As with politics, I didn't follow sports until I got much older. I looked forward to being a part of something exciting and unpredictable when I first became a Redskins and Capitals Fan. Many who have been amongst the District's "loyal" football fan base will tell you, this is one heartbreaker of an undertaking. However, I would have expected there to be some level of etiquette in regards to sports fandom. Equally as diverse as the cultural makeup of this region, so goes the fan base of other teams. I figured all there was to being a fan of any team (I still hold on to the Celtics and the Red Sox for basketball and baseball) was supporting the team, wearing their merchandise and cheering for them, win or lose. If any of my teams of choice lost - oh well, there's always the next game. Also much like politics, choosing your respective camp has apparently become a polarizing experience for some. Your teams rule and all others suck seems to be the way of the sports world for these types. I didn't realize that there is a small but growing demographic of sports fans that feel that in addition to being a loyalist to your chosen team, you must also dump mercilessly on other teams. Personally, I think it takes a certain kind of prick to be this kind of fan. As I mentioned earlier, there seems to be a lack of etiquette when it comes to being a true sports fan. As there doesn't seem to be any scriptures of any kind on this matter, allow me to make a few based on some observations I've made.
1. Realize and accept just how good or bad your team is. Nothing is more annoying than a fan who is delusional about their team. I will be the first to admit that I have violated this guideline in the past. I will use as my example my prior delusion that the Redskins were capable of pulling themselves out of an abysmal losing season. To my dismay, they would march on to whatever 6-10 or 4-12 season they would end up having. Don't tell yourself and more importantly, don't go telling the world how your chosen team is going to come back strong and win anything of significance. This modality of behavior will only lead to a lifelong regimen of anti-depressants.
2. While supporting your chosen team, don't disparage other people's favorite teams, particularly if the team you support isn't doing as well as the team you're shitting on. It doesn't make you look like a noble fan - it makes you look like an asshole. If your pronation is to deride a 5-6 team while your team is 1-10, my advice to you is keep whatever you might want to say to yourself. Seriously, don't let it get past your lips. I can't stand questions that have no true answers such as "Where does this guy get the balls to run down XXX team when his team is last in the conference/division/league?" Nothing good is going to come of talking shit about a sports team that is doing better than your team of choice, unless of course you're specifically looking to be ridiculed for being a moron.
3. If you're going to ignore guideline #2, then expect to get dressed down by a few people people, some of whom will be stats gurus. I'm not that guy. Not yet, anyway, but I could become that guy. I was once told to never get angry at facts. I don't see why that philosophy wouldn't hold true with sports as well. If you're going to be stupid enough to talk badly about someone else's team, especially in the above mentioned scenario, then you at least owe it to yourself to be ready to have a bunch of stats slammed down your throat along with being told to shut up. Thanks to the advent of Al Gore's internet, those stats are at the fingertips of every sports fanatic who loves to argue. If you're the kind of person who likes to throw caution and, well, common sense to the wind, then go on ahead and make your boisterous claims. I'm sure you'll come out of it looking like a genius.
4. If your conduct has taken you to guideline #3, then consider this a little bit of after-care. If you've been embarrassed by someone who has made the case for why you should shut your mouth, you should REALLY think about doing just that. Don't try and come back with some witty retort and for the love of anything holy, don't attempt to make the person who just made you look like an idiot or an asshole (likely both by this point) out to be a bigger jerk than you. You knew what you were getting into when you opened your mouth. You ignored all the warning signs and now anyone who might have been present for your antics knows how big of a tool you are.
It's really as simple as this - stick to hoping the team you chose to support has a great season. When they don't, hope for a rebuilding year the following year. If they go all the way - great, enjoy the reverie and celebrations with your fellow fans. Don't use sports as yet another venue to show others the inner bastard you truly are. If this isn't possible for you, then be prepared to take from those who can no longer tolerate your behavior what you dish out.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Golden Age of Entitlement
As far as college students go, I'm fairly sure I'm near the top of the age curve. I suppose that this being what it is lends itself to the opportunity and pronation to observe the younger generation in action on a more consistent basis. For the most part, my time spent at the university has been a pleasant one. People will actually hold doors open if they know someone is coming in behind them and they will typically thank you if you're the one holding the door for them - a realm of manners I thought had long since disappeared. With as often as I encounter this type of behavior around campus, I tend to think that this would be the norm. However, there's always at least one...
As I was recently sitting in what is essentially the central building on campus biding my time between classes, I wasn't particularly paying attention to anyone or anything until a girl's phone conversation taking place not far from me happened to wrest my attention. It didn't take me long to get the gist of what the conversation was about. The girl's parents, who she was evidently on the phone with at the time, had received their latest cellular phone bill and were displeased at the charges this girl managed to accrue by texting. Apparently, the girl's first choice for a response was one of contempt for whichever of her poor parents was on the other end of the phone at the time, which turned out to be her mother. After what seemed to be a failed attempt at bargaining with her parents by offering to pay them back whatever the amount of the extra charges were, she actually had the nerve to raise her voice and spew the following venom: "Omigod, mom, what is your function?" We'll stop tape here.
Last I checked, the function of a parent is to make decisions for their children who clearly lack the life experience and thought process to make good choices on their own. Now I'm sure there's room for the possibility that the finite details of the family cell phone plan aren't always shared with the kids of the family, though I would have to believe that a cautionary piece of advice such as "don't go texting all over creation because we don't have unlimited texting on our plan" might have been a good idea to share with this young lady. Clearly, acting on the side of caution is not something that the average college-age child is known for. That being a safe assumption to make, perhaps a bit of forewarning for this young lady might have been in order if it wasn't already. What I took issue with was the philosophy that this young lady seemed to be reacting on was that she felt that her mother needed to validate her existence to her daughter. (Just paused to hold my head together in order to keep it from exploding and fragmenting, possibly killing anyone in a 20 yard radius.)
My curiosity stems from nothing more than the apparent role reversal that this girl had managed to somehow justify in her mind. There seemed to be no hesitation as she asked her mother this question with absolutely no trepidation whatsoever. I was completely blown away. Now, I know that it wasn't my place to eavesdrop on this conversation. However, I heartily contend that if someone elects to have a conversation of this nature in a public forum with no consideration for their surroundings, they have essentially brought this conversation to my doorstep and unwittingly brought me in as an observer - against my own will, I might add. On it's head, this particular situation entitles me to an opinion that I do not necessarily have to share with her, saying nothing about my propensity to share my opinion here.
Let's start with the obvious - the girl's mother did not elect to have her aborted, nor did she opt to put her up for adoption which leads me to believe she went full-term with the pregnancy, gave birth to this child and brought her home. She then, depending on her economic status and assumably along with this girl's father, adjusted their lifestyle to suit this child in order to properly and adequately care for her. I can only imagine the diapers they changed, the nights of interrupted sleep they contended with, the money they once spent on vacations or other items of life's pleasures that then went to a crib, baby gates, countless toys and clothing that would only fit for a few months at a time, if that. It's probably not too much of an imaginary stretch to assume there were work schedules that needed to be adjusted in order to get her from day care, get her to and from school and support all the activities their darling daughter wanted to do at any given time. Perhaps they helped her with homework, helped put together school projects - maybe they even cared enough to serve on the school's PTA. Shuttling this girl to friends' houses, jobs she may have had through high school until they furnished her with a car, buying prom dresses and tickets (assuming she went), paying for class trips, taking her on family vacations, helping her deal with break-ups with various boyfriends, throwing countless birthday parties, buying her yearbook, class ring, cap and gown for graduation, paying for application fees to colleges and maybe even helping to pay for college itself. I can safely assume that they were also paying for the cell phone she used to run up her parents' bill.
So, what was it that led this girl to believe that her mother needed to explain herself? I sit here completely at a loss for legitimate explanations. I understand the concept that kids tend to get testy to say the least while growing up, particularly in their teens. At some point, there has to be a level of realization that happens for this girl that her parents are the ones who have enabled her to get to where she is today with assistance, encouragement, and tons of time, money and effort. I might be able to understand if the girl's mother had done something deceptive or otherwise shady to warrant ASKING for an explanation. However, making the assumption that no such thing had taken place, the girl's demand for an explanation of what her mother's "function" is is beyond the bounds of any legitimate course of action a child might take toward their parents. Sweetheart, I'm betting dollars to donuts that if it weren't for your parents, you might not be calling them from a phone that they are obviously paying for while you stand in the building of a university to which they are likely at least partially funding your attendance. Seeing as though in this particular situation that gratitude is probably too much to hope for, how about just the realization that there are no apparent circumstances or pretenses (in her situation, anyway) that would validate her asking her mother to explain what her function was.
That kind of air of entitlement which prompted this girl to speak to her parents in this manner has become a pervasive threat to modern day society. I subscribe to the concept that parents work hard enough to provide their children with things that they themselves did not have while growing up. With every passing generation, parents have had to work that much harder to keep up with the average expenses of raising children than the generation before them, not to mention factoring in things that didn't exist in generations prior. While this is a noble concept, it carries with it the inherent risk of children not having a clue what goes into providing them with the things that they have throughout their life. In particular, I feel that when children grow up in households where they are exposed to the finer things that the parents of these children have created for themselves the additional task of instilling a sense of value and appreciation for those things. Otherwise, the risk is run that these kids will grow up thinking that all the niceties they have are "standard issue" and that the continued furnishing of these types of things becomes an expectation. This sense of entitlement has since broken out of the realm of tangible items and seeped into interpersonal relationships with others. People who now expect that a wide berth should be given to them in order to do as they please and take no consideration of the people they affect in doing so is the new rotting agent of American society.
There should never have come a time when one individual could walk into a situation and change things around because the conditions they walked into didn't suit them. Once upon a time, American society ran on things like "democracy" and "majority rule" and the minority, especially if that minority is one person, would have to suck up and deal with whatever conditions were in place. This is not so any more. It appears that we have succumbed to the mentality of appeasement of the mouthy minority. In the case described above, the girl doesn't like what she is being told by her mother and without thought or hesitation, proceeds to blast and insult her own mother. I remember once upon a time when there would be repercussions to talking to either of my parents in a manner considerably less hostile and disrespectful over the phone, let alone in person. The high school/college age can be a socially fragile time for children - it certainly was for me. I learned, however to keep my transgressions as clandestine as possible and certainly never verbally issued challenges to my parents, unless I just felt like being prohibited from leaving the house.
The point I'm getting to is that parents should never have gotten to the point of allowing their children to act like little company CEOs - making demands of people they have no business making and talking to people like subordinates - all the while thinking that it is their right to do so. Local and state legislators need to revisit the laws that have now been categorized as "child abuse" and reevaluate those useful and attention-getting tools once used to effectively raise respectful children who in turn have a higher probability of turning into respectful adults. Perhaps to some, the archaic methods used to raise children might seem cruel and unusual. However, I feel that these methods have survived the test of time and we've since run the experiment as to what will happen if we simply did away with them. It is time to reclaim responsibility for raising a society that should know how to treat one another. Let's revisit the times when the parent embarrassed the child in a store and not the other way around. Let's have the accountability stream be at least more of a two-way street than the one way street it has become where parents are explaining themselves to their children. The truth is that we cannot be fired as their parents. They are stuck with us until they devise a way to move out of our homes, thereby escaping narrowly from our authoritarian ways. Perhaps an occasional, less-than-gentle reminder of who exactly is in charge in times of rebellion isn't a bad thing. Take the cell phone, the computers, the TVs...... You can even take....... The car keys! Create the opportunity for children to think about who it is they're railing against and let them know that there are are definite, swift and severe repercussions for disrespecting other people because they never know - should they be allowed to grow into adults who are comfortable disrespecting other people, one day the person they unleash their temper on may be the one that will decide some facet of their fate.
As I was recently sitting in what is essentially the central building on campus biding my time between classes, I wasn't particularly paying attention to anyone or anything until a girl's phone conversation taking place not far from me happened to wrest my attention. It didn't take me long to get the gist of what the conversation was about. The girl's parents, who she was evidently on the phone with at the time, had received their latest cellular phone bill and were displeased at the charges this girl managed to accrue by texting. Apparently, the girl's first choice for a response was one of contempt for whichever of her poor parents was on the other end of the phone at the time, which turned out to be her mother. After what seemed to be a failed attempt at bargaining with her parents by offering to pay them back whatever the amount of the extra charges were, she actually had the nerve to raise her voice and spew the following venom: "Omigod, mom, what is your function?" We'll stop tape here.
Last I checked, the function of a parent is to make decisions for their children who clearly lack the life experience and thought process to make good choices on their own. Now I'm sure there's room for the possibility that the finite details of the family cell phone plan aren't always shared with the kids of the family, though I would have to believe that a cautionary piece of advice such as "don't go texting all over creation because we don't have unlimited texting on our plan" might have been a good idea to share with this young lady. Clearly, acting on the side of caution is not something that the average college-age child is known for. That being a safe assumption to make, perhaps a bit of forewarning for this young lady might have been in order if it wasn't already. What I took issue with was the philosophy that this young lady seemed to be reacting on was that she felt that her mother needed to validate her existence to her daughter. (Just paused to hold my head together in order to keep it from exploding and fragmenting, possibly killing anyone in a 20 yard radius.)
My curiosity stems from nothing more than the apparent role reversal that this girl had managed to somehow justify in her mind. There seemed to be no hesitation as she asked her mother this question with absolutely no trepidation whatsoever. I was completely blown away. Now, I know that it wasn't my place to eavesdrop on this conversation. However, I heartily contend that if someone elects to have a conversation of this nature in a public forum with no consideration for their surroundings, they have essentially brought this conversation to my doorstep and unwittingly brought me in as an observer - against my own will, I might add. On it's head, this particular situation entitles me to an opinion that I do not necessarily have to share with her, saying nothing about my propensity to share my opinion here.
Let's start with the obvious - the girl's mother did not elect to have her aborted, nor did she opt to put her up for adoption which leads me to believe she went full-term with the pregnancy, gave birth to this child and brought her home. She then, depending on her economic status and assumably along with this girl's father, adjusted their lifestyle to suit this child in order to properly and adequately care for her. I can only imagine the diapers they changed, the nights of interrupted sleep they contended with, the money they once spent on vacations or other items of life's pleasures that then went to a crib, baby gates, countless toys and clothing that would only fit for a few months at a time, if that. It's probably not too much of an imaginary stretch to assume there were work schedules that needed to be adjusted in order to get her from day care, get her to and from school and support all the activities their darling daughter wanted to do at any given time. Perhaps they helped her with homework, helped put together school projects - maybe they even cared enough to serve on the school's PTA. Shuttling this girl to friends' houses, jobs she may have had through high school until they furnished her with a car, buying prom dresses and tickets (assuming she went), paying for class trips, taking her on family vacations, helping her deal with break-ups with various boyfriends, throwing countless birthday parties, buying her yearbook, class ring, cap and gown for graduation, paying for application fees to colleges and maybe even helping to pay for college itself. I can safely assume that they were also paying for the cell phone she used to run up her parents' bill.
So, what was it that led this girl to believe that her mother needed to explain herself? I sit here completely at a loss for legitimate explanations. I understand the concept that kids tend to get testy to say the least while growing up, particularly in their teens. At some point, there has to be a level of realization that happens for this girl that her parents are the ones who have enabled her to get to where she is today with assistance, encouragement, and tons of time, money and effort. I might be able to understand if the girl's mother had done something deceptive or otherwise shady to warrant ASKING for an explanation. However, making the assumption that no such thing had taken place, the girl's demand for an explanation of what her mother's "function" is is beyond the bounds of any legitimate course of action a child might take toward their parents. Sweetheart, I'm betting dollars to donuts that if it weren't for your parents, you might not be calling them from a phone that they are obviously paying for while you stand in the building of a university to which they are likely at least partially funding your attendance. Seeing as though in this particular situation that gratitude is probably too much to hope for, how about just the realization that there are no apparent circumstances or pretenses (in her situation, anyway) that would validate her asking her mother to explain what her function was.
That kind of air of entitlement which prompted this girl to speak to her parents in this manner has become a pervasive threat to modern day society. I subscribe to the concept that parents work hard enough to provide their children with things that they themselves did not have while growing up. With every passing generation, parents have had to work that much harder to keep up with the average expenses of raising children than the generation before them, not to mention factoring in things that didn't exist in generations prior. While this is a noble concept, it carries with it the inherent risk of children not having a clue what goes into providing them with the things that they have throughout their life. In particular, I feel that when children grow up in households where they are exposed to the finer things that the parents of these children have created for themselves the additional task of instilling a sense of value and appreciation for those things. Otherwise, the risk is run that these kids will grow up thinking that all the niceties they have are "standard issue" and that the continued furnishing of these types of things becomes an expectation. This sense of entitlement has since broken out of the realm of tangible items and seeped into interpersonal relationships with others. People who now expect that a wide berth should be given to them in order to do as they please and take no consideration of the people they affect in doing so is the new rotting agent of American society.
There should never have come a time when one individual could walk into a situation and change things around because the conditions they walked into didn't suit them. Once upon a time, American society ran on things like "democracy" and "majority rule" and the minority, especially if that minority is one person, would have to suck up and deal with whatever conditions were in place. This is not so any more. It appears that we have succumbed to the mentality of appeasement of the mouthy minority. In the case described above, the girl doesn't like what she is being told by her mother and without thought or hesitation, proceeds to blast and insult her own mother. I remember once upon a time when there would be repercussions to talking to either of my parents in a manner considerably less hostile and disrespectful over the phone, let alone in person. The high school/college age can be a socially fragile time for children - it certainly was for me. I learned, however to keep my transgressions as clandestine as possible and certainly never verbally issued challenges to my parents, unless I just felt like being prohibited from leaving the house.
The point I'm getting to is that parents should never have gotten to the point of allowing their children to act like little company CEOs - making demands of people they have no business making and talking to people like subordinates - all the while thinking that it is their right to do so. Local and state legislators need to revisit the laws that have now been categorized as "child abuse" and reevaluate those useful and attention-getting tools once used to effectively raise respectful children who in turn have a higher probability of turning into respectful adults. Perhaps to some, the archaic methods used to raise children might seem cruel and unusual. However, I feel that these methods have survived the test of time and we've since run the experiment as to what will happen if we simply did away with them. It is time to reclaim responsibility for raising a society that should know how to treat one another. Let's revisit the times when the parent embarrassed the child in a store and not the other way around. Let's have the accountability stream be at least more of a two-way street than the one way street it has become where parents are explaining themselves to their children. The truth is that we cannot be fired as their parents. They are stuck with us until they devise a way to move out of our homes, thereby escaping narrowly from our authoritarian ways. Perhaps an occasional, less-than-gentle reminder of who exactly is in charge in times of rebellion isn't a bad thing. Take the cell phone, the computers, the TVs...... You can even take....... The car keys! Create the opportunity for children to think about who it is they're railing against and let them know that there are are definite, swift and severe repercussions for disrespecting other people because they never know - should they be allowed to grow into adults who are comfortable disrespecting other people, one day the person they unleash their temper on may be the one that will decide some facet of their fate.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Maryland/Washington D.C./Northern Virginia Drivers in the Snow
Wow. What a rare gem that I get to post more than once in a day. It was as though literally the entire Washington D.C. Metro region knocked on my front door and gave me the gift of their driving ineptitude and said "Please, tear us a new asshole!" .......And so I shall.
The worst thing in the world about this region is the endless legions of completely incompetent drivers on the roads of the D.C./Maryland/Virginia area, which I will just refer to from here on out as the "DMV" (not to be confused with the place you're supposed to renew your driver's license but end up playing B.O. poker with strangers.) I understand to a limited degree that the majority of people here are transients who work at the Pentagon or somewhere for a while and move back to the non-snow-getting state that they came from. Not an excuse. It snows here - you need to learn to cope with that by either learning to drive competently in the snow or staying off the road altogether. Watch the weather report at some point and just make the determination right then and there that if snow is coming, that you're not going on the road. Actually, I don't even like to refer to what goes on in this area as winter traffic - I refer to it as the retard museum on wheels. It seems as though anything wrong that can possibly be done while driving in the snow was being done today. Let's not forget the snowfall we received in this area last year - we're talking record highs here, yet there seemed to be an absence of this kind of dumbshittery. I know you can't fix stupid, but I'm going to attempt to list some basics of driving in snow:
1) If the snow on the ground meets the underbelly of your car - don't attempt to go anywhere. Your Honda Civic is not going to be the exception to the rule.
2) If you have no previous experience with driving in snow and you have a rear-wheel drive vehicle that doesn't convert into four-wheel drive - stay off the road. Otherwise, your new name is "liability".
3) If you have no experience with driving in snow and you have a front-wheel drive vehicle, you're not much better off than those in 2. In any event, please don't gun it when you feel the car starting to slow down. The front of your vehicle will go in the exact opposite direction of whichever direction your front wheels are pointed and it will end badly for you.
4) Do your best to follow in the tire tracks, if applicable, that are already on the road. This would not include tracks that lead off the road.
5) Having anti-lock brakes in your car does not mean that your car will stop on a dime in snow. Please stop thinking that it does.
6) Turning on your hazard lights does not provide a force field around your vehicle. Check the owner's manual, I think you'll find I'm right on this one.
7) Conservation is the key - as previously mentioned, no gunning the gas as this only leads to trouble for you, and possibly for me if I'm beside you. Also slamming on your brakes usually ends up in disaster, so just don't do it.
8) Hang up your goddamn phone.
9) On lesser-traveled roads, drive in the center. It's a little known fact that most roads are paved with a slight peak in the center so that rain water runs off to the sides of the road. This eliminates your chances of running off towards the side of the road also. In the event of an oncoming car, it's best to get back on to your side of the road and move at a creep until the oncoming car passes. It isn't a game of chicken - please don't turn it into one.
10) If whatever you're doing isn't working, stop doing it.
Now I can't assure you that following these simple steps is a guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you. Snowy roads are as unpredictable as many other things in life. I don't think there is any such thing as mastery of driving on snowy and ice-packed roads. I grew up in New England driving in these conditions where winter can be as long as a 7 month season so I got plenty of practice. Be assured that for every driver in the DMV area that may know a thing or two about driving in this ridiculous weather, there are at least 500 who have no experience whatsoever. Some people in the 60's used to say "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem". Well, right on Daddy-O, pass the bongos and get a clue.
The worst thing in the world about this region is the endless legions of completely incompetent drivers on the roads of the D.C./Maryland/Virginia area, which I will just refer to from here on out as the "DMV" (not to be confused with the place you're supposed to renew your driver's license but end up playing B.O. poker with strangers.) I understand to a limited degree that the majority of people here are transients who work at the Pentagon or somewhere for a while and move back to the non-snow-getting state that they came from. Not an excuse. It snows here - you need to learn to cope with that by either learning to drive competently in the snow or staying off the road altogether. Watch the weather report at some point and just make the determination right then and there that if snow is coming, that you're not going on the road. Actually, I don't even like to refer to what goes on in this area as winter traffic - I refer to it as the retard museum on wheels. It seems as though anything wrong that can possibly be done while driving in the snow was being done today. Let's not forget the snowfall we received in this area last year - we're talking record highs here, yet there seemed to be an absence of this kind of dumbshittery. I know you can't fix stupid, but I'm going to attempt to list some basics of driving in snow:
1) If the snow on the ground meets the underbelly of your car - don't attempt to go anywhere. Your Honda Civic is not going to be the exception to the rule.
2) If you have no previous experience with driving in snow and you have a rear-wheel drive vehicle that doesn't convert into four-wheel drive - stay off the road. Otherwise, your new name is "liability".
3) If you have no experience with driving in snow and you have a front-wheel drive vehicle, you're not much better off than those in 2. In any event, please don't gun it when you feel the car starting to slow down. The front of your vehicle will go in the exact opposite direction of whichever direction your front wheels are pointed and it will end badly for you.
4) Do your best to follow in the tire tracks, if applicable, that are already on the road. This would not include tracks that lead off the road.
5) Having anti-lock brakes in your car does not mean that your car will stop on a dime in snow. Please stop thinking that it does.
6) Turning on your hazard lights does not provide a force field around your vehicle. Check the owner's manual, I think you'll find I'm right on this one.
7) Conservation is the key - as previously mentioned, no gunning the gas as this only leads to trouble for you, and possibly for me if I'm beside you. Also slamming on your brakes usually ends up in disaster, so just don't do it.
8) Hang up your goddamn phone.
9) On lesser-traveled roads, drive in the center. It's a little known fact that most roads are paved with a slight peak in the center so that rain water runs off to the sides of the road. This eliminates your chances of running off towards the side of the road also. In the event of an oncoming car, it's best to get back on to your side of the road and move at a creep until the oncoming car passes. It isn't a game of chicken - please don't turn it into one.
10) If whatever you're doing isn't working, stop doing it.
Now I can't assure you that following these simple steps is a guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you. Snowy roads are as unpredictable as many other things in life. I don't think there is any such thing as mastery of driving on snowy and ice-packed roads. I grew up in New England driving in these conditions where winter can be as long as a 7 month season so I got plenty of practice. Be assured that for every driver in the DMV area that may know a thing or two about driving in this ridiculous weather, there are at least 500 who have no experience whatsoever. Some people in the 60's used to say "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem". Well, right on Daddy-O, pass the bongos and get a clue.
Michelle Bachmann
OK, I swore I wasn't going to get political on here when I decided to take this little endeavor on. Two things ensured that I wouldn't be able to keep to that promise:
1. You can't have politics that don't involve STOOPID and
2. I fought the sucking force of the political vortex and lost.
This being what it is, I will just go into my rant. The President of the United States gave his State of the Union address last night at 9 o'clock PM Eastern time of which I caught roughly 75% of it. One of the first things I noticed was that the seating arrangement had changed markedly from previous SOTU addresses. Other than dampening any visible disapproval by the Republicans, I fail to see what purpose this served. As per usual and having just come off what has been touted as one of the most moving speeches in presidential history in regards to the Arizona shooting, I think Mr. Obama was on fire, oratorically speaking. He obviously has deep concerns about where we stand as a nation in comparison to other nations in the way of technology and it's availability in this country, which I can agree is a problem. I can only imagine what the people in the 'high plains' have been doing without wi-fi and places to get it, such as Starbucks. This can only lead to some farmer being acres away from the nearest outhouse on his tractor when he gets his explosive diarrhea attack from the latte he was drinking while looking up irrigation techniques on 'them internets'. On a serious note, I am a college student who employs the use of a remote control in some of my classrooms in order to take quizzes and be immediately scored, thereby saving the professors a lot of work and us students tons of nerves shot in anticipation of our grade. It is only right and fair that students get to learn in a uniform manner across the country. But then of course, I have as of yet to see someone refused employment because at their college, they weren't given the opportunity to become proficient in the use of a remote control. But enough about my own conjecture.
For every presidential action, there is usually an equal and opposite critical reaction from the opposing party after every SOTU. This year, we were 'blessed' with two. First came the televised rebuttal from Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and a Republican from Wisconsin. Outside of his highly entertaining accent, he spent what I felt was equal time criticizing the POTUS's spending to date and stressing the need for less spending and a decreased federal government. Ryan did a fine job at admitting that Mr. Obama inherited a huge shit sandwich and allocating blame for said sandwich across the past four or five Presidential administrations (with no noteworthy credit being given to George W. Bush). At a minimum and whether or not I agree with everything that Mr. Paul said, at least it was well-founded and highly likely equally as well researched.
Then there was the second rebuttal from Michelle Bachmann - a tea-party representative from..... Oh, I don't know...... The seventh circle of Hell. I can understand the POTUS needing an entire hour to speak because, well, he's the President. He addressed a great number of issues, all of which probably had some degree of thought and research behind them. Mr. Paul didn't get an hour - he maybe got ten or fifteen minutes because his role in that time was to give a reaction to the POTUS's speech and address what he felt were valid talking points, which are limited in number due to his role and responsibilities in the federal government. Following along so far? Then we have Michelle Bachmann, also from Minnesota who fancies herself a Tea-partier/Conservative/Republican or any hybrid of those three terms. (Incidentally, I don't consider any district of Minnesota or the state in its entirety to be the seventh circle of Hell.) As I have already alluded to the amount of time a public figure uses to speak being directly correlated to the number of topics needed to be covered and the amount of thought and research put behind each topic, Michelle Bachmann prattled on for three to five minutes on the outset. The vast majority of her droning was little more than parroting on about how the United States needs smaller government and lower taxes. She managed somehow to conjure up the photograph of the Marines at Mount Suribachi raising the flag and claimed they did so with smaller government and lower taxes in mind because after all, THAT'S what America stands for. I think I'm going to be violently and copiously sick. I would sooner trust my children with razor blades and napalm than I would trust this woman to be in any position of any serious responsibility. My fourth-grade daughter could have put together a more informed and coherent presentation on the color of an orange than this woman can about what our country needs. Bachmann's response to the SOTU was not televised on any station of serious merit and I believe might even have been confined to the internet. That was probably a good thing, though I imagine it might have done a bit more good if her response was televised for the widest distribution possible. Michelle Bachmann is clear proof that our educational systems are in desperate need of revamping. Ignorance like Bachmann's is not solely the product of happenstance - this took cultivation. Perhaps her parents could have mover her swing set another foot or two away from the power lines when she was growing up, and who knew that lead was not a benevolent heavy metal to ingest when she was a child? I sincerely believe that when Michelle Bachmann affiliated with the tea party, she honestly thought there would be cake and a table stacked with presents. For a woman who advocates strict adherence to the Constitution, I would think she would show at least a little intellectual curiosity and actually read it (or at least have it explained to her by a competent scholar.) To put an individual with ignorance of this magnitude in a position of public trust is like putting Lance Armstrong on a Big Wheel. You expect performance but should probably brace for disappointment.
1. You can't have politics that don't involve STOOPID and
2. I fought the sucking force of the political vortex and lost.
This being what it is, I will just go into my rant. The President of the United States gave his State of the Union address last night at 9 o'clock PM Eastern time of which I caught roughly 75% of it. One of the first things I noticed was that the seating arrangement had changed markedly from previous SOTU addresses. Other than dampening any visible disapproval by the Republicans, I fail to see what purpose this served. As per usual and having just come off what has been touted as one of the most moving speeches in presidential history in regards to the Arizona shooting, I think Mr. Obama was on fire, oratorically speaking. He obviously has deep concerns about where we stand as a nation in comparison to other nations in the way of technology and it's availability in this country, which I can agree is a problem. I can only imagine what the people in the 'high plains' have been doing without wi-fi and places to get it, such as Starbucks. This can only lead to some farmer being acres away from the nearest outhouse on his tractor when he gets his explosive diarrhea attack from the latte he was drinking while looking up irrigation techniques on 'them internets'. On a serious note, I am a college student who employs the use of a remote control in some of my classrooms in order to take quizzes and be immediately scored, thereby saving the professors a lot of work and us students tons of nerves shot in anticipation of our grade. It is only right and fair that students get to learn in a uniform manner across the country. But then of course, I have as of yet to see someone refused employment because at their college, they weren't given the opportunity to become proficient in the use of a remote control. But enough about my own conjecture.
For every presidential action, there is usually an equal and opposite critical reaction from the opposing party after every SOTU. This year, we were 'blessed' with two. First came the televised rebuttal from Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and a Republican from Wisconsin. Outside of his highly entertaining accent, he spent what I felt was equal time criticizing the POTUS's spending to date and stressing the need for less spending and a decreased federal government. Ryan did a fine job at admitting that Mr. Obama inherited a huge shit sandwich and allocating blame for said sandwich across the past four or five Presidential administrations (with no noteworthy credit being given to George W. Bush). At a minimum and whether or not I agree with everything that Mr. Paul said, at least it was well-founded and highly likely equally as well researched.
Then there was the second rebuttal from Michelle Bachmann - a tea-party representative from..... Oh, I don't know...... The seventh circle of Hell. I can understand the POTUS needing an entire hour to speak because, well, he's the President. He addressed a great number of issues, all of which probably had some degree of thought and research behind them. Mr. Paul didn't get an hour - he maybe got ten or fifteen minutes because his role in that time was to give a reaction to the POTUS's speech and address what he felt were valid talking points, which are limited in number due to his role and responsibilities in the federal government. Following along so far? Then we have Michelle Bachmann, also from Minnesota who fancies herself a Tea-partier/Conservative/Republican or any hybrid of those three terms. (Incidentally, I don't consider any district of Minnesota or the state in its entirety to be the seventh circle of Hell.) As I have already alluded to the amount of time a public figure uses to speak being directly correlated to the number of topics needed to be covered and the amount of thought and research put behind each topic, Michelle Bachmann prattled on for three to five minutes on the outset. The vast majority of her droning was little more than parroting on about how the United States needs smaller government and lower taxes. She managed somehow to conjure up the photograph of the Marines at Mount Suribachi raising the flag and claimed they did so with smaller government and lower taxes in mind because after all, THAT'S what America stands for. I think I'm going to be violently and copiously sick. I would sooner trust my children with razor blades and napalm than I would trust this woman to be in any position of any serious responsibility. My fourth-grade daughter could have put together a more informed and coherent presentation on the color of an orange than this woman can about what our country needs. Bachmann's response to the SOTU was not televised on any station of serious merit and I believe might even have been confined to the internet. That was probably a good thing, though I imagine it might have done a bit more good if her response was televised for the widest distribution possible. Michelle Bachmann is clear proof that our educational systems are in desperate need of revamping. Ignorance like Bachmann's is not solely the product of happenstance - this took cultivation. Perhaps her parents could have mover her swing set another foot or two away from the power lines when she was growing up, and who knew that lead was not a benevolent heavy metal to ingest when she was a child? I sincerely believe that when Michelle Bachmann affiliated with the tea party, she honestly thought there would be cake and a table stacked with presents. For a woman who advocates strict adherence to the Constitution, I would think she would show at least a little intellectual curiosity and actually read it (or at least have it explained to her by a competent scholar.) To put an individual with ignorance of this magnitude in a position of public trust is like putting Lance Armstrong on a Big Wheel. You expect performance but should probably brace for disappointment.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Not My First Rodeo
So here I am, doing this nonsense again. The first couple of times I tried this, I got less than rave reviews and even got into a little trouble. Fortunately, I've grown up a little since then and I'm ready to make this an honest-to-bacon legitimate and entertaining blog. Here's the thing - now that I've started this, I'm not going to have a lot of time for it. I know what you're thinking, "Well then why would you start one of these things if you have no time, stupid?" In the asking of this question, you've hit the nail on the head. If you need an explanation, then I don't know what to tell you. Oh wait, yes I do - This blog is definitely not going to be for you.
I am a highly opinionated, somewhat educated and just recently enlightened person who likes to take on controversial issues and point out the stupidity in each of them. I think for some, my pragmatic humor will be entertaining, bordering on satirical. Well, here goes stupid...
I am a highly opinionated, somewhat educated and just recently enlightened person who likes to take on controversial issues and point out the stupidity in each of them. I think for some, my pragmatic humor will be entertaining, bordering on satirical. Well, here goes stupid...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)