Short answer: no.
It's an easy straw man argument to make for both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and liberals can claim that dissenting arguments are racist because we have a black president; Republicans and conservatives claim that all claims of racism are merely attempts to squelch dissent.
Of course, neither side is right and neither side is wrong. But if Joe Wilson has shown us anything, it's that the default skeptical view should be placed on the conservative argument.
Republicans love to martyr themselves. "Obama wants to crush dissenting voices!" they cry, not noticing that nobody is crushing them at all. "Well, the media won't let us speak!" they shout, apparently unaware that they are doing so on Fox News, a non-vital but significant member of The Media. And of course, if someone suggests that their unformed, vague, and unhelpful "opinion" is the product of an underlying, and racist, distrust of the President, well then you're in trouble, bucko.
Is every conservative opinion racist? Not by the longest of shots. Many are well thought-out, reasonable, and deserve to be considered. Doesn't mean I will ultimately agree, but I appreciate the alternative viewpoint.
But then there's the people who bring guns to townhall meetings. The people who have pictures of Obama as Hitler, or a monkey, or a monkey-Hitler. The people who yell out "You lie!" during the President's speech before Congress. These people add nothing of value whatsoever to the national debate. They are not "courageous" for taking a stand, as some claim. It is not courageous to act like a coward and a fool, especially when you're so very, very wrong. It's also not analogous to every other President; nobody questioned Bush's origins, or McCain's (even though there was just as much "evidence" that McCain was born out of the country as well) and when Clinton was running things, it was all about sex scandals. And nobody--nobody--yelled insults at them during a joint session of Congress. Especially not an elected official.
And for what it's worth, Obama didn't lie. The health care bill has a provision that explicitly disallows the benefits it confers from flowing to illegal immigrants. So Joe Wilson is not only an uncouth coward, he's also an idiot. Well played, sir.
But is he any stupider than the various townhall attendees, who shout about socialism and fascism without realizing there's a remarkable difference between the two? And is he any stupider than those who elected him and who will, I'm sure, see his pathetic outburst as a source of pride? It's tough to make South Carolina look any worse than it already is, but Wilson sure found a way.
To be fair, I don't trust the liberals who argue that any dissent is based on a foundation of racism, either. It is a foolish message that is tantamount to crying wolf; if every dissent is racist, then we won't be able to rally the outrage necessary when the actual racism rears its ugly head.
Because honestly, contesting the President's country of birth? I don't care how rational you think your argument, it is the height of "The Other"-based fear. Obama is an Other! We have proof! By being an Other, his opinions and ideas are invalid!
It's such complete bullshit that I'm amazed people can stand it. I guess when you have a kernel of an idea at the core (the birth certificate) it just fuels the other issues that haven't found a place to take hold (the racism). But it's sad, and it makes me sad to see our country behave this way.
Then, it makes me angry and I want Obama to win EVERYTHING just to shut those racists bastards up. I gotta find a way to help on that front.
Showing posts with label the ragin cajun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the ragin cajun. Show all posts
September 15, 2009
July 22, 2009
But Your Home is Your Home
(3 posts in as many days! Don't fret, I'll disappear again soon I'm sure.)
UPDATE: See, Obama agrees with me. But man, he went on at length. Somebody is going to take issue (wrongly) with the "police acted stupidly" portion. Even though it was the police "acted stupidly in arresting him after they had discovered no crime taking place." Which is 100% truth.
-----------------------
There's been a minor news story making the rounds lately concerning Henry Louis Gates, a professor at Harvard, being arrested for (basically) breaking into his own house. You can read more about it here, though most of the story is reaction now.
Mr. Gates has alleged that he is the victim of profiling and racism by the police. Of course, because this isn't a cut-and-dry case, he is now receiving a lot of flack for his own less-than-perfect role in the ordeal.
It broke down like this: Gates returns home from a trip to find his front door jammed. I'm unclear as to why--maybe an attempted B&E while he was out of town, or just weather--but he had to go around back to unlock the door. He did so, and returned to the front door but still couldn't open it. His driver helped him force it open. A neighbor, apparently saw all this and called the police, reporting that two black men were breaking into the house. In broad daylight, of course. And Gates walks with a cane, like most burglars.
I'll stop right there because that, my friends, is racism. I don't know the neighbor's goals or purposes, but calling the police on your black neighbor because he is trying to force open his door is extraordinarily shady. It is not, as some say, "being a responsible neighbor" because if you were responsible, you'd know he was your neighbor.
Skip ahead, though, to where Gates is inside and on the phone to see about repairs to the front door when the police arrive. Now, I don't know the specifics of what they saw, and we never will now that this has become a big deal, but if you see a 60+ bespectacled man on the phone in an allegedly broken-into house, and he walks over to you with a cane, you might assume right off the bat that he's not a burglar.
The problems arose when the police refused to show Gates their badges, and Gates got super pissed about being accused of burglarizing his own house. These were both unreasonable errors; however Gates is a private citizen and is allowed to be pissed off, unreasonable, and generally rude while in his own home. Police need probable cause or a warrant to enter your house, and for good reason. It is your home, and--surprising libertarian bent on my part--you shouldn't be made to do anything you don't want to do inside your own home.
But the police are not entitled to be rude, disrespectful, and unreasonable. They are the police, and to enforce the law with clean hands, you have to play everything above board. If they had simply received his identification and left, Gates could have made a stink about it but he'd have far less ammunition.
Instead, they refused to give their names, and insisted Gates step outside to discuss the situation. That's unusual by itself, because it indicates that the police did, in fact, have an idea that he lived there, because otherwise they'd have probable cause to go in and get him as a "burglar". When he did come outside, they arrested him for disorderly conduct. On his own porch.
That is some serious bull. Gates, and everybody else, is completely allowed to be an asshole to people while in his own home. You don't have to be his friend or visit him if he is. The police do not have a right to pull you out of your home, no matter how belligerent you are, without probable cause or a warrant for your arrest. These guys had neither, and made the colossally bad decision of arresting one of the nation's most eminent scholars on a trumped up charge.
I'm not saying Gates has clean hands here. It is easy to say he should have held back on the race card business, but when you've studied profiling for years, and then find out your idiot neighbor called the cops because they thought you were breaking into your own house, you're allowed to be skeptical. And then the police fed right into his skepticism by harassing and arresting him.
Anyway, ya'll know I'm not black. I don't pretend to understand what it's like to be profiled. But I understand how pissed off I would be if someone--race aside--called the police on me in my own home. It's up to the police to act professionally, and boy did they fail miserably.
Final tally: one racist neighbor, one asshole cop, and one jerk academic. But the seeming tie between the cop and academic goes to the academic, who was at home.
UPDATE: See, Obama agrees with me. But man, he went on at length. Somebody is going to take issue (wrongly) with the "police acted stupidly" portion. Even though it was the police "acted stupidly in arresting him after they had discovered no crime taking place." Which is 100% truth.
-----------------------
There's been a minor news story making the rounds lately concerning Henry Louis Gates, a professor at Harvard, being arrested for (basically) breaking into his own house. You can read more about it here, though most of the story is reaction now.
Mr. Gates has alleged that he is the victim of profiling and racism by the police. Of course, because this isn't a cut-and-dry case, he is now receiving a lot of flack for his own less-than-perfect role in the ordeal.
It broke down like this: Gates returns home from a trip to find his front door jammed. I'm unclear as to why--maybe an attempted B&E while he was out of town, or just weather--but he had to go around back to unlock the door. He did so, and returned to the front door but still couldn't open it. His driver helped him force it open. A neighbor, apparently saw all this and called the police, reporting that two black men were breaking into the house. In broad daylight, of course. And Gates walks with a cane, like most burglars.
I'll stop right there because that, my friends, is racism. I don't know the neighbor's goals or purposes, but calling the police on your black neighbor because he is trying to force open his door is extraordinarily shady. It is not, as some say, "being a responsible neighbor" because if you were responsible, you'd know he was your neighbor.
Skip ahead, though, to where Gates is inside and on the phone to see about repairs to the front door when the police arrive. Now, I don't know the specifics of what they saw, and we never will now that this has become a big deal, but if you see a 60+ bespectacled man on the phone in an allegedly broken-into house, and he walks over to you with a cane, you might assume right off the bat that he's not a burglar.
The problems arose when the police refused to show Gates their badges, and Gates got super pissed about being accused of burglarizing his own house. These were both unreasonable errors; however Gates is a private citizen and is allowed to be pissed off, unreasonable, and generally rude while in his own home. Police need probable cause or a warrant to enter your house, and for good reason. It is your home, and--surprising libertarian bent on my part--you shouldn't be made to do anything you don't want to do inside your own home.
But the police are not entitled to be rude, disrespectful, and unreasonable. They are the police, and to enforce the law with clean hands, you have to play everything above board. If they had simply received his identification and left, Gates could have made a stink about it but he'd have far less ammunition.
Instead, they refused to give their names, and insisted Gates step outside to discuss the situation. That's unusual by itself, because it indicates that the police did, in fact, have an idea that he lived there, because otherwise they'd have probable cause to go in and get him as a "burglar". When he did come outside, they arrested him for disorderly conduct. On his own porch.
That is some serious bull. Gates, and everybody else, is completely allowed to be an asshole to people while in his own home. You don't have to be his friend or visit him if he is. The police do not have a right to pull you out of your home, no matter how belligerent you are, without probable cause or a warrant for your arrest. These guys had neither, and made the colossally bad decision of arresting one of the nation's most eminent scholars on a trumped up charge.
I'm not saying Gates has clean hands here. It is easy to say he should have held back on the race card business, but when you've studied profiling for years, and then find out your idiot neighbor called the cops because they thought you were breaking into your own house, you're allowed to be skeptical. And then the police fed right into his skepticism by harassing and arresting him.
Anyway, ya'll know I'm not black. I don't pretend to understand what it's like to be profiled. But I understand how pissed off I would be if someone--race aside--called the police on me in my own home. It's up to the police to act professionally, and boy did they fail miserably.
Final tally: one racist neighbor, one asshole cop, and one jerk academic. But the seeming tie between the cop and academic goes to the academic, who was at home.
July 14, 2009
Sotomayor
In my continuing quest to tank any future judicial appointments for myself, I've got some opinions on this whole Sotomayor confirmation process.
First of all, boo-fucking-hoo to all the Republicans who want to take issue with Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments. Yeah, she rather obliquely disparaged some old white male judges. You know what group has made some really terrible decisions in the past 2 centuries? Old, white male judges. I'm not saying that a "wise Latina" would have necessarily made any better decisions, but she certainly has a perspective that some of those old cantankerous bastards could've used.
If I were her, I'd respond to questions about this comment by saying, "You know what? I AM better at making some decisions than some of you old white bastards. Yes, you, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. My heritage doesn't control my decisions, but it informs them and it does a damn sight better than your whitebread upbringing. Next question."
"But why..."
"NEXT QUESTION. Don't make me come up there, Sessions."
But then maybe that's why I'll never be on the Supreme Court.
Second of all, that New Haven Firefighter case is not controversial. Yes, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. FIVE TO FOUR. That means that four judges of the Supreme Court agreed with Sotomayor's ruling. It is beyond asinine to say that she was way off the reservation when four of the most esteemed legal minds in the world agreed with her.
This is posturing by the Republicans to an insane degree. Only Lindsey Graham seems to see the writing on the wall: unless Sotomayor starts disrobing during testimony or firing shots into the air, she's going to get confirmed and there's absolutely squat the Republicans can do about it. She should have more confidence and tell them to go to hell.
First of all, boo-fucking-hoo to all the Republicans who want to take issue with Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments. Yeah, she rather obliquely disparaged some old white male judges. You know what group has made some really terrible decisions in the past 2 centuries? Old, white male judges. I'm not saying that a "wise Latina" would have necessarily made any better decisions, but she certainly has a perspective that some of those old cantankerous bastards could've used.
If I were her, I'd respond to questions about this comment by saying, "You know what? I AM better at making some decisions than some of you old white bastards. Yes, you, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. My heritage doesn't control my decisions, but it informs them and it does a damn sight better than your whitebread upbringing. Next question."
"But why..."
"NEXT QUESTION. Don't make me come up there, Sessions."
But then maybe that's why I'll never be on the Supreme Court.
Second of all, that New Haven Firefighter case is not controversial. Yes, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. FIVE TO FOUR. That means that four judges of the Supreme Court agreed with Sotomayor's ruling. It is beyond asinine to say that she was way off the reservation when four of the most esteemed legal minds in the world agreed with her.
This is posturing by the Republicans to an insane degree. Only Lindsey Graham seems to see the writing on the wall: unless Sotomayor starts disrobing during testimony or firing shots into the air, she's going to get confirmed and there's absolutely squat the Republicans can do about it. She should have more confidence and tell them to go to hell.
July 1, 2009
So Much! Too Much?
Man, I step away for a minute and like, 15 different things happen. Let's get into it.
The King of Pop is dead. Long live the King? There is much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing about how to "celebrate" the life of such screwball. On the one hand, he made some great music. This is an area in which if you disagree, you are Wrong. Sorry, but while you don't have to like the music (that's called taste) you have to appreciate what MJ put together. I can only somewhat recall, because I was so young, the fervor with which 80s-era kids loved the man. But some of those songs are eternal.
But, he was a whacko. Ultimately, I have no problem expressing remorse at his passing because, despite the messed up life he was leading, death is it. It closes the door on any redemption or the possibility of a turn-around. MJ will never call a press conference and say, "Jesus, I was pretty messed up, wasn't I? I apologize to my fans for so much screwy behavior." And even if such a statement was super unlikely, I can mourn for the lost opportunity. It is a bummer.
Senator Stuart Smalley. Not too much to say about this because Franken should have had this months and months ago; but I'm glad to see the rule of law win out in an election scenario. Coleman may have been a good man before this mess, but his inability to let it go when absolutely nothing was in his favor has lessened my opinion of him quite a bit. I don't know what kind of senator Franken will be, but it will definitely be interesting. 6 years! And away we go.
True Blood is Entertaining. But it got a lot better after the first few episodes. It's really like an adult-themes Twilight, though, which isn't so hot. Because Twilight is horrifically stupid.* But it's still pretty hokey at times, and the characters are teetering right on the edge of being too stupid for words. If Jason Stackhouse ends up sleeping with the preacher's wife, for example, and without clear explanation how it got to that, I'm gonna be pissed.
There is a piss-poor method of character development that hack writers use to establish that someone is "lusted after" or "sexually adventurous." Basically, you have the character meet the eyes of some hot young woman (it's almost always men that need this development) and then immediately cut to them having sex. Californication does this ALL THE TIME, and it's really, really lame. No explanation of how they got to that point, or the woman's motivations for doing so. It's actually a hugely sexist and misogynistic form of character development that feeds the adolescent male fantasy of being an irresistible sex machine. The women don't matter at all; they're just tools to show that this guy is "totally awesome and the chicks can't stay away!!!"
To be fair, Jason Stackhouse has benefited from better writing during his own escapades. He has only had sex with one random chick that I can recall, and that was because he was high on vampire blood. But the show is dangerously close to the "lusty eyes -> immediate sex" cut in his interactions with the preacher's wife, and it makes me wary. The fact that people are "amazed he didn't screw that Christian singer AND the wife by now" (as mentioned in my office) just shows you how close to ridiculousness his character has been.
*I've been told. Have not yet been so bored that I actually need to read those books.
The Tigers Give Me Ulcers. Jesus they win like, 7 straight and then lose a series to Houston? The ASTROS, Detroit? Come on. They're suffering from the same problems that always plague them: power outages at hitting and unreliable closers. If you include the fact that they've only got 2 or 3 reliable starters (and just one really good and reliable pitcher) it's hard to see how they're even in first in the division.
But, they are. Improbably, amazingly, they are 3.5 games ahead of Chicago. They have a chance to win the series with Oakland today (here, in Oakland) but by all objective measures they probably should have swept the lowly, last-place A's. We'll see. I will try and keep the faith.
Oh but did anyone see that Baltimore-Boston game last night? The O's came back from a 10 to 1 deficit to win! I dislike the Orioles most of the time but that's just impressive, especially against Boston.
Needless Update: Apparently blog posting is a jinx. The Tigers are sucking it up and losing 4-1 in the 6th as I write this. Verlander just gave up a homerun to freakin' Jason Giambi, who is batting .195 this year. Pathetic.
The New Draconian Recycling Plan in My Office. We now have 4 different types of trash. It includes Compost and "E-Waste" but me and my juris doctorate cannot figure out where to put the Starbucks cup. I mean, the top is plastic (Mixed-Recycling) but the cup is paper (Compostable?) but the sleeve is cardboard (Recycling?) and there's a slight bit of food still inside.
Seriously, it could not be harder to decipher if it was written by Soviet-era Russian intelligence. Candy wrappers are "Waste" but waxed cardboard cups are "Compostable" but cardboard is "Recycling". The office needs a recycling czar.
The King of Pop is dead. Long live the King? There is much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing about how to "celebrate" the life of such screwball. On the one hand, he made some great music. This is an area in which if you disagree, you are Wrong. Sorry, but while you don't have to like the music (that's called taste) you have to appreciate what MJ put together. I can only somewhat recall, because I was so young, the fervor with which 80s-era kids loved the man. But some of those songs are eternal.
But, he was a whacko. Ultimately, I have no problem expressing remorse at his passing because, despite the messed up life he was leading, death is it. It closes the door on any redemption or the possibility of a turn-around. MJ will never call a press conference and say, "Jesus, I was pretty messed up, wasn't I? I apologize to my fans for so much screwy behavior." And even if such a statement was super unlikely, I can mourn for the lost opportunity. It is a bummer.
Senator Stuart Smalley. Not too much to say about this because Franken should have had this months and months ago; but I'm glad to see the rule of law win out in an election scenario. Coleman may have been a good man before this mess, but his inability to let it go when absolutely nothing was in his favor has lessened my opinion of him quite a bit. I don't know what kind of senator Franken will be, but it will definitely be interesting. 6 years! And away we go.
True Blood is Entertaining. But it got a lot better after the first few episodes. It's really like an adult-themes Twilight, though, which isn't so hot. Because Twilight is horrifically stupid.* But it's still pretty hokey at times, and the characters are teetering right on the edge of being too stupid for words. If Jason Stackhouse ends up sleeping with the preacher's wife, for example, and without clear explanation how it got to that, I'm gonna be pissed.
There is a piss-poor method of character development that hack writers use to establish that someone is "lusted after" or "sexually adventurous." Basically, you have the character meet the eyes of some hot young woman (it's almost always men that need this development) and then immediately cut to them having sex. Californication does this ALL THE TIME, and it's really, really lame. No explanation of how they got to that point, or the woman's motivations for doing so. It's actually a hugely sexist and misogynistic form of character development that feeds the adolescent male fantasy of being an irresistible sex machine. The women don't matter at all; they're just tools to show that this guy is "totally awesome and the chicks can't stay away!!!"
To be fair, Jason Stackhouse has benefited from better writing during his own escapades. He has only had sex with one random chick that I can recall, and that was because he was high on vampire blood. But the show is dangerously close to the "lusty eyes -> immediate sex" cut in his interactions with the preacher's wife, and it makes me wary. The fact that people are "amazed he didn't screw that Christian singer AND the wife by now" (as mentioned in my office) just shows you how close to ridiculousness his character has been.
*I've been told. Have not yet been so bored that I actually need to read those books.
The Tigers Give Me Ulcers. Jesus they win like, 7 straight and then lose a series to Houston? The ASTROS, Detroit? Come on. They're suffering from the same problems that always plague them: power outages at hitting and unreliable closers. If you include the fact that they've only got 2 or 3 reliable starters (and just one really good and reliable pitcher) it's hard to see how they're even in first in the division.
But, they are. Improbably, amazingly, they are 3.5 games ahead of Chicago. They have a chance to win the series with Oakland today (here, in Oakland) but by all objective measures they probably should have swept the lowly, last-place A's. We'll see. I will try and keep the faith.
Oh but did anyone see that Baltimore-Boston game last night? The O's came back from a 10 to 1 deficit to win! I dislike the Orioles most of the time but that's just impressive, especially against Boston.
Needless Update: Apparently blog posting is a jinx. The Tigers are sucking it up and losing 4-1 in the 6th as I write this. Verlander just gave up a homerun to freakin' Jason Giambi, who is batting .195 this year. Pathetic.
The New Draconian Recycling Plan in My Office. We now have 4 different types of trash. It includes Compost and "E-Waste" but me and my juris doctorate cannot figure out where to put the Starbucks cup. I mean, the top is plastic (Mixed-Recycling) but the cup is paper (Compostable?) but the sleeve is cardboard (Recycling?) and there's a slight bit of food still inside.
Seriously, it could not be harder to decipher if it was written by Soviet-era Russian intelligence. Candy wrappers are "Waste" but waxed cardboard cups are "Compostable" but cardboard is "Recycling". The office needs a recycling czar.
June 11, 2009
Just Jettison Zumaya
Baseball post incoming. Ignore if you like, there is also some angry ranting.
...
The Tigers have had a "power outage" for a couple series now. They took 3/5 from the White Sox, in Chicago, which is great but given the White Sox inability to do anything right, they should have taken at least 4. Today was the 5th game.
The Tigers, predictably, had little offense and for most of the game were behind zero to two. Zero! Against a mediocre Chicago pitcher! They finally scored one in the last few innings, and then in the top of the 9th, Curtis Granderson hits a home run with a man on base to tie the game (the Sox had scored another, it was 3-1 at the time).
Your regular baseball fan might celebrate this. Your 2009 Tigers fan knows this is a dangerous situation, because now the Tigers have to rely on the bullpen to send the game into extra innings.
I love Jim Leyland (the manager) for what he's done with this team. But sometimes, I cannot fathom his thought process. Today, he decided to put in the utterly useless and almost ALWAYS disastrous Joel Zumaya. Zumaya was on the disabled list for awhile this season, and since returning has shown no ability to work an inning with any semblance of confidence.
He promptly allows two men on, commits a throwing error, and walks the bases loaded with no outs. In the bottom of the 9th. Then, oh so predictably, he gives up the game winning single and that's that.
I know that you have to look at all aspects of the team when assigning blame. The hitting was pathetic today, with only Ryan Raburn providing an RBI against the starting pitcher. Raburn is good but he should not be the go-to guy for hits. Cabrera and Ordonez went hitless. Pathetic against a pitcher with a 5.0+ ERA.
But then, putting in ZUMAYA of all people, to hold the lead? Zumaya needs quite a bit of rehab work first. He needs a 6th, 7th or 8th inning where the Tigers have a 5-0 lead or better. And at this point, I think he needs to get this from another team.
Fernando Rodney's meltdown the other night (he walked the bases loaded, which you really shouldn't do as a closer) has brought the Tigers back to the sad 2008 season, which featured lukewarm hitting and absolutely no reliable closers. Somebody needs to take a hard look and do some housecleaning in the bullpen.
/rant off. It's just so depressing.
...
The Tigers have had a "power outage" for a couple series now. They took 3/5 from the White Sox, in Chicago, which is great but given the White Sox inability to do anything right, they should have taken at least 4. Today was the 5th game.
The Tigers, predictably, had little offense and for most of the game were behind zero to two. Zero! Against a mediocre Chicago pitcher! They finally scored one in the last few innings, and then in the top of the 9th, Curtis Granderson hits a home run with a man on base to tie the game (the Sox had scored another, it was 3-1 at the time).
Your regular baseball fan might celebrate this. Your 2009 Tigers fan knows this is a dangerous situation, because now the Tigers have to rely on the bullpen to send the game into extra innings.
I love Jim Leyland (the manager) for what he's done with this team. But sometimes, I cannot fathom his thought process. Today, he decided to put in the utterly useless and almost ALWAYS disastrous Joel Zumaya. Zumaya was on the disabled list for awhile this season, and since returning has shown no ability to work an inning with any semblance of confidence.
He promptly allows two men on, commits a throwing error, and walks the bases loaded with no outs. In the bottom of the 9th. Then, oh so predictably, he gives up the game winning single and that's that.
I know that you have to look at all aspects of the team when assigning blame. The hitting was pathetic today, with only Ryan Raburn providing an RBI against the starting pitcher. Raburn is good but he should not be the go-to guy for hits. Cabrera and Ordonez went hitless. Pathetic against a pitcher with a 5.0+ ERA.
But then, putting in ZUMAYA of all people, to hold the lead? Zumaya needs quite a bit of rehab work first. He needs a 6th, 7th or 8th inning where the Tigers have a 5-0 lead or better. And at this point, I think he needs to get this from another team.
Fernando Rodney's meltdown the other night (he walked the bases loaded, which you really shouldn't do as a closer) has brought the Tigers back to the sad 2008 season, which featured lukewarm hitting and absolutely no reliable closers. Somebody needs to take a hard look and do some housecleaning in the bullpen.
/rant off. It's just so depressing.
June 9, 2009
So Oblivious
I am trying to be more understanding of people, in general. I have a touch of the road rage, because there is so much inattention and stupidity on the roads.
I realize, and am fairly egotistical in this regard, that I am more aware of my surroundings than the common man. I say this not to imply a superhuman quality on my part, but after many years of watching people act like morons.
People who are walking down the street, oblivious to the fact that there are cross streets where, egads, they don't have the right of way. They act as if this is the first time they have ever seen a "Don't Walk" sign, and often even step into the street to cross without looking both ways. Weren't they children once? It's right up there with not taking candy from strangers.
People who stop at the top or bottom of the escalator to get their bearings, when an escalator full of people are right behind them. Then they get all flustered when someone (usually not me) yells, "Move!" because the escalator folk are about to start trampling each other.
People who put their seats back in an airplane. I know, this may be controversial and isn't really indicative of idiocy, but it bugs me. We all have so little space. You are not so special that 3 extra inches you get are worth the inconvenience to the person behind you. The mere fact that the seats CAN go down is not a license to do so. I don't believe the majority of people who put their seats back even think about the person behind them, which is why I put this in the same category of obliviousness.
But getting older has made me realize that these people are being purposely stupid. Sometimes, people just don't know. Or they don't pay attention. It is not a good thing, but it is also not a crippling personality defect. Since I will never see most of these people again, why let it bug me?
I think this is the "Anti-Larry David" approach. Although I still think Curb Your Enthusiasm is great, it is not a good way to live for real.
I realize, and am fairly egotistical in this regard, that I am more aware of my surroundings than the common man. I say this not to imply a superhuman quality on my part, but after many years of watching people act like morons.
People who are walking down the street, oblivious to the fact that there are cross streets where, egads, they don't have the right of way. They act as if this is the first time they have ever seen a "Don't Walk" sign, and often even step into the street to cross without looking both ways. Weren't they children once? It's right up there with not taking candy from strangers.
People who stop at the top or bottom of the escalator to get their bearings, when an escalator full of people are right behind them. Then they get all flustered when someone (usually not me) yells, "Move!" because the escalator folk are about to start trampling each other.
People who put their seats back in an airplane. I know, this may be controversial and isn't really indicative of idiocy, but it bugs me. We all have so little space. You are not so special that 3 extra inches you get are worth the inconvenience to the person behind you. The mere fact that the seats CAN go down is not a license to do so. I don't believe the majority of people who put their seats back even think about the person behind them, which is why I put this in the same category of obliviousness.
But getting older has made me realize that these people are being purposely stupid. Sometimes, people just don't know. Or they don't pay attention. It is not a good thing, but it is also not a crippling personality defect. Since I will never see most of these people again, why let it bug me?
I think this is the "Anti-Larry David" approach. Although I still think Curb Your Enthusiasm is great, it is not a good way to live for real.
December 10, 2008
It Didn't Make Me Shake with Rage
I've spoken about my... hate-hate relationship with the NBC show "Heroes" before. Twice, even. The show is just stupid. It lacks the most basic fundamentals that any narrative arc requires: coherency and continuity.
Lately, the "heroes" (I use the term loosely because you give me a baseball bat and I could probably do a better job hero'ing my way around town than these idiots) have had their powers stripped, returned again, and are all playing some sort of power shifting, stealing, and sharing "Musical Chairs".
Monday's episode, however, wasn't a complete insult to the intelligence of a 3-year-old. I mean, it had plenty of idiotic parts (see below) but the storyline was tighter: one main story, one minor, and one... small stupid one. You can't win them all, I suppose.
Now, I consider this to be a brief oasis in an otherwise cancel-worthy season, but it reminded me of why the show used to have so much potential. The writers managed to keep the exposition to a minimum (a Heroes minimum being only 4 or 5 times an episode will a character literally narrate what he/she is doing) and the main story was actually fairly good.
But then, of course, they're still a bunch of morons. Five minutes with just ONE person's powers and I've got all their problems solved. But not them!
- Hiro can teleport through time and space, as well as stop time outright. So why does he let the bad guy steal his powers and fling him off a roof? Probably because his writers hate him.
- The speedy chick, name forgotten because I don't care, drags her friends from Iowa to NYC at super-speed? How would that not kill them? How is she strong enough to DO that? Lazy, stupid writers again.
- The bad guy, who possesses something like 4 different super-healing abilities, is killed with a bullet to the brain while his powers are being neutralized. Now, I liked that the neutralizing guy had trouble keeping him in check. But the show has already shown us, several times that the healing folks come back to life if they happen to die while being de-powered. Maybe he's just not dead. But why do the people responsible for his death figure it's all good? Especially when one of them had this exact thing already happen to him?
See, I thought it was a solid B- episode (they are usually D+ at best) and now I'm already rethinking it down to a C. But I really did like the Hiro-Momma Hiro story, and even Claire's story. Although, seeing her hold and coo at her 1-month old self (time travel, folks) was unbelievably creepy.
Of course I will watch next week's "2008 finale". I can't look away.
Lately, the "heroes" (I use the term loosely because you give me a baseball bat and I could probably do a better job hero'ing my way around town than these idiots) have had their powers stripped, returned again, and are all playing some sort of power shifting, stealing, and sharing "Musical Chairs".
Monday's episode, however, wasn't a complete insult to the intelligence of a 3-year-old. I mean, it had plenty of idiotic parts (see below) but the storyline was tighter: one main story, one minor, and one... small stupid one. You can't win them all, I suppose.
Now, I consider this to be a brief oasis in an otherwise cancel-worthy season, but it reminded me of why the show used to have so much potential. The writers managed to keep the exposition to a minimum (a Heroes minimum being only 4 or 5 times an episode will a character literally narrate what he/she is doing) and the main story was actually fairly good.
But then, of course, they're still a bunch of morons. Five minutes with just ONE person's powers and I've got all their problems solved. But not them!
- Hiro can teleport through time and space, as well as stop time outright. So why does he let the bad guy steal his powers and fling him off a roof? Probably because his writers hate him.
- The speedy chick, name forgotten because I don't care, drags her friends from Iowa to NYC at super-speed? How would that not kill them? How is she strong enough to DO that? Lazy, stupid writers again.
- The bad guy, who possesses something like 4 different super-healing abilities, is killed with a bullet to the brain while his powers are being neutralized. Now, I liked that the neutralizing guy had trouble keeping him in check. But the show has already shown us, several times that the healing folks come back to life if they happen to die while being de-powered. Maybe he's just not dead. But why do the people responsible for his death figure it's all good? Especially when one of them had this exact thing already happen to him?
See, I thought it was a solid B- episode (they are usually D+ at best) and now I'm already rethinking it down to a C. But I really did like the Hiro-Momma Hiro story, and even Claire's story. Although, seeing her hold and coo at her 1-month old self (time travel, folks) was unbelievably creepy.
Of course I will watch next week's "2008 finale". I can't look away.
October 27, 2008
No on Prop 8
A fairly obvious statement, given my previous entries on the subject of gay marriage. I'm all for it! Marry! Be happy!
But I wanted to point out an interesting and hypocritical twist on the Prop 8 battle here in California.
Conservatives who don't wish to sound overly harsh are often quoted as saying that decisions of this nature should be "left to the states". That is, California decides who can marry in California; Wyoming decides for its own, and so forth. This position has some legal problems that I won't get into--recognition of marriages in other states being necessary under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution--but in California, the hypocrisy of the "leave it to the states" position has been exposed.
How? The entirety of the funding and support for this ballot initiative is coming from outside California. They're specifically not "leaving it" to us; outside conservatives are funding the commercials and overall support of the initiative.
(Also, ballot initiatives of this kind are completely asinine. I do not want amendments to the state constitution coming because of popular vote. It's the least-thought-out method of legislating our democracy allows. Ballot initiatives are crap.)
That's not to say the opposition hasn't received donations from non-California sources. But the disparity, according to news reports, is staggering. Opposition to Prop 8 is largely California-based; proponents are found pretty much everywhere else.
Just so it's official: No on Prop 8, people. I defy any of you to come up with a logical or rational explanation as to why a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gay people is a good idea.
Because "God said" is neither logical or rational.
But I wanted to point out an interesting and hypocritical twist on the Prop 8 battle here in California.
Conservatives who don't wish to sound overly harsh are often quoted as saying that decisions of this nature should be "left to the states". That is, California decides who can marry in California; Wyoming decides for its own, and so forth. This position has some legal problems that I won't get into--recognition of marriages in other states being necessary under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution--but in California, the hypocrisy of the "leave it to the states" position has been exposed.
How? The entirety of the funding and support for this ballot initiative is coming from outside California. They're specifically not "leaving it" to us; outside conservatives are funding the commercials and overall support of the initiative.
(Also, ballot initiatives of this kind are completely asinine. I do not want amendments to the state constitution coming because of popular vote. It's the least-thought-out method of legislating our democracy allows. Ballot initiatives are crap.)
That's not to say the opposition hasn't received donations from non-California sources. But the disparity, according to news reports, is staggering. Opposition to Prop 8 is largely California-based; proponents are found pretty much everywhere else.
Just so it's official: No on Prop 8, people. I defy any of you to come up with a logical or rational explanation as to why a constitutional amendment banning marriage between gay people is a good idea.
Because "God said" is neither logical or rational.
October 7, 2008
Eight-Year-Olds, Dude*
I've gone on rants against bad drivers before--who hasn't, really, unless you are one of those bad drivers--but today I thought I'd share the wealth and tear pedestrians a new one.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
We're all pedestrians at some point. Most of us are pedestrians on a daily basis. I don't drive to get lunch, and sometimes I have to cross streets to do so. Pedestrian! So when I'm driving and I get pissed at people walking, I tend to try and relax a little.
It helps to remember that pedestrians have the right of way, no matter what. Also, it should be noted that technically, you're supposed to wait for a pedestrian to completely clear a crosswalk before driving through it. That means all the way to the other side. Nobody does this, of course, but when I keep that in mind it calms me down at intersections.
All that being said, what the hell is wrong with you people? When I'm walking around town, I'm acutely aware of traffic signals and the hints they give as to when it's clear to walk. But countless pedestrians--this happens daily--seem to forget the existence of a left turn arrow. As soon as the light is red, they think they can start crossing, even when not given the "Walk" signal.
How stupid are these people? If you're walking to work, then you should know exactly how the traffic works. If you're walking in your neighborhood, same deal. I cannot believe that every single day there are random solo tourists wandering the city with no understanding of how these work.
Granted, there are different types of idiot pedestrians. One type I almost have respect for--that's the local who doesn't give a shit what the light says, he's crossing now. I don't honk at these folk, I just glare. They glare right back. I only happen across them once every few weeks because most locals are aware that it's a risky attitude to take in Oakland. Some drivers WILL run you down.
The other type is what really pisses me off. Young urban professional-looking morons who can't be bothered to look up and take note of the light. Maybe because I am this person, and know exactly how little brainpower it takes to stop at an intersection. One guy actually gave me the FINGER when he started walking into the intersection about 3 seconds after I had the green. It wasn't like he didn't make it to the other side before the green, he started walking on a Don't Walk signal. I honked, because WTF, and he flicked me off!
So there, I officially hate both drivers and pedestrians. You're all idiots.
*Because pederast is really close to pedestrian. And I really like The Big Lebowski. Shut up.
October 3, 2008
The Inevitable VP Debate Post
"This was supposed to be a no rough stuff type deal!"
I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.
But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.
She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!
So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.
I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.
I don't know about the rest of you, but after last night I've got a hankerin' for some Fargo.
But putting that aside for a moment, we have the debate. The best that can be said for Sarah Palin is that she didn't turn into a Tina Fey caricature live on stage. She also didn't really answer any of the questions, at all, and at a few points took wildly disconnected tangents. I appreciate her thoughts on education, for instance, but did she even remember that the question was on how she differed from McCain? Granted, it was 3 or 4 responses in, but Biden simply included the word "education" in a laundry list of important topics, and Palin took it and ran.
She clearly can't think of true, coherent answers on the spot. She has canned responses and when somebody triggers the right word ("education") her internal sensors switch on and she tosses out a heap a' folksiness!
So she managed to string some coherent responses together. She didn't actually answer the questions, but at least her answers weren't gibberish. Biden, on the other hand, has a clear command of the issues, and managed to keep from making any significant mistakes or gaffes.
I think this will result in a slight bump for Obama/Biden, but not much for McCain because all it has done is reinforce the Palin fans' opinions. Independents probably won't consider this a terribly successful debate on her part. She's just not a gibbering idiot, and let me just say I'm glad that's where McCain has set the bar for VP candidates.
September 26, 2008
More Political Rhetoric From Me!
Sometimes, I just post things because I need to get it straight in my own head. I am aware that very few of this blog's readers will disagree on most of these ideas--but by all means, if you do, speak up. Tell me where the fallacy lies.
The biggest, and in my opinion most effective, criticism of Sarah Palin is that she's unqualified to hold the position for which she was nominated, and as such was a "stunt" selection. Conservatives disagree, saying she has executive experience (more on that later) and that she energized the Republican base like no one else.
To get to the heart of this issue, I think the question to ask is this: is there someone else, with more qualifications, who could do the same thing for the GOP?
Somebody Better?
When it comes to Sarah Palin, the answer is a resounding yes. There are plenty of conservative governors (22!) and frankly, if we're trying to beat 2 years as governor of one of the least populated states, I think you can look towards mayors of any metropolitan area as well. And while not all of these executives may have Palin's mind-bending social conservatism, enough of them do that it wouldn't be hard to find a really experienced right-winger to fill the position. Hell, Mitt Romney has everything Palin has but twice over. Except, of course, for that double-X chromosome.
The Myth of "Executive Experience"
Instead, we have Palin, who has no real experience that is applicable to the position of Vice President. "Executive experience!" you may cry, but the Vice President is only a part of the executive branch; he/she doesn't govern unless the President goes down. The Veep position is largely diplomatic, legislative (breaking ties in the Senate), and policy oriented. Cheney, the most empowered VP in modern history, does not have any executive experience. But even if I disagree with his politics and methods intensely, I admit he could ascend to the Presidency if called to do so. He has the professional experience to take that role, and so did Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and even Jack Kemp (What up class of '96!).
Palin cannot be handed this responsibility. She has demonstrated time and time again that she has not even the slightest idea of what being President means, other than the fact that it's a culmination of her political dreams. She lacks everything a President should have, across the board.
So conservatives can argue this executive experience thing breathlessly, but it only really applies if McCain dies in office. Until then, she has no diplomatic, legislative, or policy experience whatsoever. She is a placeholder, a token lifted from obscurity for the sole purpose of sticking it to Obama.
But More Experienced Than Obama, Right?
Wrong! Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years, and has been in the U.S. Senate for 3 more. Critics can argue about what he did during those years, but if we're comparing Palin and Obama's experience, you have to examine her achievements as well. And her 6 years as mayor of a tiny Alaska town are not more distinguished than Obama's "present" votes in Illinois.
But the real experience lies in the campaign. Obama has been running for President for over a year, and has been tested repeatedly by the press, by fellow Democrats, and by Republicans. He has weathered that storm well, and has formulated nuanced and intelligent policy opinions on every imaginable topic.
Palin was governor of Alaska until a month ago. She was not at all involved in the Republican primaries, and still has yet to make a single intelligent policy point on her own. You can chop off the careers of BOTH candidates, and Obama still wins by a mile in the experience department.
Bullet-Point Summary Time!
* Sarah Palin seems like a nice person. She has the least experience of almost every single VP candidate in the history of our country. This includes Dan Quayle.
* "Executive experience" means nothing in the VP position. It is as useful as knowing how to make snow cones.
* Obama has proven his ability to work above his experience level, by simple virtue of the fact that's he been campaigning for President for more than a year.
Epic Conclusion
A vote for the Republican ticket in 2008 is unpatriotic. It is a slap in the face of every person who expects more out of the President. It puts naked political ambition before the safety and prosperity of this country. Republicans, and all Americans, should be ashamed of McCain for acting with such reckless disregard for our nation.
The biggest, and in my opinion most effective, criticism of Sarah Palin is that she's unqualified to hold the position for which she was nominated, and as such was a "stunt" selection. Conservatives disagree, saying she has executive experience (more on that later) and that she energized the Republican base like no one else.
To get to the heart of this issue, I think the question to ask is this: is there someone else, with more qualifications, who could do the same thing for the GOP?
Somebody Better?
When it comes to Sarah Palin, the answer is a resounding yes. There are plenty of conservative governors (22!) and frankly, if we're trying to beat 2 years as governor of one of the least populated states, I think you can look towards mayors of any metropolitan area as well. And while not all of these executives may have Palin's mind-bending social conservatism, enough of them do that it wouldn't be hard to find a really experienced right-winger to fill the position. Hell, Mitt Romney has everything Palin has but twice over. Except, of course, for that double-X chromosome.
The Myth of "Executive Experience"
Instead, we have Palin, who has no real experience that is applicable to the position of Vice President. "Executive experience!" you may cry, but the Vice President is only a part of the executive branch; he/she doesn't govern unless the President goes down. The Veep position is largely diplomatic, legislative (breaking ties in the Senate), and policy oriented. Cheney, the most empowered VP in modern history, does not have any executive experience. But even if I disagree with his politics and methods intensely, I admit he could ascend to the Presidency if called to do so. He has the professional experience to take that role, and so did Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, and even Jack Kemp (What up class of '96!).
Palin cannot be handed this responsibility. She has demonstrated time and time again that she has not even the slightest idea of what being President means, other than the fact that it's a culmination of her political dreams. She lacks everything a President should have, across the board.
So conservatives can argue this executive experience thing breathlessly, but it only really applies if McCain dies in office. Until then, she has no diplomatic, legislative, or policy experience whatsoever. She is a placeholder, a token lifted from obscurity for the sole purpose of sticking it to Obama.
But More Experienced Than Obama, Right?
Wrong! Obama was in the Illinois legislature for 8 years, and has been in the U.S. Senate for 3 more. Critics can argue about what he did during those years, but if we're comparing Palin and Obama's experience, you have to examine her achievements as well. And her 6 years as mayor of a tiny Alaska town are not more distinguished than Obama's "present" votes in Illinois.
But the real experience lies in the campaign. Obama has been running for President for over a year, and has been tested repeatedly by the press, by fellow Democrats, and by Republicans. He has weathered that storm well, and has formulated nuanced and intelligent policy opinions on every imaginable topic.
Palin was governor of Alaska until a month ago. She was not at all involved in the Republican primaries, and still has yet to make a single intelligent policy point on her own. You can chop off the careers of BOTH candidates, and Obama still wins by a mile in the experience department.
Bullet-Point Summary Time!
* Sarah Palin seems like a nice person. She has the least experience of almost every single VP candidate in the history of our country. This includes Dan Quayle.
* "Executive experience" means nothing in the VP position. It is as useful as knowing how to make snow cones.
* Obama has proven his ability to work above his experience level, by simple virtue of the fact that's he been campaigning for President for more than a year.
Epic Conclusion
A vote for the Republican ticket in 2008 is unpatriotic. It is a slap in the face of every person who expects more out of the President. It puts naked political ambition before the safety and prosperity of this country. Republicans, and all Americans, should be ashamed of McCain for acting with such reckless disregard for our nation.
August 26, 2008
What a Lousy Time to Be in California
All of a sudden, my home state is a political battleground!
Who'd have thought that the former capital of the Confederacy would have the Democrat and Republican nominees for President in a virtual tie?
And here I sit in the blue-as-the-sky liberal oasis of California. Great for living (especially the Bay Area!) but not so great for effecting political change. If anybody wants to trade votes this election, I'm more than willing to cast one of the many dozens McCain is sure to get out here. Or is that voter fraud? If it is, I was totally joking!
Seriously though, now I gots to get real with you Virginia folk. Something like 75% of my readership lives in Virginia these days, and ya'll have to step up your (collective) game! Make this shit happen, yo!
Some of you are even dating Republicans. Normally I am a tolerant person, and will merely sigh at the backwards attitudes of your misguided paramours. But you have an election (conceivably) in the balance! The time for allowing such gentle disagreement is over. The time for arm-twisting, withholding of sexual favors, and other devious tactics is here!
I mean, really. What if he/she votes for McCain, and we have another Florida on our hands, only in the Old Dominion? Do you want him/her to be one of the 500 votes that gives McCain the Presidency?
As noted yesterday, I'll be back in town in September, but probably not again before election day. I will put my money where my mouth is, and provide any ideological backup you need at that time.
And FYI, I really do know a number of you (more than 3) that are dating possible GOP types, so this isn't directed at any particular individual. BUT YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
Who'd have thought that the former capital of the Confederacy would have the Democrat and Republican nominees for President in a virtual tie?
And here I sit in the blue-as-the-sky liberal oasis of California. Great for living (especially the Bay Area!) but not so great for effecting political change. If anybody wants to trade votes this election, I'm more than willing to cast one of the many dozens McCain is sure to get out here. Or is that voter fraud? If it is, I was totally joking!
Seriously though, now I gots to get real with you Virginia folk. Something like 75% of my readership lives in Virginia these days, and ya'll have to step up your (collective) game! Make this shit happen, yo!
Some of you are even dating Republicans. Normally I am a tolerant person, and will merely sigh at the backwards attitudes of your misguided paramours. But you have an election (conceivably) in the balance! The time for allowing such gentle disagreement is over. The time for arm-twisting, withholding of sexual favors, and other devious tactics is here!
I mean, really. What if he/she votes for McCain, and we have another Florida on our hands, only in the Old Dominion? Do you want him/her to be one of the 500 votes that gives McCain the Presidency?
As noted yesterday, I'll be back in town in September, but probably not again before election day. I will put my money where my mouth is, and provide any ideological backup you need at that time.
And FYI, I really do know a number of you (more than 3) that are dating possible GOP types, so this isn't directed at any particular individual. BUT YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
July 25, 2008
Capitalism Bleargh
This is part of a continuing series wherein I insure that I can never be elected President because I post inflammatory anti-American statements on the Internet.
One of the most annoying business practices that I've ever run across--and something that, I believer, typifies the capitalist idea of profit maximization at all costs--is the policy of automatic denial.
This is used in a number of different ways, the most egregious being when an insurance company decides to immediately deny any/all claims that are made. Of course, in California it's illegal to do that (hooray for our industry-destroying regulatory system!) but when you deal with smaller insurance companies that don't have a need to put everything down in writing, it rears its fugly head.
But this post isn't just about insurance companies, who we can all agree are sort of jerktastic as a rule. This method is also used in business-to-business with depressing frequency. The idea there is that if you question line items in a bill (say, for completely random example that in no way relates to my life, bills to a company for legal services) every time you receive such a bill, at least a handful of service providers will simply accept your nonsensical or baseless reduction.
It's bottom-line effective, I'm sure. If you just "declare" that you're cutting all bills you owe by 15%, some will fight you and others will shrug and figure arguing is not worth their time. Some may not even notice the reduction.
The downside is obvious. Those of us doing legitimate work and having our billing questioned for no reason other than to bully us into taking a reduced amount--again, for no discernible reason--are demoralized. It's professionally insulting, and I'm betting that with less scrupulous service providers, it leads quite quickly to bill inflation.
I understand how services are rendered in business-to-business scenarios. You want the best work for the lowest cost possible. If you can find better service providers for lower, by all means hire them. But this (fairly commonplace) method of cost reduction is just slimy, no two ways about it.
Maybe it's unfair to blame this on capitalism. Perhaps it's just a pendulum, like so many things, and now it's nearing the end of its swing back in favor of the corporate clients. In years past--I've been told--insurance companies were routinely beat up by the law firms they employed, and billing spiraled out of control. The market corrected itself, but like every other time a market corrects a flaw in the system, it's now overcompensating.
One of the most annoying business practices that I've ever run across--and something that, I believer, typifies the capitalist idea of profit maximization at all costs--is the policy of automatic denial.
This is used in a number of different ways, the most egregious being when an insurance company decides to immediately deny any/all claims that are made. Of course, in California it's illegal to do that (hooray for our industry-destroying regulatory system!) but when you deal with smaller insurance companies that don't have a need to put everything down in writing, it rears its fugly head.
But this post isn't just about insurance companies, who we can all agree are sort of jerktastic as a rule. This method is also used in business-to-business with depressing frequency. The idea there is that if you question line items in a bill (say, for completely random example that in no way relates to my life, bills to a company for legal services) every time you receive such a bill, at least a handful of service providers will simply accept your nonsensical or baseless reduction.
It's bottom-line effective, I'm sure. If you just "declare" that you're cutting all bills you owe by 15%, some will fight you and others will shrug and figure arguing is not worth their time. Some may not even notice the reduction.
The downside is obvious. Those of us doing legitimate work and having our billing questioned for no reason other than to bully us into taking a reduced amount--again, for no discernible reason--are demoralized. It's professionally insulting, and I'm betting that with less scrupulous service providers, it leads quite quickly to bill inflation.
I understand how services are rendered in business-to-business scenarios. You want the best work for the lowest cost possible. If you can find better service providers for lower, by all means hire them. But this (fairly commonplace) method of cost reduction is just slimy, no two ways about it.
Maybe it's unfair to blame this on capitalism. Perhaps it's just a pendulum, like so many things, and now it's nearing the end of its swing back in favor of the corporate clients. In years past--I've been told--insurance companies were routinely beat up by the law firms they employed, and billing spiraled out of control. The market corrected itself, but like every other time a market corrects a flaw in the system, it's now overcompensating.
May 13, 2008
This Troubles Me
I've had a post circulating in my brain for awhile now, but I haven't been sure how to state my thoughts.
Today in the Post there was an article on racism and the Obama campaign.
Now I could be wrong about this, in which case--like most predictions or portents of doom--nobody will even remember what I prophesied. And I'll be really glad if it doesn't come to be.
But here's the concern:
Not electing Barack Obama in 2008 could be the end of our country. The end of America's reign as the leading superpower in the world. It could be the moment that historians 500 years from now look back and say, "That was the straw that broke America's back."
The reason? It will destroy a vast portion of our society and citizenry if Obama is defeated because people cannot vote for a black man. And I'm not sure they can, especially given the sentiments described in the above article. I hope to God we are ready, and that America can step up and do this.
But if we're not, what does this mean? The level of resentment--of sheer anger--could be higher than anything we've experienced before. The divide between the progressives and the racist underbelly may be drawn into stark and unflinching view. Can we handle looking at ourselves this way? Can we not take to the streets, and tear out this rotten core?
Maybe it won't be so obvious. Maybe enough conservatives will convince the rest of the country that they voted policy, and not color. Maybe they actually will, and for some reason 51% of the country will disagree with Obama. But given the past 8 years--more than 70% of the country hates our current President--and the lack of change from McCain (who is rapidly disappointing me by dropping all his reformist opinions), I really don't see how most people can argue voting Republican in November.
If they do, I think that might be it for us. Never before have we had such a remarkable candidate who also happens to be black. If we can't vote for him because of his skin color, well then we don't deserve to be a superpower. We don't deserve the national unity required to remain a superpower. We deserve to crumble as Rome did. We deserve to be torn apart from the inside.
So for all you conservatives out there -- you better damn well make your case against Obama on policy, and make it strong. I may disagree with your ideas, but I respect them.
You independents and "apolitical" types better take a long, hard look at your reasons before you vote against him. If Obama loses because of your racist attitudes, I'll be first in line in any revolution that may follow. I'll call for your heads, and if this country burns I will be glad to see it go.
Today in the Post there was an article on racism and the Obama campaign.
Now I could be wrong about this, in which case--like most predictions or portents of doom--nobody will even remember what I prophesied. And I'll be really glad if it doesn't come to be.
But here's the concern:
Not electing Barack Obama in 2008 could be the end of our country. The end of America's reign as the leading superpower in the world. It could be the moment that historians 500 years from now look back and say, "That was the straw that broke America's back."
The reason? It will destroy a vast portion of our society and citizenry if Obama is defeated because people cannot vote for a black man. And I'm not sure they can, especially given the sentiments described in the above article. I hope to God we are ready, and that America can step up and do this.
But if we're not, what does this mean? The level of resentment--of sheer anger--could be higher than anything we've experienced before. The divide between the progressives and the racist underbelly may be drawn into stark and unflinching view. Can we handle looking at ourselves this way? Can we not take to the streets, and tear out this rotten core?
Maybe it won't be so obvious. Maybe enough conservatives will convince the rest of the country that they voted policy, and not color. Maybe they actually will, and for some reason 51% of the country will disagree with Obama. But given the past 8 years--more than 70% of the country hates our current President--and the lack of change from McCain (who is rapidly disappointing me by dropping all his reformist opinions), I really don't see how most people can argue voting Republican in November.
If they do, I think that might be it for us. Never before have we had such a remarkable candidate who also happens to be black. If we can't vote for him because of his skin color, well then we don't deserve to be a superpower. We don't deserve the national unity required to remain a superpower. We deserve to crumble as Rome did. We deserve to be torn apart from the inside.
So for all you conservatives out there -- you better damn well make your case against Obama on policy, and make it strong. I may disagree with your ideas, but I respect them.
You independents and "apolitical" types better take a long, hard look at your reasons before you vote against him. If Obama loses because of your racist attitudes, I'll be first in line in any revolution that may follow. I'll call for your heads, and if this country burns I will be glad to see it go.
April 24, 2008
Apologies in Advance
I know nobody cares about what I think about politics, especially those of you who read this blog and never comment.
But it's a good place to vent, so here's the latest: Hillary is a liar.
You can say what you want about political gamesmanship, or shrewd campaigning, but this is dishonest. Intellectually, factually, and in every way conceivable.
Michigan and Florida screwed their respective pooches. They wanted to be all hip and violate DNC rules regarding primaries, so they don't get votes. I am fine with that because it's the states that decided to restructure their primaries to get attention, so it's their own fault.
You can't unring this bell. Everyone agreed not to campaign in those states, and in Michigan Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary can start claiming Google hits for "Hillary Clinton" as votes too, and it would be just as valid.
So to claim Michigan and Florida votes as why you're the "popular vote winner"... This is why I cannot support her. If someone out there wants to defend this tactic, please do so. I cannot fathom why anybody would think this was okay.
Non-Political Addendum: Tigers whipped the Rangers last night 19-6, but as I write this Bonderman is literally walking in runs to blow his lead in the last game of the 3-game series. Fat bastard has no control today.
But it's a good place to vent, so here's the latest: Hillary is a liar.
You can say what you want about political gamesmanship, or shrewd campaigning, but this is dishonest. Intellectually, factually, and in every way conceivable.
Michigan and Florida screwed their respective pooches. They wanted to be all hip and violate DNC rules regarding primaries, so they don't get votes. I am fine with that because it's the states that decided to restructure their primaries to get attention, so it's their own fault.
You can't unring this bell. Everyone agreed not to campaign in those states, and in Michigan Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary can start claiming Google hits for "Hillary Clinton" as votes too, and it would be just as valid.
So to claim Michigan and Florida votes as why you're the "popular vote winner"... This is why I cannot support her. If someone out there wants to defend this tactic, please do so. I cannot fathom why anybody would think this was okay.
Non-Political Addendum: Tigers whipped the Rangers last night 19-6, but as I write this Bonderman is literally walking in runs to blow his lead in the last game of the 3-game series. Fat bastard has no control today.
April 9, 2008
On Which I Pontificate on a Splendiferous Multitude of Topics
This Whole Olympics Thing
This whole Olympics thing is coming to a boil here in good ol' SF. My opinion: the Olympics are about countries coming together in athletics. The ideal time to lambaste China would have been when the International Olympic Committee was deciding to put the Olympics in Beijing. But ya'll screwed up and didn't argue against it well enough, so now that's where it is.
To put up a fuss when the torch-bearer goes by is just juvenile. China's human rights problems are significant and well-documented, but the guy/gal carrying the torch has nothing to do with that.
This sort of touches on my problem with protesting generally. It seems pretty useless about 90% of the time. If you want to change something, you change it. You don't sit on the curb and yell. It's the 4-year-old in the toy store approach to getting your way.
Protesting does have its place, in my opinion, where the harm is immediate and local. Some guy is arrested unfairly; some politician is holding a vote on a community issue. But China, my friends, is not local. Nobody in San Francisco can do squat about China's human rights abuses.
Those Goddamn Bicyclists
Listen, I like riding a bike. I wish I had one. But it does not give you a license to ignore both pedestrian and traffic laws. Riding through the intersection against the green light and making me jam on the breaks, and then flipping me off, means that dear God are you lucky I wasn't having a crappy day or you'd be pinned under my front tire right now. Ass.
This problem is more endemic in the Bay Area than anyplace else I've lived. You may have heard about some of the problems we have on Critical Mass night. I hate it, because I really do support riding to work and all that jazz. But that holier-than-thou, I yield to no man or vehicle attitude negates every good intention you idiots may have.
Stop Supporting Hillary You Morons
She is not a bad person. She would be a good candidate, if we did not have a better one. She is not the best candidate and she is not worth putting in the White House simply because she is a woman.
There is no reason not to vote for Obama. He has as much experience as Hillary (her "35 years" is worth about as much as my 30), he is more honest, and he is much smarter than the last "inexperienced" President. That guy needs to be run out of town on a rail, or something.
Hellooooo Ladies
Because you people complain that I don't talk about my personal/social life enough around here. Fair enough. But is a not-so-subtle but completely uninformative remark about an upswing in my dating life really better than nothing at all?
This whole Olympics thing is coming to a boil here in good ol' SF. My opinion: the Olympics are about countries coming together in athletics. The ideal time to lambaste China would have been when the International Olympic Committee was deciding to put the Olympics in Beijing. But ya'll screwed up and didn't argue against it well enough, so now that's where it is.
To put up a fuss when the torch-bearer goes by is just juvenile. China's human rights problems are significant and well-documented, but the guy/gal carrying the torch has nothing to do with that.
This sort of touches on my problem with protesting generally. It seems pretty useless about 90% of the time. If you want to change something, you change it. You don't sit on the curb and yell. It's the 4-year-old in the toy store approach to getting your way.
Protesting does have its place, in my opinion, where the harm is immediate and local. Some guy is arrested unfairly; some politician is holding a vote on a community issue. But China, my friends, is not local. Nobody in San Francisco can do squat about China's human rights abuses.
Those Goddamn Bicyclists
Listen, I like riding a bike. I wish I had one. But it does not give you a license to ignore both pedestrian and traffic laws. Riding through the intersection against the green light and making me jam on the breaks, and then flipping me off, means that dear God are you lucky I wasn't having a crappy day or you'd be pinned under my front tire right now. Ass.
This problem is more endemic in the Bay Area than anyplace else I've lived. You may have heard about some of the problems we have on Critical Mass night. I hate it, because I really do support riding to work and all that jazz. But that holier-than-thou, I yield to no man or vehicle attitude negates every good intention you idiots may have.
Stop Supporting Hillary You Morons
She is not a bad person. She would be a good candidate, if we did not have a better one. She is not the best candidate and she is not worth putting in the White House simply because she is a woman.
There is no reason not to vote for Obama. He has as much experience as Hillary (her "35 years" is worth about as much as my 30), he is more honest, and he is much smarter than the last "inexperienced" President. That guy needs to be run out of town on a rail, or something.
Hellooooo Ladies
Because you people complain that I don't talk about my personal/social life enough around here. Fair enough. But is a not-so-subtle but completely uninformative remark about an upswing in my dating life really better than nothing at all?
December 11, 2007
Stop:
...waiting until the light turns green to put on your turn signal. This goes out to the jerk this morning who sat alone at the light, and made me instantly regret not cutting over to the right lane to get out from behind him. Why? Because he had no indicator that he was turning, until the light turned green and then he scooted forward 5 feet, and signaled. Meanwhile I'm trapped behind this putz when I could have easily moved into the right lane, had he not been lost in his own world of idiocy and let me know he was going to block traffic.
Moral: If you aren't in a turn lane (and hey, even then) you HAVE TO USE YOUR TURN SIGNAL, people. No exceptions.*
...the "He went to Jarred's" commercials (or wherever he went; I've tried to mentally block the name of the store). Even if you accept the premise that diamonds will make your significant other forgive your emotionally crippled personality, I doubt that even those women who forgive will actually care where you got them. Go to hell, Jarred-or-whoever.
Moral: Don't buy diamonds because they're evil.
...taunting me, Detroit Lions. What the hell was that on Sunday? You make a game of it against freaking 11-1 Dallas, when you couldn't make a game of it against the 5-6 Vikings or the even more woeful Cardinals? And then you lose anyway?
Moral: I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for the Tigers. And I wish I liked hockey more.
...being so cold, Oakland. Seriously, two blankets is too much when you live in California. I know people are literally dying in other parts of the country, but this is my forum for selfish complaining. It's too damn cold here.
Moral: You people who insist that the east coast is colder don't wake up to an apartment that is 52 degrees, do you? Yeah, I didn't think so.
...zerging the Alliance base in AV. It's a whole new battleground now and just a smidgen of defense will all but ensure a Horde victory, people. No moral needed for this one; just play a little D and everyone will be cool.
*One exception: car chases.
Moral: If you aren't in a turn lane (and hey, even then) you HAVE TO USE YOUR TURN SIGNAL, people. No exceptions.*
...the "He went to Jarred's" commercials (or wherever he went; I've tried to mentally block the name of the store). Even if you accept the premise that diamonds will make your significant other forgive your emotionally crippled personality, I doubt that even those women who forgive will actually care where you got them. Go to hell, Jarred-or-whoever.
Moral: Don't buy diamonds because they're evil.
...taunting me, Detroit Lions. What the hell was that on Sunday? You make a game of it against freaking 11-1 Dallas, when you couldn't make a game of it against the 5-6 Vikings or the even more woeful Cardinals? And then you lose anyway?
Moral: I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for the Tigers. And I wish I liked hockey more.
...being so cold, Oakland. Seriously, two blankets is too much when you live in California. I know people are literally dying in other parts of the country, but this is my forum for selfish complaining. It's too damn cold here.
Moral: You people who insist that the east coast is colder don't wake up to an apartment that is 52 degrees, do you? Yeah, I didn't think so.
...zerging the Alliance base in AV. It's a whole new battleground now and just a smidgen of defense will all but ensure a Horde victory, people. No moral needed for this one; just play a little D and everyone will be cool.
*One exception: car chases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)