My Continuing South'ren Education...
I have begun to realize that one must be careful about one says to a Southerner. The typical, sarcastic banter that is the hallmark of the northerner is often misunderstood and misinterpreted here. It's not that folks are dumb, most are far from it. Rather, I would tend to believe that because most southerners are plain-spoken, earnest folks, they expect you are being plain-spoken and earnest with them when you speak. Very often, in the course of being a wiseass, I often give offense where none was intended. Naturally, once people get the joke, they're fine with it, but there have been a few occasions where I've riled someone up with sarcasm.
Now, who is it that gets their panties bunched by sarcasm? Why, southern men, for the most part.
A little background for you here: there is a palpable resentment in the air for that most vile of creatures, the Yankee. Most folks are content to live and let live, but there are some that just cannot get over the fact that a) the Confederacy lost the war, and b) that we now live in the 21st Century. Granted, not all of the changes that have occurred in a place like Charlotte are welcome. The rampant clearing of land for housing, for example, is giving many the impression of being fenced in, often by people they normally would rather not associate with. There's the competition for jobs. There's the changes in the social life of Charlotte that are changing what was once a quiet city into a bustling, cosmopolitian place. The main complaint you'll hear about all of this progress is about "traffic". The traffic doesn't measure up to Northeastern standards, as far as delays or how horrendous it is, but don't forget that this place was barely on the map, for all intents and purposes, 20 years ago. But I digress.
Anyways, the group most likely to have trouble with all the changes in life here are the men. There's several reasons for this. To begin with, they hate Yankees. They hate Yankees that come here and get high -paying jobs that they can't even more. They hate Yankees with high-paying jobs who are magnets for southern belles the most. Southern men ruled like medieval lords once upon a time, a time when women knew their place, and men got their way because they were "the man". Some have been stuck in this primordial state for far longer than is healthy. They still believe they live in the 19th Century, in the same way Muslims believe we can turn back the clock to the 7th Century.
The hostility I often encounter very much resembles a manifestation of an inferiority complex more than than it does pure aggression. Previous waves of Yankee migration left a bad taste in the Reb's mouths. That previous wave bought into every stereotype you could imagine, and from what I've been able to learn lorded their "sophistication" over the yokels every chance they got. Of course, not all southerners fit the stereotypes; they don't all ride around in pickup trucks, shooting out porchlights and brewing moonshine in the woods. There are some that do, for sure, but in general, the typical southerner that I have been associated with is every bit as sophisticated, as intelligent, and as witty as his northern counterpart. The difference is that they don't feel they have to show it all the time. Yankees do. It's a defect in the model, I must admit.
However, there is one particular sub-group of southerner that is incorrigible. Typically male, he's assured that while you may have a better job, get your pick of the wimmen-folk, and might be able to pronounce the names of French wines, well, dag-nabbit, he can change his own oil. He knows how to grill up some good roadkill, geld a horse, and perhaps, on a good day, walk a straight line after leaving the local watering hole. This kind of guy just can't stand your "Yankee smart-ass remarks" and typically beats his chest about how he could kick your ass, if he was fixin' to. This is also the same guy who, upon finding out you're Sicillian, will want to know if he can see your knife, and if you know Tony Soprano.
So, stereotypes and saucy backtalk peeve him when he's the target, and he can't take it when he gets it back, and because he's typically dull-witted (the stereotype does indeed fit in this case), once you've verbally challenged him by using words you can spell and pronounce properly, he resorts to hostility. This is where you have to be careful with what you say, because while you might be able to take the redneck in a fight, some of these boys are plain crazy. Especially after they've been drinking. It's not unusual to have to kick a guy's behind several times before he finally wises up and get's his shootin' iron. I haven't been in that position (yet), but I've heard about it.
Couple this rampant inferiority complex with raging male hormones, stupidity and the fact that no southerner I've met to this point EVER forgives a slight, no matter how minor, and it's amazing there aren't more murders here. I've seen people around here that hold grudges for 20 years in a dispute over a parking space. It's macho run rampant.
Stubborn and stupid is a very bad combination. There are a few of these dinosaurs running around town, and the best thing to do is to just ignore them. But if you can't, make sure the moron knows you can't be pushed around either, and dammit, if I want to be a wiseguy, I will. They may not be smart, but they do respond to a reciprocal round of chest beating themselves.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Back in the USSR?
Woke up this morning to the news that recent elections int he Ukraine have turned nasty. Apparently, a candidate backed by Vladimir Putin and Moscow has won an election amidst cries of fraud and other nefarious means fo foul play. No, Al Gore was NOT elected President of Ukraine, but he is petitioning the Florida Supreme Court for a recount in Dade COunty.
Now at the moment, I'm not reallyup on Ukrainian politics, though I do plan to get up to speed on this. It has been reported that Russian troops have landed in the Ukraine, I'd bet under the guise of "restoring stablility and order", but it's pretty clear what the real reason is: Putin wants to reconstitute as much of the old USSR as he can. Ukraine, once the jewel of Eastern Europe, has been a target for every nasty dictator from Ivan the Terrible to Napoleon to Stalin to Hitler and now, Putin.
The Ukrainians have taken to the streets to demonstrate for democracy and to lend support to the losers in this election. Good for them. We here in this country, however, have a duty to not let them face Russian tanks alone. We failed in Prague and Warsaw when they were threatened by the Red Army in the 1940's, 50's, although we did stand up for Lech Walensa in the 1980's, and for East Germans in 1989.
We have a responsibility to help the Ukrainians in any way we can, even if that means committing troops, in my opinion. We cannot make the case that the cause of freedom and democracy is necessary to improve life in the Middle East and then turn around and let Moscow trample on it someplace else. There are things we can do, all of us, right here at home.
Remember, while you enjoy your turkey dinner and football today, thousands of Ukrainians are putting their lives on the line to fight for the same things you take for granted. "But Matt", you ask, "what can I do?".
For a start, write letters. Write your Congresscritters, Senators (except Kerry, Leahy and Sanders, they loved the Soviet Union and miss it), and ask them to do whatever Congress can to make the Russians back off. I'm sure there's an econimic aid package floating around Washington somewhere that can be voted down. Write to the media and ask them to investigate and report, not in a Dan Rather kind of way, but in a way that shows people here just what is really going on there. Demand truth, and perhaps we'll get it.
Get to the Russian and Ukrainian Embassies and demonstrate for freedom. Get to your churches and synagogues and pray. If there's any kind of relief funds to be set up for this, then by all means donate what you can. All of you who volunteered to be human shields for Saddam Hussein, let's see if you're willing to do the same for a much more worthy cause now.
I'll write more on this as I learn more, but we cannot let this state of affairs continue.
Woke up this morning to the news that recent elections int he Ukraine have turned nasty. Apparently, a candidate backed by Vladimir Putin and Moscow has won an election amidst cries of fraud and other nefarious means fo foul play. No, Al Gore was NOT elected President of Ukraine, but he is petitioning the Florida Supreme Court for a recount in Dade COunty.
Now at the moment, I'm not reallyup on Ukrainian politics, though I do plan to get up to speed on this. It has been reported that Russian troops have landed in the Ukraine, I'd bet under the guise of "restoring stablility and order", but it's pretty clear what the real reason is: Putin wants to reconstitute as much of the old USSR as he can. Ukraine, once the jewel of Eastern Europe, has been a target for every nasty dictator from Ivan the Terrible to Napoleon to Stalin to Hitler and now, Putin.
The Ukrainians have taken to the streets to demonstrate for democracy and to lend support to the losers in this election. Good for them. We here in this country, however, have a duty to not let them face Russian tanks alone. We failed in Prague and Warsaw when they were threatened by the Red Army in the 1940's, 50's, although we did stand up for Lech Walensa in the 1980's, and for East Germans in 1989.
We have a responsibility to help the Ukrainians in any way we can, even if that means committing troops, in my opinion. We cannot make the case that the cause of freedom and democracy is necessary to improve life in the Middle East and then turn around and let Moscow trample on it someplace else. There are things we can do, all of us, right here at home.
Remember, while you enjoy your turkey dinner and football today, thousands of Ukrainians are putting their lives on the line to fight for the same things you take for granted. "But Matt", you ask, "what can I do?".
For a start, write letters. Write your Congresscritters, Senators (except Kerry, Leahy and Sanders, they loved the Soviet Union and miss it), and ask them to do whatever Congress can to make the Russians back off. I'm sure there's an econimic aid package floating around Washington somewhere that can be voted down. Write to the media and ask them to investigate and report, not in a Dan Rather kind of way, but in a way that shows people here just what is really going on there. Demand truth, and perhaps we'll get it.
Get to the Russian and Ukrainian Embassies and demonstrate for freedom. Get to your churches and synagogues and pray. If there's any kind of relief funds to be set up for this, then by all means donate what you can. All of you who volunteered to be human shields for Saddam Hussein, let's see if you're willing to do the same for a much more worthy cause now.
I'll write more on this as I learn more, but we cannot let this state of affairs continue.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
The Right Stuff...
Vis-a-vis the Condi Rice "controversy" (there's that word again!). I defy the critics to find someone of comarable qualifications for th job of Secretary of State. Why we're having this debate as to whether or not she's qualified for the job is beyond me. The important thing, despite her credentials, is that the President feels she's qualified, and in a perfect world, this would be enough.
But democrats and so-called liberals just don't see it that way. The recent spate of criticism, jokes, unflattering cartoons,just goes to prove it. What makes this woman such a target for them?
To begin with, any true liberal a generation ago would have been absolutely ecstatic about the prospect of a black female reaching the heights of government that Miss Rice has. They might even have forgotten the part about her being a republican, but that's arguable. The fact remains that 20 years ago, perhaps even 10, the announcement that an Anfrican-American female was up for the job would have been enough to inspire parades in her honor all across America. She would have been held up as a paragon, a shining example that America was finally learning to leave it's racist, sexist past behind and a reaffirmation that in America, talent counts and overcomes.
But that was then, this is now.
Liberals are great talkers. It's always talk, by the way, and never action. Action, even individual action on any topic, would entail personal responsibility, which is something that all liberals can agree is bad juju. If liberals really believed all the crap they have spouted for near on 40 years, this event would have been a "ho-hum, move-on-folks-nothing-to-see-here" occurance. it would have been so normal as to not elicit a whisper.
The real issue with Condi Rice, from a liberal perspective, stem from the argument that liberals have never backed up their talk with action (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton all had opportunities to elevate black folks, and did nothing. When blacks were prominent in any capacity, it was always as window dressing). Liberals now have to labor against their own rhetoric. What makes it even more painful for them is that it took a republican to name not one, but TWO, African-American Secretaries of State.
So, because liberals who have talked the talk, but never walked the walk come up against this reality, they must panic. They must castigate. They must demonize. Because they're the ones who REALLY CARE FOR OUR LITTLE BALCK BROTHERS, REALLY!, then Condileeza Rice must be some sort of faux-black automaton, somehow lacking in her blackness and perhaps, dare we say it?, a puppet of the bourgeoise, republican oppression mill.
The same thing can be said about Ward Connerly. Or Clarence Thomas. Or J.C. Watts. Hell, about any black that somehow manages to rise to power or prominance within the REPUBLICAN fold. They MUST be window dressing, a prop to make republicans LOOK like they don't want to reintroduce slavery, while they labor away to stock the salt mines with oppressed, African-American slave labor.
Condi Rice, and the others I've mentioned, don't fit the profle (and yes, that's what it is) that democrats and liberals expect them to fit into: black, poor, democrat, virulently anti-republican, easy vote to pick off, easily bribed into subjection, easily manipulated by people who pretend they care. When facd with the prosp[ect of an independant black that has decided to go republican, the liberal elite goes beserk. It's as if they left the reservation and have become rogue operators.
So, we've heard she not qualified for the job. Yeah, right. We've heard she's merely Bush's puppet, a parrot that will say whatever the boss puts into her mouth. Yeah, right. She's a terrible example for black Americans, making it appear as if the republican party actually cares. Yeah, right.
Condileeza Rice scares the hell out of liberals for three reasons:
a) She's a successful black woman. That in itself is rare (in their minds) enough. And unlike Oprah, she's actually got brains and espouses a Conservative philosophy. She's a horrible example of what Conservatrism actually has to offer Blacks. God forbid that this kind of thing actually SPREADS!
b) Because she's a black woman, you can't necessairly go after her with a hatchet, now, can you? Not without running the risk of being hoisted upon your own petard with the politically correct crowd. Usually the politically correct crowd doesn't care, seeing such activity as merely background noise against which the "great struggle" must be conducted (unless there's a conservative to roast), but still, a few eyebrows might rise.Of course, the hypocrisy would be obvious to the Jesus-land folks, but it's not like we care about them anyway.
c) She's a possible contender against Hilary in 2008. She has to be torn down NOW.
I'm still waiting for Jesse Jackson to hit the airwaves, claiming that Condoleeza is not "authentically black". Merely a matter of time, I know it, and when it happens, I will rejoice. I will rejoice because there, on millions of TV sets around the world, the democratic and liberal elite of this world will have finally, and irrevocably, blown their collective gasket. When you send a black hypocrite out to defend "blackness" you know you're reaching. Condoleeza Rice blows their minds and they do not know how to handle her.
It will get nastier, have no doubt. Stay tuned.
Vis-a-vis the Condi Rice "controversy" (there's that word again!). I defy the critics to find someone of comarable qualifications for th job of Secretary of State. Why we're having this debate as to whether or not she's qualified for the job is beyond me. The important thing, despite her credentials, is that the President feels she's qualified, and in a perfect world, this would be enough.
But democrats and so-called liberals just don't see it that way. The recent spate of criticism, jokes, unflattering cartoons,just goes to prove it. What makes this woman such a target for them?
To begin with, any true liberal a generation ago would have been absolutely ecstatic about the prospect of a black female reaching the heights of government that Miss Rice has. They might even have forgotten the part about her being a republican, but that's arguable. The fact remains that 20 years ago, perhaps even 10, the announcement that an Anfrican-American female was up for the job would have been enough to inspire parades in her honor all across America. She would have been held up as a paragon, a shining example that America was finally learning to leave it's racist, sexist past behind and a reaffirmation that in America, talent counts and overcomes.
But that was then, this is now.
Liberals are great talkers. It's always talk, by the way, and never action. Action, even individual action on any topic, would entail personal responsibility, which is something that all liberals can agree is bad juju. If liberals really believed all the crap they have spouted for near on 40 years, this event would have been a "ho-hum, move-on-folks-nothing-to-see-here" occurance. it would have been so normal as to not elicit a whisper.
The real issue with Condi Rice, from a liberal perspective, stem from the argument that liberals have never backed up their talk with action (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton all had opportunities to elevate black folks, and did nothing. When blacks were prominent in any capacity, it was always as window dressing). Liberals now have to labor against their own rhetoric. What makes it even more painful for them is that it took a republican to name not one, but TWO, African-American Secretaries of State.
So, because liberals who have talked the talk, but never walked the walk come up against this reality, they must panic. They must castigate. They must demonize. Because they're the ones who REALLY CARE FOR OUR LITTLE BALCK BROTHERS, REALLY!, then Condileeza Rice must be some sort of faux-black automaton, somehow lacking in her blackness and perhaps, dare we say it?, a puppet of the bourgeoise, republican oppression mill.
The same thing can be said about Ward Connerly. Or Clarence Thomas. Or J.C. Watts. Hell, about any black that somehow manages to rise to power or prominance within the REPUBLICAN fold. They MUST be window dressing, a prop to make republicans LOOK like they don't want to reintroduce slavery, while they labor away to stock the salt mines with oppressed, African-American slave labor.
Condi Rice, and the others I've mentioned, don't fit the profle (and yes, that's what it is) that democrats and liberals expect them to fit into: black, poor, democrat, virulently anti-republican, easy vote to pick off, easily bribed into subjection, easily manipulated by people who pretend they care. When facd with the prosp[ect of an independant black that has decided to go republican, the liberal elite goes beserk. It's as if they left the reservation and have become rogue operators.
So, we've heard she not qualified for the job. Yeah, right. We've heard she's merely Bush's puppet, a parrot that will say whatever the boss puts into her mouth. Yeah, right. She's a terrible example for black Americans, making it appear as if the republican party actually cares. Yeah, right.
Condileeza Rice scares the hell out of liberals for three reasons:
a) She's a successful black woman. That in itself is rare (in their minds) enough. And unlike Oprah, she's actually got brains and espouses a Conservative philosophy. She's a horrible example of what Conservatrism actually has to offer Blacks. God forbid that this kind of thing actually SPREADS!
b) Because she's a black woman, you can't necessairly go after her with a hatchet, now, can you? Not without running the risk of being hoisted upon your own petard with the politically correct crowd. Usually the politically correct crowd doesn't care, seeing such activity as merely background noise against which the "great struggle" must be conducted (unless there's a conservative to roast), but still, a few eyebrows might rise.Of course, the hypocrisy would be obvious to the Jesus-land folks, but it's not like we care about them anyway.
c) She's a possible contender against Hilary in 2008. She has to be torn down NOW.
I'm still waiting for Jesse Jackson to hit the airwaves, claiming that Condoleeza is not "authentically black". Merely a matter of time, I know it, and when it happens, I will rejoice. I will rejoice because there, on millions of TV sets around the world, the democratic and liberal elite of this world will have finally, and irrevocably, blown their collective gasket. When you send a black hypocrite out to defend "blackness" you know you're reaching. Condoleeza Rice blows their minds and they do not know how to handle her.
It will get nastier, have no doubt. Stay tuned.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
And Another Thing...
Getting back for a minute to the disgusting behavior displayed on our television sets during sporting events, how about that steamy pre-game promo last Monday night?
Do I have a problem with it? Yes. But not for the reasons you think I might.
The "controversy" (it's only a controversy if it happens accidentally, this was planned, so it's not controversy) has had many sides aired out already. There's the racial angle, so thoughtfully anunciated for us by Tony Dungy. There's the salacious angle, being played up by bible thumpers across the country. There's the "they shouldn't have shown it with kids in the room" angle, as well.
Let's get this straight: what ABC did was to promote one show during another. This happens all the time in the business world -- it's called cross-selling. You have one red-hot product to sell, and if you tie it in with another, you supposedly boost the sales of both. Semi-porn and football are hot commodities, and yes, if you put them together, you get something reeking of dollar signs. Don't think so? Just ask the Dallas Cowboy's Cheerleaders or all the big-busted muscle sluts in "Professional" wrestling.
Look at this from a business perspective: nothing sells like sex and the sleazier and the more suggestive it is, the better. So, let's get a hot blonde and a black guy in a locker room, and get the Mandingo thing going. Let's have them drop their towels and suggest they're "gettin' busy", while we're at it. Let's do it while a third of the men in the country are sitting down to dinner, with their wives and kids in attendance. If you believe ABC didn't realize what it was doing, you need to have your head examined. They knew full well what they were doing and they knew what the reaction would be. Now there's gonna be a bunch of horny 18-34 year old males watching "Desperate Housewives" on Sunday nights to see the suggestion of sex.
Now for all the other stuff.
We live in the 21st century and interracial relationships should not shock us so. I know there are still some people on the planet who haven't grown up, but let's face it, we don't live in the Confederacy anymore. Some of these folks would have no problem if their white son brought an Asian girl home, but absolutely gag at the thought of a white female coupled with a black man. Get over it and join the rest of us in this universe. I've dated women of all races, incidentally, and I don't see them as black, white, yelow or brown, I see them as women. I've had occasion to be locked in the same room with people of all races, sexual preferences and persuasions, and while I may not have liked particular individuals, I never once (I hope!) equated one person I hated with an entire race.
Does sex belong on television? Well, it's been there for so long that the question is moot. In my own lifetime, shows like "Petticoat Junction", "I Dream of Jeannie", "Charlie's Angels", "Three's Company", "The Howard Stern Show" and such, have probably made me immune to some aspects of sex that would have been considered shocking 50 years ago. Heck, "Star Trek" had the first interracial kiss in TV history, and Captain Kirk got it on with a a different woman every week. Not like this kinda thing hasn't been done before, folks. Your typical commercial drips with sex: busty beer girls, women mud wrestling, Viagra or Enzyte ads every 15 minutes. Genital Herpes gets mentioned at least twice a day on TV. Still, we put rules into place --- certain categories of entertainment can only be shown on cable, or after a certain hour, and broadcast TV is at a disadvantage when forced to comply with them. They can only push the envelope while cable can toss it to the four winds. However, the envelope has been stretched so far already that when it comes to sex on broadcast TV, we have to shock, rather than just tittilate (no pun intended).
I'll bet we'll be seeing three men in a suitably-discreet manage-a-trois scene on "NYPD Blue" or something any day now. The subject is pretty much closed --- if we took it away, no one would watch television, which might be a good thing come to think of it.
As for the NFL, they had to have known this was going to take place. One of their star players was going to be involved in a promo for their Platinum-plated showcase (MNF), and the event was going to take place in one of their locker rooms. The lawyers knew. After the fallout from the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, you would think the NFL would tale pains to ensure that that kind of behavior would not be associated with football again. I guess not. It gets people watching more Monday Night Football just in case Nicolette Sheridan performs fellatio on a koala bear as an encore.
However, I did object to some of the gratuitious nonsense that came out in the aftermath. Did Tony Dungy have to bring race into it? Did he have to mention Kobe Bryant? Might as well have mentioned O.J. while he was at it, too. Kobe had nothing to do with this --- this was business, Kobe was a felony. He whined about the stereotype of "black athlete as sexual predator" and that offended him more than anything. He was worried about perception in a sport where drug use is prevalent, women dance in scanty clothes around the sidelines, where guys routinely disrepect each other for a spot on ESPN, and where at any given time, at least one of the players is under indictment, on suspension for drug use or, under arrest. How about getting worked about THAT, Tony?
What was inappropriate about this promo was that it had nothing to do with football. It was crass commercialism and a cynical ploy to bring the bible thumpers and the self-righteous out to watch "Desperate Housewives", just to so they can sit there and rail about "how it shouldn't be on TV", but still get aroused by it.
You know, I forget who said it, but it's still appropos; "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". That's what drove this whole thing --- the networks treat us all like sheep that occasionally need to be shocked so that they can get more attention. They didn't underestimate anyone's intelligence --- they already knew no one was going to figure it out because they'd be blinded by the sex.
Getting back for a minute to the disgusting behavior displayed on our television sets during sporting events, how about that steamy pre-game promo last Monday night?
Do I have a problem with it? Yes. But not for the reasons you think I might.
The "controversy" (it's only a controversy if it happens accidentally, this was planned, so it's not controversy) has had many sides aired out already. There's the racial angle, so thoughtfully anunciated for us by Tony Dungy. There's the salacious angle, being played up by bible thumpers across the country. There's the "they shouldn't have shown it with kids in the room" angle, as well.
Let's get this straight: what ABC did was to promote one show during another. This happens all the time in the business world -- it's called cross-selling. You have one red-hot product to sell, and if you tie it in with another, you supposedly boost the sales of both. Semi-porn and football are hot commodities, and yes, if you put them together, you get something reeking of dollar signs. Don't think so? Just ask the Dallas Cowboy's Cheerleaders or all the big-busted muscle sluts in "Professional" wrestling.
Look at this from a business perspective: nothing sells like sex and the sleazier and the more suggestive it is, the better. So, let's get a hot blonde and a black guy in a locker room, and get the Mandingo thing going. Let's have them drop their towels and suggest they're "gettin' busy", while we're at it. Let's do it while a third of the men in the country are sitting down to dinner, with their wives and kids in attendance. If you believe ABC didn't realize what it was doing, you need to have your head examined. They knew full well what they were doing and they knew what the reaction would be. Now there's gonna be a bunch of horny 18-34 year old males watching "Desperate Housewives" on Sunday nights to see the suggestion of sex.
Now for all the other stuff.
We live in the 21st century and interracial relationships should not shock us so. I know there are still some people on the planet who haven't grown up, but let's face it, we don't live in the Confederacy anymore. Some of these folks would have no problem if their white son brought an Asian girl home, but absolutely gag at the thought of a white female coupled with a black man. Get over it and join the rest of us in this universe. I've dated women of all races, incidentally, and I don't see them as black, white, yelow or brown, I see them as women. I've had occasion to be locked in the same room with people of all races, sexual preferences and persuasions, and while I may not have liked particular individuals, I never once (I hope!) equated one person I hated with an entire race.
Does sex belong on television? Well, it's been there for so long that the question is moot. In my own lifetime, shows like "Petticoat Junction", "I Dream of Jeannie", "Charlie's Angels", "Three's Company", "The Howard Stern Show" and such, have probably made me immune to some aspects of sex that would have been considered shocking 50 years ago. Heck, "Star Trek" had the first interracial kiss in TV history, and Captain Kirk got it on with a a different woman every week. Not like this kinda thing hasn't been done before, folks. Your typical commercial drips with sex: busty beer girls, women mud wrestling, Viagra or Enzyte ads every 15 minutes. Genital Herpes gets mentioned at least twice a day on TV. Still, we put rules into place --- certain categories of entertainment can only be shown on cable, or after a certain hour, and broadcast TV is at a disadvantage when forced to comply with them. They can only push the envelope while cable can toss it to the four winds. However, the envelope has been stretched so far already that when it comes to sex on broadcast TV, we have to shock, rather than just tittilate (no pun intended).
I'll bet we'll be seeing three men in a suitably-discreet manage-a-trois scene on "NYPD Blue" or something any day now. The subject is pretty much closed --- if we took it away, no one would watch television, which might be a good thing come to think of it.
As for the NFL, they had to have known this was going to take place. One of their star players was going to be involved in a promo for their Platinum-plated showcase (MNF), and the event was going to take place in one of their locker rooms. The lawyers knew. After the fallout from the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, you would think the NFL would tale pains to ensure that that kind of behavior would not be associated with football again. I guess not. It gets people watching more Monday Night Football just in case Nicolette Sheridan performs fellatio on a koala bear as an encore.
However, I did object to some of the gratuitious nonsense that came out in the aftermath. Did Tony Dungy have to bring race into it? Did he have to mention Kobe Bryant? Might as well have mentioned O.J. while he was at it, too. Kobe had nothing to do with this --- this was business, Kobe was a felony. He whined about the stereotype of "black athlete as sexual predator" and that offended him more than anything. He was worried about perception in a sport where drug use is prevalent, women dance in scanty clothes around the sidelines, where guys routinely disrepect each other for a spot on ESPN, and where at any given time, at least one of the players is under indictment, on suspension for drug use or, under arrest. How about getting worked about THAT, Tony?
What was inappropriate about this promo was that it had nothing to do with football. It was crass commercialism and a cynical ploy to bring the bible thumpers and the self-righteous out to watch "Desperate Housewives", just to so they can sit there and rail about "how it shouldn't be on TV", but still get aroused by it.
You know, I forget who said it, but it's still appropos; "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". That's what drove this whole thing --- the networks treat us all like sheep that occasionally need to be shocked so that they can get more attention. They didn't underestimate anyone's intelligence --- they already knew no one was going to figure it out because they'd be blinded by the sex.
Thugs on the Court...
Normally I don't follow basketball. It was not my favorite sport growing up and I was never really any good at it anyway. I believe that for that reason alone, I never took an interest.
However, I do watch SportsCenter on ESPN. I do watch the news (go Fox!) about 12 hours a day, as well. What I saw today made me a) laugh and b) wan't to vomit.
Here in Charlotte, the only sports talk you typically hear is about NASCAR or the Panthers, but today, everyone was talking about the nasty altercation that took place the night before in Detroit, where the Pistons and the Pacers decided to get down and dirty with under a minute to go.
By now everyone knows the story; Ron Artest of Indiana smacks Ben Wallace of Detroit in the back of the head. Why Artest had to foul him is beyond me (I know at least THAT much about basketball), and why he chose this particular way of doing it eludes me as well. Suffice it to say, that Wallace was not amused, and a shoving match ensued. The shoving match quickly degenerated into a bench-clearing brawl which eventually included the entire arena.
Now what struck me as funny about the whole thing is how basketball players fight. I was raised on hockey, where fisticuffs are as common as fleas on a dog (or at least they used to be), and boxing, so, I know a good fight when I see one. I know a good fighter when I see one too. Which is why this was comical.
Basketball players fight like spastic girls, merely pushing and slapping at one another. At least baseball players (the second worst sports pugilists) attempt to tackle each other and rol around in the grass. These slaps are typicaly delivered over someone's back (typically the poor referee who tries to get in between the combatants, or another player, preferably taller than the aggressor). When two players do finally get some room to throw down, they lunge at one another in a way that reminds one of an ungainly teenager making his first stab at a virgin's privates --- clumsy and usually inaccurate --- before they fall over one another or someone breaks it up. They then posture like pro wrestlers and display a nasty attitude to their would-be opponent, which is supposed to indicate macho, but it was obvious from the start that the aggressor's true purpose is to cover for the fact that he throws punches like a girl.
Now we've all seen boxers stand toe-to-toe and hockey players trade punches for what seems hours at a time, and they do so because one of the manly rules of their respective sports is that you have to show up. You can't take a punch and run to a referee, you can't give an opponent the idea that you're soft, or you're finished. So, if it means taking a bunch of stitches, or a broken nose, or losing some teeth, that's the price you pay for standing up and being counted, no matter how bad it hurts. It's part of being a man. Basketball players do not fall into this category, in my opinion, when it comes to being tough. In the NBA, attitude is supposed to substitute for real guts.
Now for the vomiting part.
Someone please explain this to me; Artest starts a mini-brawl, then lays down on the scorer's table? Where is the display of machismo in that? Where is the logic? What the HELL was that all about, showboating? Good idea -- start a fight, run away from it and then assume a position of total submission. Of course, laying out there on the table as if he was about to have prostate surgery, Artest became a target for that other retarded denizen of the NBA --- the fan. You know, the guy who paid an inflated ticket price to watch a man bounce a ball up a hardwood floor and then throw a hissy fit that the other girls couldn't help but join in?
A fan tossed a beverage at him. Why is a question. Fans are not suppposed to get involved, although I do understand that some sports fans do quaff adult beverages in unseemly quantities and they ocasionally do stupid things too. The beverage caused Artest to fly into a rage and make an attempt to assault the fan. His teammates joined him. More fans joined in. A melee reminiscent of the Zulu attack on Roark's Drift ensued, as assholes and elbows flew everywhere.
This will make ya sick when you watch it.
At the end of it all, we have a game cut short, three players suspended, at least two fans assaulted and children crying their eyes out watching a battle take place.
When something like this happens, I start to think about what the heck is actually going on here. How could a basketball game turn so violent? Now, I understand the competitive nature of professional athletes. I understand that Artest, although he's an ass for starting the whole thing, doesn't deserve to get beer tossed on him and disrespected like that. I understand that some fans (in any sport) are a little too drunk, stupid or obsessed with the personalities in the game, and often do dumb things like this. But heck, it's not as if basketball is a CONTACT sport!
Across the border in South Carolina, not 12 hours later, the SC-Clemson game was also marred by a sidelines-clearing melee. Now football IS a contact sport, and yes, tempers can flare. But at least in football, you get a chance to get even when you drill a guy on the next play, and provided it's done legally, I have no problem with that. But this is getting ridiculous.
A great number of athletes today are absolute punks. Manyof them just have that punk look to them and it wouldn't suprise you if after a game, they were waiting outside grocery stores for little old ladies to "escort" home. In the aftermath of the basketball brawl, I discover on the news that 40% of the players in the NBA have prior criminal records. Football has similar numbers. I remember last hockey season when the Pittsburgh Penguins signed a player who had served time for statutory rape and hockey fans were furious that he was allowed to play. The man played home games only, since he was on parole at the time. Still, that's one guy in the whole league. Yes, in recent years, we have seen incidents like the McSorely clubbing of Donald Brashear, the Pearl Harbor job Todd Bertuzzi did on an Avalanche player and the thuggery of Matt Johnson on Jeff Beukaboom, and a host of others. However, hockey has a remedy for those kinds of things: the game allows fighting, which is a safety valve on flaring tempers. The NHL, by cracking down on fighting in recent years, has removed that safety and we've seen ever more vicious incidents a s a result.
But your typical NHL'er does not usually come from an impoverished background (hockey equipment is VERY expensive), where his talent allowed him to sail through schools without producing, flirt with the criminal justice system and come away from it only slightly singed because of his talent, and then have millions of dollars in contracts, signing bonuses and endorsements thrown at him before he even finished high school.
This happens regularly in the NBA.
Consequently, the players have no self-restraint since they've gotten away with everything in life. They have attitudes that develop from zooming from street kid to multi-millionaire in a relatively short time, and the maturity level of the typical democrat. In this case, was it really a surprise that Ron Artest just coincidentally has a rap album coming out, too? It's par for the course --- get an immature illiterate, thrust more money than he's ever seen in his face and tell him he's something special 24-hours a day, and just expect him to NOT be a punk. All we see nowadays at what used to be pleasant events (sporting events) is spitting, punching, assaulting, trash-talking and taunting, designed to get a 5 second spot on SportsCenter. The raunchier and more disgusting the behavior, the more air time it gets. The integrity of the game, the pride of accomplishment, the thrill of comeptetion is gone: it's now all about attitude and self-promotion.
The NBA, and all sports for that matter, have to start holding players accountable. Commisioner David Stern did the right thing by announcing indefinite suspensions for all the major players. The DA in Detroit is investigating possible criminal charges. Fine. But in the end, you know what will happen: the players will be reinstated, if any charges are pressed there will be community service as punishment. The principals will be able to go back to making a shitload of money for playing a game. We go back to worshipping them as celebrities. The cycle begins again.
We all complain about our society going to hell in a handbasket, and that SOMETHING should be done. How about we clean up the crap that inhabits our sporting venues first?
Normally I don't follow basketball. It was not my favorite sport growing up and I was never really any good at it anyway. I believe that for that reason alone, I never took an interest.
However, I do watch SportsCenter on ESPN. I do watch the news (go Fox!) about 12 hours a day, as well. What I saw today made me a) laugh and b) wan't to vomit.
Here in Charlotte, the only sports talk you typically hear is about NASCAR or the Panthers, but today, everyone was talking about the nasty altercation that took place the night before in Detroit, where the Pistons and the Pacers decided to get down and dirty with under a minute to go.
By now everyone knows the story; Ron Artest of Indiana smacks Ben Wallace of Detroit in the back of the head. Why Artest had to foul him is beyond me (I know at least THAT much about basketball), and why he chose this particular way of doing it eludes me as well. Suffice it to say, that Wallace was not amused, and a shoving match ensued. The shoving match quickly degenerated into a bench-clearing brawl which eventually included the entire arena.
Now what struck me as funny about the whole thing is how basketball players fight. I was raised on hockey, where fisticuffs are as common as fleas on a dog (or at least they used to be), and boxing, so, I know a good fight when I see one. I know a good fighter when I see one too. Which is why this was comical.
Basketball players fight like spastic girls, merely pushing and slapping at one another. At least baseball players (the second worst sports pugilists) attempt to tackle each other and rol around in the grass. These slaps are typicaly delivered over someone's back (typically the poor referee who tries to get in between the combatants, or another player, preferably taller than the aggressor). When two players do finally get some room to throw down, they lunge at one another in a way that reminds one of an ungainly teenager making his first stab at a virgin's privates --- clumsy and usually inaccurate --- before they fall over one another or someone breaks it up. They then posture like pro wrestlers and display a nasty attitude to their would-be opponent, which is supposed to indicate macho, but it was obvious from the start that the aggressor's true purpose is to cover for the fact that he throws punches like a girl.
Now we've all seen boxers stand toe-to-toe and hockey players trade punches for what seems hours at a time, and they do so because one of the manly rules of their respective sports is that you have to show up. You can't take a punch and run to a referee, you can't give an opponent the idea that you're soft, or you're finished. So, if it means taking a bunch of stitches, or a broken nose, or losing some teeth, that's the price you pay for standing up and being counted, no matter how bad it hurts. It's part of being a man. Basketball players do not fall into this category, in my opinion, when it comes to being tough. In the NBA, attitude is supposed to substitute for real guts.
Now for the vomiting part.
Someone please explain this to me; Artest starts a mini-brawl, then lays down on the scorer's table? Where is the display of machismo in that? Where is the logic? What the HELL was that all about, showboating? Good idea -- start a fight, run away from it and then assume a position of total submission. Of course, laying out there on the table as if he was about to have prostate surgery, Artest became a target for that other retarded denizen of the NBA --- the fan. You know, the guy who paid an inflated ticket price to watch a man bounce a ball up a hardwood floor and then throw a hissy fit that the other girls couldn't help but join in?
A fan tossed a beverage at him. Why is a question. Fans are not suppposed to get involved, although I do understand that some sports fans do quaff adult beverages in unseemly quantities and they ocasionally do stupid things too. The beverage caused Artest to fly into a rage and make an attempt to assault the fan. His teammates joined him. More fans joined in. A melee reminiscent of the Zulu attack on Roark's Drift ensued, as assholes and elbows flew everywhere.
This will make ya sick when you watch it.
At the end of it all, we have a game cut short, three players suspended, at least two fans assaulted and children crying their eyes out watching a battle take place.
When something like this happens, I start to think about what the heck is actually going on here. How could a basketball game turn so violent? Now, I understand the competitive nature of professional athletes. I understand that Artest, although he's an ass for starting the whole thing, doesn't deserve to get beer tossed on him and disrespected like that. I understand that some fans (in any sport) are a little too drunk, stupid or obsessed with the personalities in the game, and often do dumb things like this. But heck, it's not as if basketball is a CONTACT sport!
Across the border in South Carolina, not 12 hours later, the SC-Clemson game was also marred by a sidelines-clearing melee. Now football IS a contact sport, and yes, tempers can flare. But at least in football, you get a chance to get even when you drill a guy on the next play, and provided it's done legally, I have no problem with that. But this is getting ridiculous.
A great number of athletes today are absolute punks. Manyof them just have that punk look to them and it wouldn't suprise you if after a game, they were waiting outside grocery stores for little old ladies to "escort" home. In the aftermath of the basketball brawl, I discover on the news that 40% of the players in the NBA have prior criminal records. Football has similar numbers. I remember last hockey season when the Pittsburgh Penguins signed a player who had served time for statutory rape and hockey fans were furious that he was allowed to play. The man played home games only, since he was on parole at the time. Still, that's one guy in the whole league. Yes, in recent years, we have seen incidents like the McSorely clubbing of Donald Brashear, the Pearl Harbor job Todd Bertuzzi did on an Avalanche player and the thuggery of Matt Johnson on Jeff Beukaboom, and a host of others. However, hockey has a remedy for those kinds of things: the game allows fighting, which is a safety valve on flaring tempers. The NHL, by cracking down on fighting in recent years, has removed that safety and we've seen ever more vicious incidents a s a result.
But your typical NHL'er does not usually come from an impoverished background (hockey equipment is VERY expensive), where his talent allowed him to sail through schools without producing, flirt with the criminal justice system and come away from it only slightly singed because of his talent, and then have millions of dollars in contracts, signing bonuses and endorsements thrown at him before he even finished high school.
This happens regularly in the NBA.
Consequently, the players have no self-restraint since they've gotten away with everything in life. They have attitudes that develop from zooming from street kid to multi-millionaire in a relatively short time, and the maturity level of the typical democrat. In this case, was it really a surprise that Ron Artest just coincidentally has a rap album coming out, too? It's par for the course --- get an immature illiterate, thrust more money than he's ever seen in his face and tell him he's something special 24-hours a day, and just expect him to NOT be a punk. All we see nowadays at what used to be pleasant events (sporting events) is spitting, punching, assaulting, trash-talking and taunting, designed to get a 5 second spot on SportsCenter. The raunchier and more disgusting the behavior, the more air time it gets. The integrity of the game, the pride of accomplishment, the thrill of comeptetion is gone: it's now all about attitude and self-promotion.
The NBA, and all sports for that matter, have to start holding players accountable. Commisioner David Stern did the right thing by announcing indefinite suspensions for all the major players. The DA in Detroit is investigating possible criminal charges. Fine. But in the end, you know what will happen: the players will be reinstated, if any charges are pressed there will be community service as punishment. The principals will be able to go back to making a shitload of money for playing a game. We go back to worshipping them as celebrities. The cycle begins again.
We all complain about our society going to hell in a handbasket, and that SOMETHING should be done. How about we clean up the crap that inhabits our sporting venues first?
Friday, November 19, 2004
Excuse No. 2,458...
From the "I point the finger at everyone but me" department, it has been reported thet John Kerry finally revealed the mystical reason as to why he lost the 2004 election: Osama Bin Laden.
That's right. John has finally got it all figured out. Osama (who I must admit, I thought was dead) sent a perfectly-timed missive via videotape to America two days before the election and scared Americans into voting for George W. Bush.
Now, granted, this new and novel theory is much better than the other democratic mantras about defeat we've heard in the last few weeks: that Americans are stupid, or the democrats were undone by a vicious cabal of neo-Nazi, homophobic evangelicals, or Mid-Western rednecks had a natural affinity for an illiterate presidential candidate who mangled the English language as well as they did, etc.
Of course, to these people, reality never intrudes into the utopian bubble that they have constrcuted around themselves, a vision of the world that we can all share if only, if only, we'd all become as enlightened to the ways of bad French poilitcal philosophers and chardonnay-sipping revolutionary dillitentes as they were. The true reality, the one the rest of us live in, indicates that John Kerry was just a very bad candidate, with no ideas and nothing to offer but reflexive contrariness. In this true reality, Fox News Channel, Rush Limbagh, the 700 Club and "conservative talk radio" had something to do with pointing out Kerry's shortcomings, but ultimately, the decision still rested with the people. They all don't watch Fox, listen to Rush or attend church regularly, you know. At the same time, they have enough common sense to realize when they are being sold a bag of horse manure. Unfortunately, to a democrat, a bag of horse droppings has it's finer points, if you can just convince yourself the smell is not something nasty and aversive, but merely an unfortunate and esoteric aspect of horse dung. It's supposed to be good horse dung anyway because, well, it means well.
See, that's the difference. And it's why John Kerry was such a rotten candidate. Normal people don't contemplate the nature of horse shit and try to dicover the "nuances" hidden within it. We just decide we don't like the smell and try to avoid it.
Perhaps Osama was a last-minute reminder of the stakes we're fighting for these days, although why people need reminders like this is beyond my comprehension. But to discard the evidence in front you (bad candidate, agenda that wouldn't fly with the population, avoiding the press, manic-depressive wife with a streak of dementia sent out as point-man, VP selection that made Dan Quayle look absolutely statesman-like, repeated and gratuitous references to Cheneys with lesbian predilections, ski vacations in Sun Valley, $8,000 bicycles, wind surfing and 18 months of Vietnam-all-the-time) and conclude that a single event or reason was responsible is nonsense. To believe the reason for your defeat was external is bordering on mental illness. The problem is that Kerry has no stanbdard against which to weigh his shortcomings when he looks at himself in the bathroom mirror and he's surrounded by people with the same shortcomings.
You know, John Kerry once made an almost-reasonable point in the first debate about George W. Bush not learning from his mistakes. It seems Kerry can identify that flaw in others, but somehow, misses it in himself. I'll bet he keeps on missing it, too.
From the "I point the finger at everyone but me" department, it has been reported thet John Kerry finally revealed the mystical reason as to why he lost the 2004 election: Osama Bin Laden.
That's right. John has finally got it all figured out. Osama (who I must admit, I thought was dead) sent a perfectly-timed missive via videotape to America two days before the election and scared Americans into voting for George W. Bush.
Now, granted, this new and novel theory is much better than the other democratic mantras about defeat we've heard in the last few weeks: that Americans are stupid, or the democrats were undone by a vicious cabal of neo-Nazi, homophobic evangelicals, or Mid-Western rednecks had a natural affinity for an illiterate presidential candidate who mangled the English language as well as they did, etc.
Of course, to these people, reality never intrudes into the utopian bubble that they have constrcuted around themselves, a vision of the world that we can all share if only, if only, we'd all become as enlightened to the ways of bad French poilitcal philosophers and chardonnay-sipping revolutionary dillitentes as they were. The true reality, the one the rest of us live in, indicates that John Kerry was just a very bad candidate, with no ideas and nothing to offer but reflexive contrariness. In this true reality, Fox News Channel, Rush Limbagh, the 700 Club and "conservative talk radio" had something to do with pointing out Kerry's shortcomings, but ultimately, the decision still rested with the people. They all don't watch Fox, listen to Rush or attend church regularly, you know. At the same time, they have enough common sense to realize when they are being sold a bag of horse manure. Unfortunately, to a democrat, a bag of horse droppings has it's finer points, if you can just convince yourself the smell is not something nasty and aversive, but merely an unfortunate and esoteric aspect of horse dung. It's supposed to be good horse dung anyway because, well, it means well.
See, that's the difference. And it's why John Kerry was such a rotten candidate. Normal people don't contemplate the nature of horse shit and try to dicover the "nuances" hidden within it. We just decide we don't like the smell and try to avoid it.
Perhaps Osama was a last-minute reminder of the stakes we're fighting for these days, although why people need reminders like this is beyond my comprehension. But to discard the evidence in front you (bad candidate, agenda that wouldn't fly with the population, avoiding the press, manic-depressive wife with a streak of dementia sent out as point-man, VP selection that made Dan Quayle look absolutely statesman-like, repeated and gratuitous references to Cheneys with lesbian predilections, ski vacations in Sun Valley, $8,000 bicycles, wind surfing and 18 months of Vietnam-all-the-time) and conclude that a single event or reason was responsible is nonsense. To believe the reason for your defeat was external is bordering on mental illness. The problem is that Kerry has no stanbdard against which to weigh his shortcomings when he looks at himself in the bathroom mirror and he's surrounded by people with the same shortcomings.
You know, John Kerry once made an almost-reasonable point in the first debate about George W. Bush not learning from his mistakes. It seems Kerry can identify that flaw in others, but somehow, misses it in himself. I'll bet he keeps on missing it, too.
Will The Next Loser Please Stand Up?
I swore two weeks ago that I would stop political blogging, but i can't help myself. Part of it is the insanity of democrats, most of whom still cannot believe that a) they fielded a bad candidate, and b) that democracy worked when he was sent packing. What really caused me to start this little missive, however, has been the almost-constant harping about who the democrats can field in the next presidential election that will stand a chance of perhaps winning.
Now, what's funny about this, in a sick sort of way, is that the folks trotted out by democrats are obviously unhinged. They don't live on the same planet the rest of us do. They're missing vital chromosomes that have had dire consequences for their thought processes.
We can run the list of the afflicted: Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Paul Begala, James Carville, etc.
All of them display three common symptoms of dementia: a failure to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face, a fantasy world in which they are actually more relevant than they really are, and finally, an ability to ramble incoherantly.
We're already talking about democrats lining up for another run at the White House in 2008, and there are a host of people out there that go on TV daily and talk them up. Let's cut through the political spin and the democratic party talking points and get down to brass tacks. First we'll tackle the issues and then we'll tackle the potential candidates.
The issues, for democrats, revolve around one fundamental point: the government welfare state must continue at all costs. A secondary issue for democrats is that the government welfare state must find new ways to insinuate itself into people's lives, so that it not only continues, but thrives. The point of both issues is that they are attempts to make democrats indispensible while they fundamentally fuck the country up to match their utopian dreams. In other words, the point of being a democrat is to be able to destroy American government and culture while you lull the masses to sleep with free goodies. Hence, all the talk about "saving" Social Security, "saving" the enviornment or Medicare, repeated mantras about "Education" and "Healthcare". These are not issues in the same way that turtles are not mammals --- they don't belong in the realm of government in the same way that turtles don't have fur.
In a perfect world, government would do for the people what they are not able to do for themselves; i.e. defending the country, conducting foreign relations, building interstates, picking up the trash. When it comes to things like retirement plans, educating children or buying medical insurance, most people are capable of looking after themselves. In most cases, what democrats are really talking about is being the provider of last resort for all of these things. Democrats, in effect, play around the margins; those too dumb to save their money, those too lazy to put any effort into improving their own lives, are future democrats. The habitual complainers and whiners who are alert enough to cry about their own shortcomings, but not smart enough to actually do anything about them, are already democrats. In short, democrats don't believe in human nature: the idea that mankind, left to see to it's own devices, can find constructive ways to fulfill needs. Democrats play around these margins for two reasons: a) there's power in hooking the powerless (just ask Julius Caesar) and b) it makes them feel good about themselves to have appeared to have done anything at all. If democrats were serious about true, governmental issues, they would find ways to reduce the national debt without resorting to tax increases, fight terrorism with arms rather than platitudes and perhaps, on a good day, let business do it's thing all on it's own, allowing market forces to do the job they've proven they can do.
As for the candidates, let's run them down one at a time:
John Kerry - finsihed. He lost to a dummy, you know. Democrats don't just bury their dead, they bury their wounded. Kerry was a candidate of compromise within the party itself. Dean had the early lead, and the money, but was unelectable, and Liberman was tagged with association with Gore (although Lieberman might actually have won). In order to reconcile the rabid Deaniacs with the necessity of presenting a more reasonable alternative to America, Kerry was pushed into service. His strategy was to yell like a Deaniac and talk like a democrat. Consequently, he lost. A repeat performance is not in the offing.
Hilary Clinton - as if. The world would have to be circling the bowl before this woman could ever be President of the United States, however, she's been sainted by the morons in the party and will get the nomination if she wants it. In fact, she benefitted the most from Kerry's loss: there was absolutly no hope of Hilary beating a wartime-George Bush, particualrly when her husband had Osama on a silver platter at least five times. Let's not even mention the scandals. She stands a better chance in 2008 when there will not be a republican incumbant, and even then, barring some major catastrophe, it's an uphill battle for her. She'll run, but she turns people off and will lose, even if the republicans ran Simon LaGree against her.
John Edwards - positioned himself for another run with his defiant concession speech. His wife is being treated for cancer at the moment, and watch how quickly he becomes an advocate for breast cancer, despite the fact that he made his fortune suing the hell out of doctors. He currently hasn't got a job, having lost his senate seat, which quite frankly it's astonishing he actually got int he first place. Edwards is a serious lightweight, but he has an enormous ego. Ego will compell him to run again and ego will once again be his downfall. He's an arrogant moron in a fancy suit and smells of lawyer to boot.
All the talk of tapping a "moderate" democrat is just that: talk. You don't get anymore moderate than Joe Lieberman, after all. The real power int he deomcratic party, the lunatics of the Berkeley stripe, will never allow it to happen. They'd fracture the party and perhaps do to democrats what Ross Perot did to Republicans. Heck how else could Ralph Nader have become a political force?
Nope. In 2008 we'll either see a completely re-tooled and repackaged Hilary Clinton or another smug, condescending, elitist snob who can't find his own backside without a butler and a valet.
I swore two weeks ago that I would stop political blogging, but i can't help myself. Part of it is the insanity of democrats, most of whom still cannot believe that a) they fielded a bad candidate, and b) that democracy worked when he was sent packing. What really caused me to start this little missive, however, has been the almost-constant harping about who the democrats can field in the next presidential election that will stand a chance of perhaps winning.
Now, what's funny about this, in a sick sort of way, is that the folks trotted out by democrats are obviously unhinged. They don't live on the same planet the rest of us do. They're missing vital chromosomes that have had dire consequences for their thought processes.
We can run the list of the afflicted: Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Paul Begala, James Carville, etc.
All of them display three common symptoms of dementia: a failure to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face, a fantasy world in which they are actually more relevant than they really are, and finally, an ability to ramble incoherantly.
We're already talking about democrats lining up for another run at the White House in 2008, and there are a host of people out there that go on TV daily and talk them up. Let's cut through the political spin and the democratic party talking points and get down to brass tacks. First we'll tackle the issues and then we'll tackle the potential candidates.
The issues, for democrats, revolve around one fundamental point: the government welfare state must continue at all costs. A secondary issue for democrats is that the government welfare state must find new ways to insinuate itself into people's lives, so that it not only continues, but thrives. The point of both issues is that they are attempts to make democrats indispensible while they fundamentally fuck the country up to match their utopian dreams. In other words, the point of being a democrat is to be able to destroy American government and culture while you lull the masses to sleep with free goodies. Hence, all the talk about "saving" Social Security, "saving" the enviornment or Medicare, repeated mantras about "Education" and "Healthcare". These are not issues in the same way that turtles are not mammals --- they don't belong in the realm of government in the same way that turtles don't have fur.
In a perfect world, government would do for the people what they are not able to do for themselves; i.e. defending the country, conducting foreign relations, building interstates, picking up the trash. When it comes to things like retirement plans, educating children or buying medical insurance, most people are capable of looking after themselves. In most cases, what democrats are really talking about is being the provider of last resort for all of these things. Democrats, in effect, play around the margins; those too dumb to save their money, those too lazy to put any effort into improving their own lives, are future democrats. The habitual complainers and whiners who are alert enough to cry about their own shortcomings, but not smart enough to actually do anything about them, are already democrats. In short, democrats don't believe in human nature: the idea that mankind, left to see to it's own devices, can find constructive ways to fulfill needs. Democrats play around these margins for two reasons: a) there's power in hooking the powerless (just ask Julius Caesar) and b) it makes them feel good about themselves to have appeared to have done anything at all. If democrats were serious about true, governmental issues, they would find ways to reduce the national debt without resorting to tax increases, fight terrorism with arms rather than platitudes and perhaps, on a good day, let business do it's thing all on it's own, allowing market forces to do the job they've proven they can do.
As for the candidates, let's run them down one at a time:
John Kerry - finsihed. He lost to a dummy, you know. Democrats don't just bury their dead, they bury their wounded. Kerry was a candidate of compromise within the party itself. Dean had the early lead, and the money, but was unelectable, and Liberman was tagged with association with Gore (although Lieberman might actually have won). In order to reconcile the rabid Deaniacs with the necessity of presenting a more reasonable alternative to America, Kerry was pushed into service. His strategy was to yell like a Deaniac and talk like a democrat. Consequently, he lost. A repeat performance is not in the offing.
Hilary Clinton - as if. The world would have to be circling the bowl before this woman could ever be President of the United States, however, she's been sainted by the morons in the party and will get the nomination if she wants it. In fact, she benefitted the most from Kerry's loss: there was absolutly no hope of Hilary beating a wartime-George Bush, particualrly when her husband had Osama on a silver platter at least five times. Let's not even mention the scandals. She stands a better chance in 2008 when there will not be a republican incumbant, and even then, barring some major catastrophe, it's an uphill battle for her. She'll run, but she turns people off and will lose, even if the republicans ran Simon LaGree against her.
John Edwards - positioned himself for another run with his defiant concession speech. His wife is being treated for cancer at the moment, and watch how quickly he becomes an advocate for breast cancer, despite the fact that he made his fortune suing the hell out of doctors. He currently hasn't got a job, having lost his senate seat, which quite frankly it's astonishing he actually got int he first place. Edwards is a serious lightweight, but he has an enormous ego. Ego will compell him to run again and ego will once again be his downfall. He's an arrogant moron in a fancy suit and smells of lawyer to boot.
All the talk of tapping a "moderate" democrat is just that: talk. You don't get anymore moderate than Joe Lieberman, after all. The real power int he deomcratic party, the lunatics of the Berkeley stripe, will never allow it to happen. They'd fracture the party and perhaps do to democrats what Ross Perot did to Republicans. Heck how else could Ralph Nader have become a political force?
Nope. In 2008 we'll either see a completely re-tooled and repackaged Hilary Clinton or another smug, condescending, elitist snob who can't find his own backside without a butler and a valet.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
The Marlboro Marine...
Recent photograph in local papers featuring a Marine in Fallujah, taking a break after a hard day's fighting, and lighting one up. Well deserved smoke break, I say.
However, the people out there who still want to be everyoe's Mommy and Daddy (and you know who the fuck you are) have been flooding newspapers that carried the photo with letters abotu what a bad example it sets to our youngsters to see a Marine with a cigarette.
See, some people still don't get it.
Regardless of whether a cigarette is visible in the photo, the point was to convey to the public just how difficult our troops have it over there, how tired and dirty they are, and how tough and courageous they are. It's pure chance that the Marine in question happened to be smoking when the picture was taken. That photograph is still poignant, regardless of whether that Marine had a cigarette or a cup of tea and a lady finger. It sends a message: thiese guys are hard men doing a very hard job.
But of course, there's that cigarette. Cigarettes, as you know, are the greatest evil ever perpetrated against mankind according to the Mommy/Daddy-permanently-panty-bunched crowd (but don't you dare criticize the American Indian, from whom the habit was acquired. That's not politically correct, you know). Well, I have news for these jerks: this is America, and if people want to smoke, they have the right to do so. If a Marine in combat wants to smoke, he has more of a right to do so than the rest of us, if you ask me, because he's fighting for my freedom to light up.
But of course, this never occurs to the self-appointed guardians of polite society, the safety nazis of the suburbs. Never minid that men are dying over there to keep them safe, they can only see the trees and not the forest, or in this case, the cigarette, whle the larger scene eludes them. Now you know why John Kerry lost on November 2nd -- these are the people who more than likely voted for him.
Fucking idiots.
Recent photograph in local papers featuring a Marine in Fallujah, taking a break after a hard day's fighting, and lighting one up. Well deserved smoke break, I say.
However, the people out there who still want to be everyoe's Mommy and Daddy (and you know who the fuck you are) have been flooding newspapers that carried the photo with letters abotu what a bad example it sets to our youngsters to see a Marine with a cigarette.
See, some people still don't get it.
Regardless of whether a cigarette is visible in the photo, the point was to convey to the public just how difficult our troops have it over there, how tired and dirty they are, and how tough and courageous they are. It's pure chance that the Marine in question happened to be smoking when the picture was taken. That photograph is still poignant, regardless of whether that Marine had a cigarette or a cup of tea and a lady finger. It sends a message: thiese guys are hard men doing a very hard job.
But of course, there's that cigarette. Cigarettes, as you know, are the greatest evil ever perpetrated against mankind according to the Mommy/Daddy-permanently-panty-bunched crowd (but don't you dare criticize the American Indian, from whom the habit was acquired. That's not politically correct, you know). Well, I have news for these jerks: this is America, and if people want to smoke, they have the right to do so. If a Marine in combat wants to smoke, he has more of a right to do so than the rest of us, if you ask me, because he's fighting for my freedom to light up.
But of course, this never occurs to the self-appointed guardians of polite society, the safety nazis of the suburbs. Never minid that men are dying over there to keep them safe, they can only see the trees and not the forest, or in this case, the cigarette, whle the larger scene eludes them. Now you know why John Kerry lost on November 2nd -- these are the people who more than likely voted for him.
Fucking idiots.
Taking Out the Trash...
Yasser Arafat was buried yesterday amidst a riot. Why Arabs feel it to be necessary to fire guns randomly into the air is a question I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to, and there was plenty of that yesterday. Too much, in fact.
If you looked real close at the television screen, you would have noticed that (by my count) it seemd that every fifth or sixth person present had some form of weapon. These were not soldiers or police officers, these were the common folk. Imagine what kind of screwed up place you would have to live in where people didn't have jobs, hospitals, schools or enough to eat, yet everyone was armed to the teeth. I'd place a wager that states that, per capita, Palestinians have more guns than any Second-amendment-fearing State here. I wonder where all the anti-gun nuts are?
Anyway, about the funeral.
John Lennon was murdered and at his funeral, no one went around in masks firing indiscriminately. Albert Einstein died and there was no foreign military honors rendered to him. I'm sure no head of state arrived in time for Beethoven's funeral, and I'd bet the ranch that not one person at Lincoln's funeral attempted to waylay the casket. All this, and more, happened at Arafat's funeral. Final analysis: Europeans still suck, and Palestinians are animals.
It leads one to wonder; with all them guns, all that raw emotion and nothing resembling self-control, can Palestinians make themselves a state one of these days and have it last longer than a stick of Juicy Fruit? If that kind of mayhem occurs at a state funeral, I rather doubt it.
It's made me change my mind about what todo with Arabs and Muslims in general. I had once advocated genocide, and then relented, because I thought my view was being clouded by the events of 9/11. After what's happened in Iraq, and now this disgusting scene, I've returned to the conclusion that Arabs are little better than animals.
Yasser Arafat was buried yesterday amidst a riot. Why Arabs feel it to be necessary to fire guns randomly into the air is a question I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to, and there was plenty of that yesterday. Too much, in fact.
If you looked real close at the television screen, you would have noticed that (by my count) it seemd that every fifth or sixth person present had some form of weapon. These were not soldiers or police officers, these were the common folk. Imagine what kind of screwed up place you would have to live in where people didn't have jobs, hospitals, schools or enough to eat, yet everyone was armed to the teeth. I'd place a wager that states that, per capita, Palestinians have more guns than any Second-amendment-fearing State here. I wonder where all the anti-gun nuts are?
Anyway, about the funeral.
John Lennon was murdered and at his funeral, no one went around in masks firing indiscriminately. Albert Einstein died and there was no foreign military honors rendered to him. I'm sure no head of state arrived in time for Beethoven's funeral, and I'd bet the ranch that not one person at Lincoln's funeral attempted to waylay the casket. All this, and more, happened at Arafat's funeral. Final analysis: Europeans still suck, and Palestinians are animals.
It leads one to wonder; with all them guns, all that raw emotion and nothing resembling self-control, can Palestinians make themselves a state one of these days and have it last longer than a stick of Juicy Fruit? If that kind of mayhem occurs at a state funeral, I rather doubt it.
It's made me change my mind about what todo with Arabs and Muslims in general. I had once advocated genocide, and then relented, because I thought my view was being clouded by the events of 9/11. After what's happened in Iraq, and now this disgusting scene, I've returned to the conclusion that Arabs are little better than animals.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Europe and Terrorism...
Just read this morning about the first confirmed murder of a Muslim linked to the death of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. The correspondant who wrote the story included a quote about the diffeence between America's response to terrorism and that of the Dutch, in which he states that he's awed that there wasn't more backlash against the Arab community in America after 9/11, but that there seems to be quite a bit of it in Holland. He wonders, pray tell, where all that lovely European tolerance has gone to?
This is not the first murder fo this type in Holland, nor will it be the last. A few years ago, a conservative minister of the Dutch Parliament, Pim Fortuyn, was murdered by a muslim lunatic who saw his homosexuality as an abomination before God. The Van Gigh mudrer included a lovely little note (stuck to the victim with a knife) indicating that there are others on the list: an Arab minister in the Dutch government, for example.
Van Gogh was making a film about the systematic abuse of women in the Middle East. Along the way, he just had to have come across other disgusting aspects of Muslim life, and since these things are an affront to Allah (i.e. Infidels making films that question the will of God), Van Gogh had to, well, go. Can't have the rest of the world learning the truth about the "religion of peace".
In France, the government, in a brilliant display of unity and tolerance, passed a law in which Muslim women are denied the right to wear the headscarf in public. Beari nmind thatthere are places in France where policemen fear to tread without a tank (the heavily Muslim areas, btw), and that many North African Muslims hold dual citizenship and live in france, and I can't see just how this was a good idea. The French explain it away by saying that wearing a headscarf is a display of religion and that it is somehow inimical to an "inclusive" society.
In Britain, roving packs of Pakistani boys roam the streets looking for fights, when they aren't busy running fish and chip stands. In Italy, hundreds of thousands of Albanians line the alleyways seeking fresh victims for muggings and selling drugs. In Germany, a regular Al Qeada Underground Railroad exists in Hamburg, allowing terrorists free access to the air routes of the West.
Where did all these Muslims come from? Guest worker programs, dual citizenship initiatives and political asylum seekers, of course.
You see, Europe is trapped between a rock and a hard place; you;re typical Frog likes working a 30 hours week, retiring at 40 and having a government-subsidized maid. The problem is how to pay for it. If you stop working at 40 and don't have any children, then someone has to do the work and pay the taxes, and since Europeans won't do either, they have resorted to importing foreign labor. This labor comes, in large part, from the Middle East -- Algerians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians, etc. They go to Europe and do the jobs that Europeans won't do: clean the sewers, pick up the garbage, drive trucks, pick produce, etc., and without which, European life, as it now stands, would come to a screeching halt.
In the process, Europeans have managed to create a new underclass in their midst, one that that they depend on to maintain their own standards of government largesse. This is the main reason why most European governments have not lifted a finger to fight terrorism. The terrorists are already in their own backyards, and no self-respecting Frenchman will go after them if it means the maid can't come by to vaccuum once a week.
The attitude is slowly changing. In Denmark a few years ago, there was a law passed to limit immigration from Islamic lands. Danish life was under assault by foreigners and the voters saw it --- and blanched from it. Spain had a government toppled by people wearing kaffiyahs, and 200 people had to die dor that to happen. When the next 200 die, I wonder if Spanish voters will vote the other way?
There is a disconnect that needs to be reconciled: Europeans can either continue to have their cake and eat it too, or they can wake up to the realization that they have a ticking time bomb in their midst. Based on history, Europeans love to let time bombs tick; Hitler, Franco, Stalin, Napoleon, Mussolini, Torquemada, etc, are all fine examples.
Just read this morning about the first confirmed murder of a Muslim linked to the death of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. The correspondant who wrote the story included a quote about the diffeence between America's response to terrorism and that of the Dutch, in which he states that he's awed that there wasn't more backlash against the Arab community in America after 9/11, but that there seems to be quite a bit of it in Holland. He wonders, pray tell, where all that lovely European tolerance has gone to?
This is not the first murder fo this type in Holland, nor will it be the last. A few years ago, a conservative minister of the Dutch Parliament, Pim Fortuyn, was murdered by a muslim lunatic who saw his homosexuality as an abomination before God. The Van Gigh mudrer included a lovely little note (stuck to the victim with a knife) indicating that there are others on the list: an Arab minister in the Dutch government, for example.
Van Gogh was making a film about the systematic abuse of women in the Middle East. Along the way, he just had to have come across other disgusting aspects of Muslim life, and since these things are an affront to Allah (i.e. Infidels making films that question the will of God), Van Gogh had to, well, go. Can't have the rest of the world learning the truth about the "religion of peace".
In France, the government, in a brilliant display of unity and tolerance, passed a law in which Muslim women are denied the right to wear the headscarf in public. Beari nmind thatthere are places in France where policemen fear to tread without a tank (the heavily Muslim areas, btw), and that many North African Muslims hold dual citizenship and live in france, and I can't see just how this was a good idea. The French explain it away by saying that wearing a headscarf is a display of religion and that it is somehow inimical to an "inclusive" society.
In Britain, roving packs of Pakistani boys roam the streets looking for fights, when they aren't busy running fish and chip stands. In Italy, hundreds of thousands of Albanians line the alleyways seeking fresh victims for muggings and selling drugs. In Germany, a regular Al Qeada Underground Railroad exists in Hamburg, allowing terrorists free access to the air routes of the West.
Where did all these Muslims come from? Guest worker programs, dual citizenship initiatives and political asylum seekers, of course.
You see, Europe is trapped between a rock and a hard place; you;re typical Frog likes working a 30 hours week, retiring at 40 and having a government-subsidized maid. The problem is how to pay for it. If you stop working at 40 and don't have any children, then someone has to do the work and pay the taxes, and since Europeans won't do either, they have resorted to importing foreign labor. This labor comes, in large part, from the Middle East -- Algerians, Palestinians, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians, etc. They go to Europe and do the jobs that Europeans won't do: clean the sewers, pick up the garbage, drive trucks, pick produce, etc., and without which, European life, as it now stands, would come to a screeching halt.
In the process, Europeans have managed to create a new underclass in their midst, one that that they depend on to maintain their own standards of government largesse. This is the main reason why most European governments have not lifted a finger to fight terrorism. The terrorists are already in their own backyards, and no self-respecting Frenchman will go after them if it means the maid can't come by to vaccuum once a week.
The attitude is slowly changing. In Denmark a few years ago, there was a law passed to limit immigration from Islamic lands. Danish life was under assault by foreigners and the voters saw it --- and blanched from it. Spain had a government toppled by people wearing kaffiyahs, and 200 people had to die dor that to happen. When the next 200 die, I wonder if Spanish voters will vote the other way?
There is a disconnect that needs to be reconciled: Europeans can either continue to have their cake and eat it too, or they can wake up to the realization that they have a ticking time bomb in their midst. Based on history, Europeans love to let time bombs tick; Hitler, Franco, Stalin, Napoleon, Mussolini, Torquemada, etc, are all fine examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)