of intent) to go to Memphis or, if they choose, get out of that LOI and go to any school in the country besides Memphis. Extend their time to sign an LOI and allow them to reopen their recruiting for 2-3 more weeks and let the kids make an informed choice.
I suppose it is unfair to the kids who signed with Memphis and now only want to follow Coach Cal but it's equally unfair to have Memphis subsidize the recruitment of kids to Kentucky.
I know that the LOI specifically says that the kids is signing with the school and not the coach, but the entire LOI program is so one-sided it is unfair and I suspect that if it were ever litigated it would be found to be a contract of adhesion and thrown out anyway. My solution seems, to me at least to be the most fair to all the parties involved. And if Coach Cal can't go to UK with his shiny new class, maybe he will end up thinking twice before hitting the eject button on his contract with Memphis. Wouldn't that be something? A coach and a school each honoring their commitment to one another?
Monday, March 30, 2009
For My Friend Rick, Because Facebook Limits My Characters
I have a friend named Rick. Rick is a real person, not a straw man. I’ve known Rick since high school and I have always admired Rick for doing one of the most impressively disgusting things I have ever seen. When we were freshmen, a bunch of us were gathered and Rick told us that he would eat whatever we put into a cup. This was not a dare and Rick did not demand any payment for this service. He only required that it not involve waste or excretia, which seemed fair. This post isn’t about that, so I won’t go into details, but suffice to say that it’s a story I still enjoy telling my seventeen year-old son and reminisce about with other people who were there.
But, as I said, this isn’t about that. Rick and I have become Facebook friends and we have had sort of an ongoing political debate. This discussion complicated by the fact that Facebook only allows you so many characters and the fact that Facebook is generally a less-than-ideal forum for one to express any type of nuance. I’m using this forum to give into my prolixity. Rick, if you get around to reading this and care to respond, use whatever format suits you. By the way, Rick, one thing I have appreciated is the way we have been able to disagree but keep it good natured. I think a lot of ugliness in the political realm exists simply because people can’t respectfully disagree. While I disagree with much (but certainly not all) of what you say, I’m grateful this hasn’t lapsed into ad hominem attacks. Anyway, on to the show.
My discussion with Rick started when I Facebooked (if that’s a word) an article that suggested the GOP’s stance on healthcare reform and insurance wasn’t exactly logical in light of the way they have been behaving when viewing certain bailouts the current administration is promulgating or carrying on from the previous administration (AIG, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were all situations where President Bush put the power of the US Government behind bailing out an entity or helping to arrange favorable buyouts by other financial concerns.). When I pointed out the disconnect, Rick pointed out that the Democrats had controlled Congress “for a few years already” (I assume by "a few" he means "two") and argued, therefore, that it wasn’t just Dubya “although Dubya did give the Democrats everything they were asking for.”
I’m going to leave aside the part about Dubya giving the Democrats everything they were asking for because it’s a bit non-specific. I know Rick doesn’t mean that President Bush gave the Democrats “everything” because we most certainly didn’t want John Roberts or Samuel Alito, but he gave them to us. I know we didn’t want him commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence but he did that too. I know we wanted him to allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify before Congress and he actively blocked that and continues to attempt to block that testimony even after he left office. I know that Congressional Democrats wanted to put oil and energy executives under oath when Republicans controlled Congress. Republicans refused to place them under oath and President Dubya stood by without urging Republican leadership to do it. But I don’t think that those are the things that Rick is referring to when he says Dubya gave us “everything.”
I also pointed out to Rick that it was Henry Paulson, President Bush’s Treasury Secretary who came to Capitol Hill urging Congress to approve massive cash layouts to bail out AIG. That was the President’s man up there, urging the bailout and inserting language into the legislation that would have killed any possibility of congressional oversight. Rick responded to that argument by stating that the AIG bailout didn’t receive any positive coverage that he knows of and that Paulson was an illogical toady. I will agree that the bailout received mixed reviews at best, but, again, this was the course chosen by President Bush. If Henry Paulson was a toady, he was President Bush’s toady. It was Paulson’s idea to prevent governmental oversight of the bailout and it was the Bush administration that needed to be persuaded to put that oversight into the bailout package in the first place.
The larger point here is the inconsistency. I don’t recall a chorus of Republican voices slamming President Bush for the bailout. Yes, there were some Republicans and Libertarians who were against it, just as there were Democrats who were against it, but Ron Paul was the only guy I recall who really took up the standard for NOT bailing out AIG. Hide from it all you want, the fact is that President Bush bailed out AIG and he did it with the help of Congressional Republicans. That is the inconsistency I am talking about here. Democrats have never really been against spending; sometimes we spend well, sometimes we spend poorly but in the end we don’t have a philosophical problem with spending money if we think the cause is right. But Bush simply crapped all over the fiscal conservative’s creed when he did this bailout and only now, when a Democrat is in office, does the Republican leadership get religion. It’s inconsistent. Rick has agreed with me on this point in the past and he has told me that he wished that Republican leadership would man up and practice what they preach. Again, while I disagree with that philosophically, I can understand the thinking and I appreciate what’s behind it. I personally don’t think I’d want to live in the world where so many businesses simply go bankrupt, but I see the reasoning.
As for Paulson being a toady, again, he was the President’s toady. He spoke for the administration. While I have some issues with Timothy Geithner, I don’t pretend that he is somehow not speaking for the administration when he goes to the Hill to ask for more whatever.
Another point Rick makes is that there is more press coverage now, which somehow makes the AIG bailout seem less acceptable. I’m sorry, Rick, but I can’t go with you on this one. President Bush, with the aid and assistance of Sec. Paulson and Congressional Republicans promulgated this bailout. Even if there was less coverage (and I seem to recall seeing plenty of coverage on t his before Obama was on the scene), so what? Isn’t it the job of the President, his Secretary of the Treasury and the legislators who vote on the legislation to fully understand what’s going on? Are you suggesting that John Beohner was okay to support the bailout when Bush was POTUS because there was less coverage but he is okay in his opposition to furthering that bailout because the newly increased press coverage makes the bailout seem less acceptable?
Rick also suggested that President Bush actually wanted to provide oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that when he did that Congressional Democrats accused him of racism because the CEO of Freddie Mac was black. Rick, where did you get that? The only thing I recall is Barney Frank making a comment about how some Congressional Republican’s criticism of Democrat’s handling of the housing crisis is racist because they aren’t bothered by the fact that many poor people are also black. Was that a stupid thing to say? Yes. Was Frank calling the President a racist or saying that it was racist to oversee a corporation because the CEO was African-American? No.
And it’s not as if President Bush had always been trying to provide federal oversight for Freddie Mac or something; on 10/21/2008 Ben Bernanke specifically called Fannie and Freddie “cases in point” and said that "The Federal Reserve had long warned about the systemic risks posed by these companies' large portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, as well as the problems arising from the conflict between shareholders' objectives and the government's goals for the two firms." In October, 2008, Bush had been POTUS for nearly eight whole years. His hand-selected Fed Chairmen had been in office for nearly three years. Democrats did not take control of the Congress until January, 2007. I’m sorry Rick, but it just doesn’t add up that Dubya had been wanting to provide oversight but was stymied all that time. Those agencies failure had been systemic for a long time and it was brought about by lack of oversight, not because President Bush WANTED to provide oversight but was stopped from doing so by a recalcitrant congress.
I apologize that it has taken me so long to get to the nut of what I really wanted to write about: The role of government. In my Facebook discussion with Rick I pointed out that we simply have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government. Rick considers himself more a Libertarian than a Republican and I’ll buy that. Libertarianism has a lot of things to recommend it, although, truth be told, I think very few people are strict Libertarians. But I do like the concept of keeping the government out of private affairs, like abortion and my own medical choices. I tend to disagree with a Libertarian’s view on what they can and cannot do with their own private property” because too often this allows people to do horrible things to the rest of us, but whatever. Rick is a Libertarian and I am a liberal.
Rick said that (and I am quoting here because I do not want to misstate his own words) “The more government interference we get, the worse problems become, so we need more government interference, and things get crazier, so we need more government. In psychology, that is the definition of insane, doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result.” This came up in a discussion about healthcare reform but it really goes much beyond that single issue. Rick wants the government out of our lives and I understand the sympathy. A Libertarian believes that the only purpose for government is to provide police powers and military. All drugs should be legal as should all guns and if someone kills someone else, then that person should be punished. I get the sentiment of treating us all like we’re grown-ups and trusting us to do the right thing (like, you know, not killing people), but it’s simply never going to happen. However, while we should not anticipate Utopia, we can never stop striving for it. But I’d like to point out a few things that governmental “interference” has brought about.
Rural electrification. Rick and I come from the same city and although it’s not a metropolis by any means, it’s hardly what you would call “rural.” I was born and my parents are both from there. My paternal grandfather, though, was from a rural area well outside of town and he told me that rural electrification was one of the best things that happened to them. I assume that Rick thinks that if private enterprise were allowed to have handled it, the whole thing would have gone much better and he may have a point, but only if there is money in it for the private enterprise in the first place. If there was no money private enterprise would not do it. Who then steps in? (I suppose now is where we dispense with the old canard about how “if the government ran itself like a business, we’d never have these deficits and these problems. This is a failure on two fronts: First, from appearances concerning businesses like AIG and American auto manufacturers, it doesn’t necessarily LOOK like private enterprise always has the best business model. Second, government isn’t IN business to be a business. Turning a profit isn’t why government exists. I am sure Rick and I agree that government exists to help those it governs. We may disagree on the extent or necessity of that help and if I believe government should provide education and healthcare and Rick only believes that it exists for military ventures, that is a disagreement about size and scope of government, not its inherent purpose.)
But I digress. Let me name another form of government “interference” that I believe has some value: Interstate Highways. Rick and I are about the same age, so neither of us recalls what life was like before I-70 was built but I am told by t hose who DO remember that travel and commerce have both been tremendously affected, for the better because of the interstate highway system. Certainly there have been some boondoggles paid for with federal highway money, like Ted Stevens’ famous “Bridge to Nowhere,” but I can’t really believe that anyone thinks that the government’s “interference” with transportation and commerce was a bad thing. What’s weird is that the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota was actually due to a LACK of government interference. Had there been some money to repair that bridge and some engineers to inspect (i.e. “interfere”), that collapse might never have happened and people wouldn’t have died.
Another area where I see governmental “interference” as a good thing is the USDA. Now, I will be honest, I had thought that Rick had kids, but I just can’t say that I am 100% certain. I have quickly looked over his Facebook profile and I didn’t find any references to them one way or another. I could have missed it, I could have been wrong in thinking he and his truly lovely wife (whom I assume married him because of some rampant case of Stockholm Syndrome) have kids, but let’s just say that I am correct. I know Rick wants his kids to eat health, nutritious foods. No one is saying that the government should dictate what parents feed their children, but is it so wrong to ask the government to inspect the meat, fruits and vegetables that go into the stream of commerce? While I can’t argue with the idea that a tapeworm might do me a lot of good, I know for a fact that I don’t want my daughter to have one and I am equally certain that Rick doesn’t want his kids to get them either. The free market is not a solution to this because the free market will simply throw tainted meat into the market and sell it with little care for who might get sick from it. If you don’t believe me, read “The Jungle” and get back to me. Before the USDA started “interfering,” our food supply was tremendously risky, now it’s one of the safest in the world.
I also have enjoyed the benefits of government interference in the form of Pell grants and federal student loans and I know a lot of people who have gotten federally backed mortgages for their homes. I don’t know enough about Rick’s financial situation, but I assume he and his parents paid cash or got entirely private funding for his college education and I think that’s great. I honestly do. I just know that for me, if it weren’t for federal student aid, I wouldn’t have been able to afford college and having gone to college and grad school has improved my lot in life to where I have a better paying job and am able to be a more productive member of society than if I were a manual laborer. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with manual labor and don’t anyone call me an elitist. All I am saying is that, for me, education was an integral part of my development as a person and had I been unable to attend college, I would not have maximized my potential. The same thing applies to people who want to go to a technical college, vocational or trade school but can’t afford it. They aren’t getting the chance to make the most of themselves. I am working hard to sock away enough money to put my kids through school and I am sure Rick is as well, but there are a lot of people out there who aren’t given the blessings Rick and I have received. I’m glad there are programs out there who can help people in the same situation I was in when I went to school.
I could go on and on (I know, I already have) about the value and role of government in people’s lives. I get that Rick doesn’t want “interference” and I think that’s laudable. Rick doesn’t think that the government should be helping people except in extreme cases and I understand that as well. The thing is where Rick sees “interference” I see beef that is safe to eat, roads that are safe to travel and homes that are up to code
I’m not saying my friend is wrong, but I am saying I disagree with him.
And this is for Rick H., not Rick Z. whom I have known almost as long.
But, as I said, this isn’t about that. Rick and I have become Facebook friends and we have had sort of an ongoing political debate. This discussion complicated by the fact that Facebook only allows you so many characters and the fact that Facebook is generally a less-than-ideal forum for one to express any type of nuance. I’m using this forum to give into my prolixity. Rick, if you get around to reading this and care to respond, use whatever format suits you. By the way, Rick, one thing I have appreciated is the way we have been able to disagree but keep it good natured. I think a lot of ugliness in the political realm exists simply because people can’t respectfully disagree. While I disagree with much (but certainly not all) of what you say, I’m grateful this hasn’t lapsed into ad hominem attacks. Anyway, on to the show.
My discussion with Rick started when I Facebooked (if that’s a word) an article that suggested the GOP’s stance on healthcare reform and insurance wasn’t exactly logical in light of the way they have been behaving when viewing certain bailouts the current administration is promulgating or carrying on from the previous administration (AIG, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were all situations where President Bush put the power of the US Government behind bailing out an entity or helping to arrange favorable buyouts by other financial concerns.). When I pointed out the disconnect, Rick pointed out that the Democrats had controlled Congress “for a few years already” (I assume by "a few" he means "two") and argued, therefore, that it wasn’t just Dubya “although Dubya did give the Democrats everything they were asking for.”
I’m going to leave aside the part about Dubya giving the Democrats everything they were asking for because it’s a bit non-specific. I know Rick doesn’t mean that President Bush gave the Democrats “everything” because we most certainly didn’t want John Roberts or Samuel Alito, but he gave them to us. I know we didn’t want him commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence but he did that too. I know we wanted him to allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify before Congress and he actively blocked that and continues to attempt to block that testimony even after he left office. I know that Congressional Democrats wanted to put oil and energy executives under oath when Republicans controlled Congress. Republicans refused to place them under oath and President Dubya stood by without urging Republican leadership to do it. But I don’t think that those are the things that Rick is referring to when he says Dubya gave us “everything.”
I also pointed out to Rick that it was Henry Paulson, President Bush’s Treasury Secretary who came to Capitol Hill urging Congress to approve massive cash layouts to bail out AIG. That was the President’s man up there, urging the bailout and inserting language into the legislation that would have killed any possibility of congressional oversight. Rick responded to that argument by stating that the AIG bailout didn’t receive any positive coverage that he knows of and that Paulson was an illogical toady. I will agree that the bailout received mixed reviews at best, but, again, this was the course chosen by President Bush. If Henry Paulson was a toady, he was President Bush’s toady. It was Paulson’s idea to prevent governmental oversight of the bailout and it was the Bush administration that needed to be persuaded to put that oversight into the bailout package in the first place.
The larger point here is the inconsistency. I don’t recall a chorus of Republican voices slamming President Bush for the bailout. Yes, there were some Republicans and Libertarians who were against it, just as there were Democrats who were against it, but Ron Paul was the only guy I recall who really took up the standard for NOT bailing out AIG. Hide from it all you want, the fact is that President Bush bailed out AIG and he did it with the help of Congressional Republicans. That is the inconsistency I am talking about here. Democrats have never really been against spending; sometimes we spend well, sometimes we spend poorly but in the end we don’t have a philosophical problem with spending money if we think the cause is right. But Bush simply crapped all over the fiscal conservative’s creed when he did this bailout and only now, when a Democrat is in office, does the Republican leadership get religion. It’s inconsistent. Rick has agreed with me on this point in the past and he has told me that he wished that Republican leadership would man up and practice what they preach. Again, while I disagree with that philosophically, I can understand the thinking and I appreciate what’s behind it. I personally don’t think I’d want to live in the world where so many businesses simply go bankrupt, but I see the reasoning.
As for Paulson being a toady, again, he was the President’s toady. He spoke for the administration. While I have some issues with Timothy Geithner, I don’t pretend that he is somehow not speaking for the administration when he goes to the Hill to ask for more whatever.
Another point Rick makes is that there is more press coverage now, which somehow makes the AIG bailout seem less acceptable. I’m sorry, Rick, but I can’t go with you on this one. President Bush, with the aid and assistance of Sec. Paulson and Congressional Republicans promulgated this bailout. Even if there was less coverage (and I seem to recall seeing plenty of coverage on t his before Obama was on the scene), so what? Isn’t it the job of the President, his Secretary of the Treasury and the legislators who vote on the legislation to fully understand what’s going on? Are you suggesting that John Beohner was okay to support the bailout when Bush was POTUS because there was less coverage but he is okay in his opposition to furthering that bailout because the newly increased press coverage makes the bailout seem less acceptable?
Rick also suggested that President Bush actually wanted to provide oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that when he did that Congressional Democrats accused him of racism because the CEO of Freddie Mac was black. Rick, where did you get that? The only thing I recall is Barney Frank making a comment about how some Congressional Republican’s criticism of Democrat’s handling of the housing crisis is racist because they aren’t bothered by the fact that many poor people are also black. Was that a stupid thing to say? Yes. Was Frank calling the President a racist or saying that it was racist to oversee a corporation because the CEO was African-American? No.
And it’s not as if President Bush had always been trying to provide federal oversight for Freddie Mac or something; on 10/21/2008 Ben Bernanke specifically called Fannie and Freddie “cases in point” and said that "The Federal Reserve had long warned about the systemic risks posed by these companies' large portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, as well as the problems arising from the conflict between shareholders' objectives and the government's goals for the two firms." In October, 2008, Bush had been POTUS for nearly eight whole years. His hand-selected Fed Chairmen had been in office for nearly three years. Democrats did not take control of the Congress until January, 2007. I’m sorry Rick, but it just doesn’t add up that Dubya had been wanting to provide oversight but was stymied all that time. Those agencies failure had been systemic for a long time and it was brought about by lack of oversight, not because President Bush WANTED to provide oversight but was stopped from doing so by a recalcitrant congress.
I apologize that it has taken me so long to get to the nut of what I really wanted to write about: The role of government. In my Facebook discussion with Rick I pointed out that we simply have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government. Rick considers himself more a Libertarian than a Republican and I’ll buy that. Libertarianism has a lot of things to recommend it, although, truth be told, I think very few people are strict Libertarians. But I do like the concept of keeping the government out of private affairs, like abortion and my own medical choices. I tend to disagree with a Libertarian’s view on what they can and cannot do with their own private property” because too often this allows people to do horrible things to the rest of us, but whatever. Rick is a Libertarian and I am a liberal.
Rick said that (and I am quoting here because I do not want to misstate his own words) “The more government interference we get, the worse problems become, so we need more government interference, and things get crazier, so we need more government. In psychology, that is the definition of insane, doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result.” This came up in a discussion about healthcare reform but it really goes much beyond that single issue. Rick wants the government out of our lives and I understand the sympathy. A Libertarian believes that the only purpose for government is to provide police powers and military. All drugs should be legal as should all guns and if someone kills someone else, then that person should be punished. I get the sentiment of treating us all like we’re grown-ups and trusting us to do the right thing (like, you know, not killing people), but it’s simply never going to happen. However, while we should not anticipate Utopia, we can never stop striving for it. But I’d like to point out a few things that governmental “interference” has brought about.
Rural electrification. Rick and I come from the same city and although it’s not a metropolis by any means, it’s hardly what you would call “rural.” I was born and my parents are both from there. My paternal grandfather, though, was from a rural area well outside of town and he told me that rural electrification was one of the best things that happened to them. I assume that Rick thinks that if private enterprise were allowed to have handled it, the whole thing would have gone much better and he may have a point, but only if there is money in it for the private enterprise in the first place. If there was no money private enterprise would not do it. Who then steps in? (I suppose now is where we dispense with the old canard about how “if the government ran itself like a business, we’d never have these deficits and these problems. This is a failure on two fronts: First, from appearances concerning businesses like AIG and American auto manufacturers, it doesn’t necessarily LOOK like private enterprise always has the best business model. Second, government isn’t IN business to be a business. Turning a profit isn’t why government exists. I am sure Rick and I agree that government exists to help those it governs. We may disagree on the extent or necessity of that help and if I believe government should provide education and healthcare and Rick only believes that it exists for military ventures, that is a disagreement about size and scope of government, not its inherent purpose.)
But I digress. Let me name another form of government “interference” that I believe has some value: Interstate Highways. Rick and I are about the same age, so neither of us recalls what life was like before I-70 was built but I am told by t hose who DO remember that travel and commerce have both been tremendously affected, for the better because of the interstate highway system. Certainly there have been some boondoggles paid for with federal highway money, like Ted Stevens’ famous “Bridge to Nowhere,” but I can’t really believe that anyone thinks that the government’s “interference” with transportation and commerce was a bad thing. What’s weird is that the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota was actually due to a LACK of government interference. Had there been some money to repair that bridge and some engineers to inspect (i.e. “interfere”), that collapse might never have happened and people wouldn’t have died.
Another area where I see governmental “interference” as a good thing is the USDA. Now, I will be honest, I had thought that Rick had kids, but I just can’t say that I am 100% certain. I have quickly looked over his Facebook profile and I didn’t find any references to them one way or another. I could have missed it, I could have been wrong in thinking he and his truly lovely wife (whom I assume married him because of some rampant case of Stockholm Syndrome) have kids, but let’s just say that I am correct. I know Rick wants his kids to eat health, nutritious foods. No one is saying that the government should dictate what parents feed their children, but is it so wrong to ask the government to inspect the meat, fruits and vegetables that go into the stream of commerce? While I can’t argue with the idea that a tapeworm might do me a lot of good, I know for a fact that I don’t want my daughter to have one and I am equally certain that Rick doesn’t want his kids to get them either. The free market is not a solution to this because the free market will simply throw tainted meat into the market and sell it with little care for who might get sick from it. If you don’t believe me, read “The Jungle” and get back to me. Before the USDA started “interfering,” our food supply was tremendously risky, now it’s one of the safest in the world.
I also have enjoyed the benefits of government interference in the form of Pell grants and federal student loans and I know a lot of people who have gotten federally backed mortgages for their homes. I don’t know enough about Rick’s financial situation, but I assume he and his parents paid cash or got entirely private funding for his college education and I think that’s great. I honestly do. I just know that for me, if it weren’t for federal student aid, I wouldn’t have been able to afford college and having gone to college and grad school has improved my lot in life to where I have a better paying job and am able to be a more productive member of society than if I were a manual laborer. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with manual labor and don’t anyone call me an elitist. All I am saying is that, for me, education was an integral part of my development as a person and had I been unable to attend college, I would not have maximized my potential. The same thing applies to people who want to go to a technical college, vocational or trade school but can’t afford it. They aren’t getting the chance to make the most of themselves. I am working hard to sock away enough money to put my kids through school and I am sure Rick is as well, but there are a lot of people out there who aren’t given the blessings Rick and I have received. I’m glad there are programs out there who can help people in the same situation I was in when I went to school.
I could go on and on (I know, I already have) about the value and role of government in people’s lives. I get that Rick doesn’t want “interference” and I think that’s laudable. Rick doesn’t think that the government should be helping people except in extreme cases and I understand that as well. The thing is where Rick sees “interference” I see beef that is safe to eat, roads that are safe to travel and homes that are up to code
I’m not saying my friend is wrong, but I am saying I disagree with him.
And this is for Rick H., not Rick Z. whom I have known almost as long.
Friday, March 20, 2009
You Know What? Fuck You Coach K!
Just a short post to point out what a douchebag Mike Krzyzewski is and probably always will be. I've pretty much hated this fucking guy since the mid 1980s but his recent comments about how President Obama should focus on the economy instead of NCAA basketball brackets are just ridiculous and show what a whiny crybaby that ferret-faced fuck really is.
Yeah, I can see why Coach K thinks that Obama should worry about the economy and I am sure he isn't being the least bit disingenuous and would have said the same thing if the President had picked Duke instead of North Carolina to win the whole thing. He is a really credible person, no doubt. There is no reason to doubt Coach K on this one.
Because if the President takes a few minutes to complete a hasty bracket, it MUST mean that he isn't focusing on the really important stuff, right? I mean, I am sure the record is rife with Coach K's plaintive whines about when President Dubya hosted a Super Bowl party (nearly choking on a pretzel in the process) and Coach K was there to suggest that maybe instead of worrying about the Super Bowl, perhaps W should have been focused on the war in Iraq, right? RIGHT?! And I am sure Coach K was all over it when Dubya had my beloved Jayhawks to the White House last year after they won the whole tournament, right? RIGHT?! Because, according to Coach K, that would mean that Dubya took his eye off the ball and the Presidential Conscience (Coach K) would certainly have stepped in to offer advice to the President if he witnessed something like that or had reason to believe it was happening.
Tell you what Coach, why don't you shut your fucking mouth and not tell ANYONE else how to do their job and we won't tell you how to coach your perpetually underachieving Blue Devils into another early exit from the tournament, m'kay? Unless you really believe that POTUS isn't allowed a few minutes of fun and relaxation every so often. And if you believe that (while I disagree with the position, it's not entirely indefensible), can you point me to the record of your comments about how President Dubya shouldn't have taken more vacations than any other POTUS in the history of the Republic? Because if President Obama should worry less about relaxing stuff like basketball brackets, surely President Bush was responsible for not spending every weekend clearing brush from his ranch in Texas, right? RIGHT?!
And, by the way, you ferretty fuck, I don't believe you for a second when you say that you are a fan of President Obama and what he is doing. You flaunt your Republicanism like Milton Berle flaunted his cock. You once said (and please forgive me, I can't find the exact quote so I am paraphrasing) that you would remain a Republican if only to continue to cancel out Dean Smith's vote. You were never a supporter of Barack Obama so please shut the fuck up about how this is anything other than you feeling paranoid and stoking the paranoid fanatsies of the Duke faithful.
You suck. You are a whiner and Duke hasn't performed at the NCAA tournament for years. You are a bully and you can't stand getting your way. Therefore you offer unwanted, unsolicied and totally disingenuous advice under the guise of speaking truth to power when all you have ever done is speak whatever will advance your own position.
By the way, thanks for doing a pretty good job with the US Olympic team. You're still a rat-faced fuck and a whiny, crybaber of a liar, but I did enjoy what you did this summer. Fucker.
Yeah, I can see why Coach K thinks that Obama should worry about the economy and I am sure he isn't being the least bit disingenuous and would have said the same thing if the President had picked Duke instead of North Carolina to win the whole thing. He is a really credible person, no doubt. There is no reason to doubt Coach K on this one.
Because if the President takes a few minutes to complete a hasty bracket, it MUST mean that he isn't focusing on the really important stuff, right? I mean, I am sure the record is rife with Coach K's plaintive whines about when President Dubya hosted a Super Bowl party (nearly choking on a pretzel in the process) and Coach K was there to suggest that maybe instead of worrying about the Super Bowl, perhaps W should have been focused on the war in Iraq, right? RIGHT?! And I am sure Coach K was all over it when Dubya had my beloved Jayhawks to the White House last year after they won the whole tournament, right? RIGHT?! Because, according to Coach K, that would mean that Dubya took his eye off the ball and the Presidential Conscience (Coach K) would certainly have stepped in to offer advice to the President if he witnessed something like that or had reason to believe it was happening.
Tell you what Coach, why don't you shut your fucking mouth and not tell ANYONE else how to do their job and we won't tell you how to coach your perpetually underachieving Blue Devils into another early exit from the tournament, m'kay? Unless you really believe that POTUS isn't allowed a few minutes of fun and relaxation every so often. And if you believe that (while I disagree with the position, it's not entirely indefensible), can you point me to the record of your comments about how President Dubya shouldn't have taken more vacations than any other POTUS in the history of the Republic? Because if President Obama should worry less about relaxing stuff like basketball brackets, surely President Bush was responsible for not spending every weekend clearing brush from his ranch in Texas, right? RIGHT?!
And, by the way, you ferretty fuck, I don't believe you for a second when you say that you are a fan of President Obama and what he is doing. You flaunt your Republicanism like Milton Berle flaunted his cock. You once said (and please forgive me, I can't find the exact quote so I am paraphrasing) that you would remain a Republican if only to continue to cancel out Dean Smith's vote. You were never a supporter of Barack Obama so please shut the fuck up about how this is anything other than you feeling paranoid and stoking the paranoid fanatsies of the Duke faithful.
You suck. You are a whiner and Duke hasn't performed at the NCAA tournament for years. You are a bully and you can't stand getting your way. Therefore you offer unwanted, unsolicied and totally disingenuous advice under the guise of speaking truth to power when all you have ever done is speak whatever will advance your own position.
By the way, thanks for doing a pretty good job with the US Olympic team. You're still a rat-faced fuck and a whiny, crybaber of a liar, but I did enjoy what you did this summer. Fucker.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
