I wrote yesterday on how best to traverse winter roads. Let's take another look at winter driving, but this time on what not to do. I think that it goes without saying that if you do the opposite of what I suggested in my last post that you are a bad winter driver. Well, bad might not be the best word. Inconsiderate might fit the description a little bit better. Here are a few things I have seen while driving the roads that you should not be doing. And if you are, please stop. You are making the commute dangerous for those of us that want to get where we are going.
Clear off your windows. All of them. You live in Minnesota where winter and snow are yearly occurrences. If you don't have a brush for the snow, you either just moved here from a warm climate area or are a complete moron. I've seen people going down the highway with their back window still covered with snow. Side windows are great to use in passing when you look over to check your blind spot. If you do that, that is.
Along with the windows, you should also do your best to clear off the snow from your roof and hood. The snow blowing off your roof doesn't phase you as much as the people behind you who have to drive in a lazy bastard induced blizzard. Along with the snow from your roof, the snow from your hood can fly up on your windshield making it difficult to see. Don't be lazy, clear off your car as much as possible you ass.
Four wheel drive doesn't work on ice. That is all.
Pass in a timely manner. The last thing I ever want to do is sit in someone's blind spot for too long. Be considerate. I've seen it happen far too often when the person getting passed forgets that it is happening and starts to pass another person only to finally look over and then swerve back into their own lane because someone is taking their time passing. And then the other person swerves and then all hell can break loose. Don't be that guy/girl.
All in all, you can't fix stupid. I would like to think that people would be more considerate of others when it comes to driving, especially when the roads can be dangerous.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
13 December 2013
27 November 2013
Black (Thursday) Friday Rant
Listen. I understand the reason for Black Friday for retail companies. I get it. It is important for them to start making their profit and margin for the year. What I don't understand is when did it become okay to infringe on their workers' day off? With Target, the store was closed three days a year. Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. Those were days I always looked forward to because it was a guaranteed day off. A day to spend with family or to go to church if you are religious.
It use to be that stores opened early in the morning on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Retail workers maybe had to get to the store by midnight in order to get everything organized for the madness that would happen some hours later. It was fun for a lot of people, even some of the workers. But it was after the holiday. The workers had time with their family. They were able to get a good, midday drunk on while watching football while waiting for dinner. Drinking and eating with family. You know, what the holiday is suppose to be about.
Instead now, workers are torn away from their family because greedy retail stores try to one-up each other by opening earlier and earlier in the day. Some stores this year are opening at six o'clock, others at eight o'clock, and even more at midnight. Several years ago, they early morning openings were moved to opening at midnight. I was okay with it. Technically it was the day after Thanksgiving and hence 'Black Friday'. It all went downhill from there. From midnight to nine o'clock to now six o'clock. So the one problem is that the workers are getting taken away from their family time and those who have to set up the store have to be there in the afternoon. Before the first football game is over, they are off to work. They do not get to have dinner with their family. They do not get to enjoy dessert. They have another day they have to go to work. To deal with people who are going to be really excited to treat the employees like shit while they rush around the store wondering why the super cheap item they wanted sold out three hours ago because they were pretty sure they were the only person in the entire city that wanted it. And so on and so on.
One of the major problems I have with the new hours is that the people that are making the decisions probably aren't going to be in the stores with their minimum wage workers. Do you think the CEOs of these giant retail chains are going to be running around and checking in on their stores? I think not. If they do, bully for them. But I would still drop kick any of them in the teeth for making this decision because they put money before people. The people that bust their asses for a paycheck. They bust their asses so they can pay the bills. They bust their asses for the cheap insurance. And for what? To have one of the three guaranteed days taken away from them? What the fuck is that?
One more item on this topic. Non retail workers listen up, because this is for you. This is all your fault. You are the problem here. If you sit around talking about how horrible it is that the retail workers have to work on Thanksgiving, you need to be the solution to this problem. Start petitions. Start campaigns against these companies opening up on Thanksgiving and ruining a family holiday.
Right now, I am so happy to have left my previous job for the one I have now. Granted it is still a retail job, but the CEO has come out and publicly stated that he feels that Thanksgiving is a holiday to be spent with family and will not open before the day after. THAT is looking out for your workers.
It use to be that stores opened early in the morning on the Friday after Thanksgiving. Retail workers maybe had to get to the store by midnight in order to get everything organized for the madness that would happen some hours later. It was fun for a lot of people, even some of the workers. But it was after the holiday. The workers had time with their family. They were able to get a good, midday drunk on while watching football while waiting for dinner. Drinking and eating with family. You know, what the holiday is suppose to be about.
Instead now, workers are torn away from their family because greedy retail stores try to one-up each other by opening earlier and earlier in the day. Some stores this year are opening at six o'clock, others at eight o'clock, and even more at midnight. Several years ago, they early morning openings were moved to opening at midnight. I was okay with it. Technically it was the day after Thanksgiving and hence 'Black Friday'. It all went downhill from there. From midnight to nine o'clock to now six o'clock. So the one problem is that the workers are getting taken away from their family time and those who have to set up the store have to be there in the afternoon. Before the first football game is over, they are off to work. They do not get to have dinner with their family. They do not get to enjoy dessert. They have another day they have to go to work. To deal with people who are going to be really excited to treat the employees like shit while they rush around the store wondering why the super cheap item they wanted sold out three hours ago because they were pretty sure they were the only person in the entire city that wanted it. And so on and so on.
One of the major problems I have with the new hours is that the people that are making the decisions probably aren't going to be in the stores with their minimum wage workers. Do you think the CEOs of these giant retail chains are going to be running around and checking in on their stores? I think not. If they do, bully for them. But I would still drop kick any of them in the teeth for making this decision because they put money before people. The people that bust their asses for a paycheck. They bust their asses so they can pay the bills. They bust their asses for the cheap insurance. And for what? To have one of the three guaranteed days taken away from them? What the fuck is that?
One more item on this topic. Non retail workers listen up, because this is for you. This is all your fault. You are the problem here. If you sit around talking about how horrible it is that the retail workers have to work on Thanksgiving, you need to be the solution to this problem. Start petitions. Start campaigns against these companies opening up on Thanksgiving and ruining a family holiday.
Right now, I am so happy to have left my previous job for the one I have now. Granted it is still a retail job, but the CEO has come out and publicly stated that he feels that Thanksgiving is a holiday to be spent with family and will not open before the day after. THAT is looking out for your workers.
18 June 2013
White Guy 'Honors' Native Americans
Let's just get this fact out of the way: Dan Snyder is a horrible human being. He is the Dick Cheney of the sports world. Are we all clear on that? Good. In a public statement, he made it very well known that he has no intentions of ever changing the name of the Washington Redskins. NEVER. He sees it as honoring the Native American people and culture. He sees the name as a great tradition and he couldn't let the fan base down by changing the name. No sir, you are wrong. Having a team name that is a derogatory term is not an honor.
There are professional and collegiate teams that have Native American inspired names. The Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, Central Michigan Chippewas, North DakotaFighting Sioux, and Chicago Blackhawks just to name a few with which I am familiar. Just looking at those names, there is nothing that really jumps out as offensive material (their logos are a different matter). Yes, there are some controversy with some of these organizations, but not to the scale as the Washington Redskins. When the organization was first founded in 1932, they were the Boston Braves. That is just fine, but I'm sure their logo was horribly racist. There is nothing wrong with the name 'Braves' as I see it, but if you throw in some tomahawk chops we are done. The following year their nickname was changed to the Redskins. It has been shamefully there ever since. In 1933, 'Redskins' was probably in the everyday vocabulary and seemed to be okay to use.
It's one thing for an oblivious, douche-tastic team owner to think that it is in the best interest of his team and fans to keep an offensive name, but when the commissioner comes out in a public statement saying he will not force said oblivious, douche-tastic team owner to change the name, that is something else. That is Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL. He does not have the decency to stand up to Snyder and tell him that what he is doing is giving not only his team but the league a black eye. He is quick to jump at the opportunity to fine players for tweeting, or speaking bad on the NFL, but when it comes to a true issue, he goes soft. Roger Goodell is just as guilty as Dan Snyder in this situation.
Name changes happen in sports. Teams move places and change their name to fit where they now are. Or teams change their name for public relations reasons. Even within the city of Washington D.C. there has been a sports team change their name to help disassociate themselves with controversy. Show of hands, who remembers the Washington Bullets? Well, back in 1996 the crime rate in D.C. was extremely high and the owner thought it was bad publicity and bad connotations to have the nickname 'Bullets'? It took all of two second to change the name of that team to the 'Wizards'. You see how easy that is Mr. Snyder and Mr. Goodell?
Didn't feel like reading all of that? That's fine, here's some white guys honoring my people:
There are professional and collegiate teams that have Native American inspired names. The Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, Central Michigan Chippewas, North Dakota
It's one thing for an oblivious, douche-tastic team owner to think that it is in the best interest of his team and fans to keep an offensive name, but when the commissioner comes out in a public statement saying he will not force said oblivious, douche-tastic team owner to change the name, that is something else. That is Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL. He does not have the decency to stand up to Snyder and tell him that what he is doing is giving not only his team but the league a black eye. He is quick to jump at the opportunity to fine players for tweeting, or speaking bad on the NFL, but when it comes to a true issue, he goes soft. Roger Goodell is just as guilty as Dan Snyder in this situation.
Name changes happen in sports. Teams move places and change their name to fit where they now are. Or teams change their name for public relations reasons. Even within the city of Washington D.C. there has been a sports team change their name to help disassociate themselves with controversy. Show of hands, who remembers the Washington Bullets? Well, back in 1996 the crime rate in D.C. was extremely high and the owner thought it was bad publicity and bad connotations to have the nickname 'Bullets'? It took all of two second to change the name of that team to the 'Wizards'. You see how easy that is Mr. Snyder and Mr. Goodell?
Didn't feel like reading all of that? That's fine, here's some white guys honoring my people:
22 October 2012
There is No 'We'
This afternoon, I was talking with another employee and he had asked me if I had seen any of the Viking's game before coming to work. With football, I only have one team, the Detroit Lions. Other sports, baseball and hockey, I will watch and follow the Twins and Wild just because this is where we live. I can't stand the NFC North opponents of the Lions. Yes, they might be better from time to time (i.e. most of the time), but you will never see me take time out of my day to watch them. Regardless, I caught the score on the radio on the drive to work and told him what it was about forty five minutes ago. This person was walking past us and spouted 'twenty one to fourteen, we won!' and continued on her way. And I thought to myself, she said 'we'. I try my best not to use the word hate, but I hate when people say that. 'We won the championship two years ago.' or 'We beat the hell out of our rival last night.' Listen, unless you have gotten a paycheck from a sports organization or you are an alumni of a school, you have no right to use the collective term 'we' when referring to a sports team.
I know that the die hard fan will argue until they are blue in the face about this point, but they are wrong. The athletes are the ones making the plays, putting their health on the line from time to time, to entertain the masses. They deserve to use the term 'we'. The owners who put up the cash to put the team together deserve to use the term 'we'. The general managers and presidents who make the trades and draft the players are allowed to use this term. Alumni from colleges or retired players who proudly played for a team for the majority of their career can use 'we' without being chastised by me. But the minute some lazy, beer swigging, sofa surfing, never played the sport but gloats when the team wins and doesn't support them when they are losing, mother fucker starts to use the term 'we' I lose it.
It is the sense of entitlement. I have always supported my teams, but have never claimed to be a part of them. Even when the Lions went 0-16. Even when the Tigers lost 119 games. Even when the Red Wings were the Dead Wings. Even when the Pistons were...well, I never really liked basketball. The fact that the Pistons are still around is pretty amazing. Go them! I have no recollection of ever using the term 'we' when talking about the sports teams I follow. I don't say 'yeah, we went undefeated in '97 and were national champions' when talking about the Wolverines football team.
I appreciate the teams and their efforts and never claim to be a part of that. I'm just part of the fan base. I am one of the reasons these professionals go out and play the game. To be entertained. To spend my hard earned money so they can make their hard earned (even if it is too much) money. I don't know if it is because I never heard the term 'we did...(fill in the blank)' growing up and it wasn't engrained in my brain or if I know that there is a division between the fans and the players. Either way, people need to stop doing this. It drives me up the wall.
I know that the die hard fan will argue until they are blue in the face about this point, but they are wrong. The athletes are the ones making the plays, putting their health on the line from time to time, to entertain the masses. They deserve to use the term 'we'. The owners who put up the cash to put the team together deserve to use the term 'we'. The general managers and presidents who make the trades and draft the players are allowed to use this term. Alumni from colleges or retired players who proudly played for a team for the majority of their career can use 'we' without being chastised by me. But the minute some lazy, beer swigging, sofa surfing, never played the sport but gloats when the team wins and doesn't support them when they are losing, mother fucker starts to use the term 'we' I lose it.
It is the sense of entitlement. I have always supported my teams, but have never claimed to be a part of them. Even when the Lions went 0-16. Even when the Tigers lost 119 games. Even when the Red Wings were the Dead Wings. Even when the Pistons were...well, I never really liked basketball. The fact that the Pistons are still around is pretty amazing. Go them! I have no recollection of ever using the term 'we' when talking about the sports teams I follow. I don't say 'yeah, we went undefeated in '97 and were national champions' when talking about the Wolverines football team.
I appreciate the teams and their efforts and never claim to be a part of that. I'm just part of the fan base. I am one of the reasons these professionals go out and play the game. To be entertained. To spend my hard earned money so they can make their hard earned (even if it is too much) money. I don't know if it is because I never heard the term 'we did...(fill in the blank)' growing up and it wasn't engrained in my brain or if I know that there is a division between the fans and the players. Either way, people need to stop doing this. It drives me up the wall.
23 January 2012
Professionalism people!
While watching the AFC championship game, I can't help but shake my head at Bill Belichick. I know that his signature clothing choice is a hooded sweatshirt. I understand that it is very, very comfortable. Hell, Jim Rome refers to him as 'The Hoodie' instead of by coach Belichick. But dude looks sloppy. The hood is so big sometimes that it reminds me of the Emperor from Star Wars. It does not look professional. And he isn't the only one. Other NFL coaches do not dress professionally. Most of the time, you see head coaches (and other coaches) in baseball caps, polo shirts, or turtle necks, khaki pants, etc. It's what most people would refer to as casual professional.
If you look at the other three major sports, there is no other head coach or manager that looks so under dressed. Baseball managers wear a team uniform, have a number, wear the team's either home or away hat. They look like they are one of the team. Some of the younger managers look like they could take the field, or at the very least, pinch hit or run. Basketball coaches dress up too. Most of the professional coaches are seen wearing suits. I'm talking button up shirt, tie, suit coat and matching pants. College coaches vary from suits or sweaters, but that is a different thing all together. Hockey coaches all wear suits too. Now, when I'm talking about coaches, I'm not just referring to the head coach or head manager, I'm talking the entire staff. Every assistant coach, or batting coach, or goalie coach. They all wear suits. It is professional looking. It makes them look in charge. The football coaches don't dress up. It sucks. They look like bums compared to the rest of the coaches in the professional sports.
During the 2005 season, Mike Nolan, head coach of the San Fransisco 49ers, had to ask permission from the NFL to wear a suit (seriously?). Here is a complete explanation from Wikipedia (because who doesn't get all their information from Wikipedia) because I don't feel like writing a ton about it.
I'm sorry, but wearing a suit and looking professional, looking like you are in charge of a sports team's decisions far outweighs wearing a team's logo. Doesn't it? Reebok needs to suck up the fact that everything doesn't have to be about making money. Aren't they making enough money as it is? Let the coaching staff wear suits and give them pins to wear on their lapels. Even if they aren't wearing a team's logo on a polo shirt or hooded sweatshirt, they would look like the coaches of old that most of them idolize.
I'm sure that if Tom Landry or Vince Lombardi were to see these coaches now and the way they dress, they would do one of two things. They would either walk away shaking their heads or would pummel them all into submission.
And when they were done with all the coaches, they would knock on Roger Goodell's door.
If you look at the other three major sports, there is no other head coach or manager that looks so under dressed. Baseball managers wear a team uniform, have a number, wear the team's either home or away hat. They look like they are one of the team. Some of the younger managers look like they could take the field, or at the very least, pinch hit or run. Basketball coaches dress up too. Most of the professional coaches are seen wearing suits. I'm talking button up shirt, tie, suit coat and matching pants. College coaches vary from suits or sweaters, but that is a different thing all together. Hockey coaches all wear suits too. Now, when I'm talking about coaches, I'm not just referring to the head coach or head manager, I'm talking the entire staff. Every assistant coach, or batting coach, or goalie coach. They all wear suits. It is professional looking. It makes them look in charge. The football coaches don't dress up. It sucks. They look like bums compared to the rest of the coaches in the professional sports.
During the 2005 season, Mike Nolan, head coach of the San Fransisco 49ers, had to ask permission from the NFL to wear a suit (seriously?). Here is a complete explanation from Wikipedia (because who doesn't get all their information from Wikipedia) because I don't feel like writing a ton about it.
Following his hiring by the 49ers, Nolan asked the NFL for permission to wear a suit and tie on the sidelines as a tribute to his father. The league initially denied Nolan's request because of the contract it has with Reebok for its coaches to wear team-logo attire, a ruling that was changed during Nolan's second season as coach. In the new NFL policy, coaches were allowed to wear a full suit for only two home games per season. The suits were designed, marketed and labeled under the Reebok corporation. Nolan debuted the suit in a game at home against the Seattle Seahawks on November 19, 2006. A day later, Jacksonville Jaguars head coach Jack Del Rio sported another Reebok suit on Monday Night Football.
I'm sorry, but wearing a suit and looking professional, looking like you are in charge of a sports team's decisions far outweighs wearing a team's logo. Doesn't it? Reebok needs to suck up the fact that everything doesn't have to be about making money. Aren't they making enough money as it is? Let the coaching staff wear suits and give them pins to wear on their lapels. Even if they aren't wearing a team's logo on a polo shirt or hooded sweatshirt, they would look like the coaches of old that most of them idolize.
I'm sure that if Tom Landry or Vince Lombardi were to see these coaches now and the way they dress, they would do one of two things. They would either walk away shaking their heads or would pummel them all into submission.
And when they were done with all the coaches, they would knock on Roger Goodell's door.
04 August 2011
Shame, shame, Notre Dame
Notre Dame reinstated wide receiver Michael Floyd after suspending him during the off season for being arrested for drunk driving. Read that again. He was suspended by the university during the time of year when he was not playing the game he is going to school for. Anyone else see a problem with this?
If it were a first offense, I would still have a problem with this. HOWEVER! This is his third alcohol related offense, and he is only twenty one. What does that tell you? Here comes the rant kids, hold tight...
I know that Notre Dame is all about their football program and I know it has not been relevant since the 1980s, but are you fucking kidding me?! This isn't the kid getting caught cheating on a test, or missing a curfew, or selling memorabilia. This is against the law, not the first time happening, public endangerment drunk driving. It wasn't that he had just a few beers and made a horrible decision, he was twice the legal limit when given a breath test and made a horrible decision.
Ohio State football players got kicked off the team for getting free ink in exchange for game worn jerseys and this guy is reinstated after not missing any games?! Don't just kick this kid off the team, blacklist from the sport. Take away the one thing that you know he wants and send him off to jail. No more chances, no more meetings, no more fines, no more college. Jail. Just jail. He has had three chances. Get him off the street and out of the parties and into that cell.
See, this is why if I ever have kids, I will steer them away from having an athlete as a role model. They see them getting away with this and they could think 'that it's okay'. Obviously not every athlete is getting pulled over for drunk driving or getting busted for drugs or hookers or illegal gambling (*cough cough Alex Rodriguez cough cough*), but it is scary to think of how many kids talk about professional athletes being role models. Why not look to family members, teachers, coaches, or religious leaders for role models or mentors? Is it because they aren't making millions of dollars playing a game? Just a game? That shit ain't right.
I honestly hope that the NCAA takes a strong hard look at this and not only gets this guy out of the sport but goes after Notre Dame for thinking that this is okay to happen with no consequences.
If it were a first offense, I would still have a problem with this. HOWEVER! This is his third alcohol related offense, and he is only twenty one. What does that tell you? Here comes the rant kids, hold tight...
I know that Notre Dame is all about their football program and I know it has not been relevant since the 1980s, but are you fucking kidding me?! This isn't the kid getting caught cheating on a test, or missing a curfew, or selling memorabilia. This is against the law, not the first time happening, public endangerment drunk driving. It wasn't that he had just a few beers and made a horrible decision, he was twice the legal limit when given a breath test and made a horrible decision.
Ohio State football players got kicked off the team for getting free ink in exchange for game worn jerseys and this guy is reinstated after not missing any games?! Don't just kick this kid off the team, blacklist from the sport. Take away the one thing that you know he wants and send him off to jail. No more chances, no more meetings, no more fines, no more college. Jail. Just jail. He has had three chances. Get him off the street and out of the parties and into that cell.
See, this is why if I ever have kids, I will steer them away from having an athlete as a role model. They see them getting away with this and they could think 'that it's okay'. Obviously not every athlete is getting pulled over for drunk driving or getting busted for drugs or hookers or illegal gambling (*cough cough Alex Rodriguez cough cough*), but it is scary to think of how many kids talk about professional athletes being role models. Why not look to family members, teachers, coaches, or religious leaders for role models or mentors? Is it because they aren't making millions of dollars playing a game? Just a game? That shit ain't right.
I honestly hope that the NCAA takes a strong hard look at this and not only gets this guy out of the sport but goes after Notre Dame for thinking that this is okay to happen with no consequences.
28 June 2011
Never fails
The Wichita Eagle newspaper always has this fun little column called the 'Opinion Line' in which people can email the paper with random thoughts whether it is about local or national politics, sports, bad drivers, whatever. It is fun to read from time to time and is frustrating to read because some people are idiots. It never fails to amuse and infuriate at the same time. Being called the opinion line, you have to look at it just like that, it's an opinion. But at the same time, if you are going to write in and have it possibly published for everyone to see, wouldn't you want to do a little bit of research on what you are writing about? So maybe you will look like an educated person and not some ignorant, flag waving, 'USA! USA!' person that doesn't want to see anything change, even if it is for the better? Case in point is this opinion line gem from Saturday's paper:
When I first read this, I laughed a little at myself because I knew that this just wasn't true because they were all born on this continent. The more I thought about it however, the more irritated I became. Now, I don't know if the writer meant that they were born before the United States was actually in existence, but I read it as if the writer thought that they were all born somewhere other than the American continent. If you take just a little bit of time to go to Wikipedia or research it using, oh I don't know, a fucking encyclopedia or possibly your high school history book, you will find that all seven of the men mentioned in this comment above were born on this continent.
The United States of America was recognized as a country in 1783, eight years after first declaring independence from England. During the revolution, the warring parties are commonly known as the British and the Americans. Before the war ended and we became an actual nation, the thirteen colonies were known as the American colonies. So when did America come into existence? Was after the American Revolution was ended and a peace treaty was made in 1783? Was it when the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776? What about going back a little further to when Jamestown was founded, or how about when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock? Or maybe when the Native Americans were first here? But us Indians don't count, so we'll take that notion out of this post.
So at what time do we look at for the first 'real' American president according to this comment? Do we go by the first president that was born after 1783, after the United States of American came to be? If that were the case, our first 'real' American president was John Tyler, born in 1790. He was the tenth president in America.
I'm happy to think about George Washington being the first president of this country, not John Tyler. What did Washington do during his presidency? He only helped keep the country together. Helped to establish the greatest modern day democratic state. Got the ball rolling for where we are today. Let's take a look at Tyler's presidency. What did he do for America? Well. Ummm, he was around when Texas was annexed. So that's something. I guess. Without William Henry Harrison's death, Tyler would not have taken office. There was no real concrete idea of succession upon the death of the president before and when Harrison died in office Tyler was sworn in two days later. It brought about the twenty fifth amendment which brought a concrete way to succeed the president. That is something else, but now I am drawing at straws.
Even if the seven men mentioned weren't born American citizens, shouldn't they get a pass? All they did was just help to establish the fucking country. No big deal.
'Any laws still in effect that were enacted during the terms of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson should be negated, because those men weren't born American citizens.'
When I first read this, I laughed a little at myself because I knew that this just wasn't true because they were all born on this continent. The more I thought about it however, the more irritated I became. Now, I don't know if the writer meant that they were born before the United States was actually in existence, but I read it as if the writer thought that they were all born somewhere other than the American continent. If you take just a little bit of time to go to Wikipedia or research it using, oh I don't know, a fucking encyclopedia or possibly your high school history book, you will find that all seven of the men mentioned in this comment above were born on this continent.
The United States of America was recognized as a country in 1783, eight years after first declaring independence from England. During the revolution, the warring parties are commonly known as the British and the Americans. Before the war ended and we became an actual nation, the thirteen colonies were known as the American colonies. So when did America come into existence? Was after the American Revolution was ended and a peace treaty was made in 1783? Was it when the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776? What about going back a little further to when Jamestown was founded, or how about when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock? Or maybe when the Native Americans were first here? But us Indians don't count, so we'll take that notion out of this post.
So at what time do we look at for the first 'real' American president according to this comment? Do we go by the first president that was born after 1783, after the United States of American came to be? If that were the case, our first 'real' American president was John Tyler, born in 1790. He was the tenth president in America.
I'm happy to think about George Washington being the first president of this country, not John Tyler. What did Washington do during his presidency? He only helped keep the country together. Helped to establish the greatest modern day democratic state. Got the ball rolling for where we are today. Let's take a look at Tyler's presidency. What did he do for America? Well. Ummm, he was around when Texas was annexed. So that's something. I guess. Without William Henry Harrison's death, Tyler would not have taken office. There was no real concrete idea of succession upon the death of the president before and when Harrison died in office Tyler was sworn in two days later. It brought about the twenty fifth amendment which brought a concrete way to succeed the president. That is something else, but now I am drawing at straws.
Even if the seven men mentioned weren't born American citizens, shouldn't they get a pass? All they did was just help to establish the fucking country. No big deal.
16 March 2011
Less sports, more time
As the sports world freaks out over the NFL lockout, I want everyone to take a step back and take a big deep breath. Now, exhale and kick yourself in the ass. Who cares if the NFL season doesn't exist next year? Think of all the Sunday afternoons you will get back. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching football just as much as most. It's a nice Thanksgiving day tradition and almost the only time I get to see my Detroit Lions on t.v. It's always nice to have on as background noise when reading the Sunday paper or making lunch or working around the house.
But, come on. Who cares about the possible lack of football. You could be doing so much more on your Sunday afternoon. Think of the three hours you sit in front of the screen watching just one game. What can be accomplished in that three hours? A walk in the park, reading a book, mowing the lawn. The possibilities are endless. Without football, you could spend more time with your families. Have a picnic on a sunny fall afternoon. Fresh air is good for everyone.
So as millionaires and billionaires are arguing over who gets more money and what kind of rights they get to play the sport they supposedly love and how the players try to use the 'poor us, we won't be able to make money this year' card, think of anyone you know who has been collecting unemployment for extended periods of time because they can't get a job because of the economic issues for all of us who don't play professional sports. And if thinking of that person (or persons) doesn't piss you off as you listen to the players complaining about not getting all their money, there is something very very wrong with you.
Personally, I would welcome a break from the NFL just because they are spoiled with all they get. Let them live paycheck to paycheck. Let them struggle with trying to figure out which bills they can pay this month and get away with not paying. Let them get evicted from their homes. Let them come down to earth and reality that some others have to deal with and are still dealing with.
But, come on. Who cares about the possible lack of football. You could be doing so much more on your Sunday afternoon. Think of the three hours you sit in front of the screen watching just one game. What can be accomplished in that three hours? A walk in the park, reading a book, mowing the lawn. The possibilities are endless. Without football, you could spend more time with your families. Have a picnic on a sunny fall afternoon. Fresh air is good for everyone.
So as millionaires and billionaires are arguing over who gets more money and what kind of rights they get to play the sport they supposedly love and how the players try to use the 'poor us, we won't be able to make money this year' card, think of anyone you know who has been collecting unemployment for extended periods of time because they can't get a job because of the economic issues for all of us who don't play professional sports. And if thinking of that person (or persons) doesn't piss you off as you listen to the players complaining about not getting all their money, there is something very very wrong with you.
Personally, I would welcome a break from the NFL just because they are spoiled with all they get. Let them live paycheck to paycheck. Let them struggle with trying to figure out which bills they can pay this month and get away with not paying. Let them get evicted from their homes. Let them come down to earth and reality that some others have to deal with and are still dealing with.
01 March 2011
Revolution?
Could a revolution take place here in the United States? Listening to podcasts and reading articles about the protests and the overall revolution that is taking place in the northern part of Africa and in the Middle East has got me thinking if it were possible to happen here. In order for it to happen, democracy would have to topple and something 'better', politically, would have to come along. Looking at the reason for all the protests it has to do (generally) with getting rid of a leader that has oppressed their own people for decades. We already have that issue covered with the twenty second amendment. So what would we have to protest and revolt against?
We have it easy living in the United States, thanks to the first go around with the revolution idea. It helps that they fought a country that was an ocean away. A revolution could not work here today. There is too much organization within the government that could stomp out any inklings of a revolution. The protests we see today here in the US are a joke. Think about the Tea Party protests.
*Sidebar*
Tea Party people are fucking idiots.
*Sidebar done*
So you have the Tea Party protests a couple of years ago. Nothing says complete revolution like a bunch of right wing nuts complaining because their party is no longer in power and the new president is trying his best to put the country back together after the previous president screwed the pooch. Being a democrat is not being a socialist or a communist. Figure it out.
I point out these protests by the Tea Party because they are the most recent and are well known to most everyone here. The problem is that they would all gather for the day, shout random profanities and hold signs saying they hated the president and that he was a commie and a Muslim and was ruining the country and then? Then they would go back to their homes, cook dinner, go off to bed after being crooned into a state of ignorance by Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
If you want the government to change their thoughts and ideas, is a one day protest going to do that? No. If you want your government to listen to what you have to say, is yelling at them from afar going to get your point across? No. You want to start a revolution, you need to quite your job and take it on full time. You need to be willing to march in the streets for weeks at a time. And having a protest here and there will not work. Organization is key. A protest in New York City being held on the same day as one in Dallas or Chicago does not a revolution make. You need to concentrate your people.
The scary part of a revolution is death. Let's face it, toppling a government is not going to be bloodless. You think some fifty year old conservative is willing to give their life to a cause? Please. We are too selfish in this country to even consider it. Would you be willing to go on a hunger strike in prison like Bobby Sands or Francis Hughes (look them up). Imagine the pain of not eating for sixty days. Two months? Crazy. Or an even more sever protest, would you be willing to set yourself on fire in protest to your government like Mohamed Bouazizi or Abdou Abdel-Moneim Jaafar? All of them are martyrs to their causes but are also extreme cases of how hardcore someone can be for what they believe in.
I know that this topic is pretty heavy. Revolutions are not fun. You can talk and joke about them with your friends, but the follow through is intense and insane. Personally, I am happy to be living in this country for the fact that it is stable and we don't have a leader that will stay in power decade after decade. No country is ever going to have everyone be happy. There is going to be dissent and anger towards your government, that is just the way people are. It allows everyone to complain about something they don't like.
Besides, if we didn't have dissent and anger, we would have utopia, and who wants that?
We have it easy living in the United States, thanks to the first go around with the revolution idea. It helps that they fought a country that was an ocean away. A revolution could not work here today. There is too much organization within the government that could stomp out any inklings of a revolution. The protests we see today here in the US are a joke. Think about the Tea Party protests.
*Sidebar*
Tea Party people are fucking idiots.
*Sidebar done*
So you have the Tea Party protests a couple of years ago. Nothing says complete revolution like a bunch of right wing nuts complaining because their party is no longer in power and the new president is trying his best to put the country back together after the previous president screwed the pooch. Being a democrat is not being a socialist or a communist. Figure it out.
I point out these protests by the Tea Party because they are the most recent and are well known to most everyone here. The problem is that they would all gather for the day, shout random profanities and hold signs saying they hated the president and that he was a commie and a Muslim and was ruining the country and then? Then they would go back to their homes, cook dinner, go off to bed after being crooned into a state of ignorance by Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
If you want the government to change their thoughts and ideas, is a one day protest going to do that? No. If you want your government to listen to what you have to say, is yelling at them from afar going to get your point across? No. You want to start a revolution, you need to quite your job and take it on full time. You need to be willing to march in the streets for weeks at a time. And having a protest here and there will not work. Organization is key. A protest in New York City being held on the same day as one in Dallas or Chicago does not a revolution make. You need to concentrate your people.
The scary part of a revolution is death. Let's face it, toppling a government is not going to be bloodless. You think some fifty year old conservative is willing to give their life to a cause? Please. We are too selfish in this country to even consider it. Would you be willing to go on a hunger strike in prison like Bobby Sands or Francis Hughes (look them up). Imagine the pain of not eating for sixty days. Two months? Crazy. Or an even more sever protest, would you be willing to set yourself on fire in protest to your government like Mohamed Bouazizi or Abdou Abdel-Moneim Jaafar? All of them are martyrs to their causes but are also extreme cases of how hardcore someone can be for what they believe in.
I know that this topic is pretty heavy. Revolutions are not fun. You can talk and joke about them with your friends, but the follow through is intense and insane. Personally, I am happy to be living in this country for the fact that it is stable and we don't have a leader that will stay in power decade after decade. No country is ever going to have everyone be happy. There is going to be dissent and anger towards your government, that is just the way people are. It allows everyone to complain about something they don't like.
Besides, if we didn't have dissent and anger, we would have utopia, and who wants that?
13 November 2010
Finally found something
I preface this entry by stating the following: I do not hate weddings, I hate people that put way too much effort into them. That is all. Proceed with caution. Enjoy the language, I'm a bit of an angry writer tonight.
I have been sitting in front of the computer trying to think of something to write about. I have done much of nothing tonight and needed to find something worth while for the evening. As I was trolling through the internet I finally found something to write about: choreographed wedding dances.
I'm not talking about the YMCA or the chicken dance (although they should be outlawed) I'm talking about stupid shit like this. I don't look down upon people that get out and have a good time to a popular song that includes choreographed dance that has taken over the world for five minutes, it's created to give white people a sense that they know how to dance. I'm not much of a traditionalist, but when it comes to weddings there are three things that really need to happen at the reception.
I feel that the people that are doing this are attention whores above all else. Everyone knows that when you agree to attend a wedding it is all about the bride and the groom. There is no reason to draw even more attention to yourself. Superficial people are the ones that make their friends and family watch them perform some awful dance to a song that will be nothing more than a footnote in the archives of musical history.
As these choreographed dances become more popular I feel that there is a little bit of the old institution dying. I'm all about change and development of certain aspects of our world, but there are also things that should not be fucked with. The first major thing is baseball but that has been surpassed by the introduction of instant replay. The human element was a great part of the game and as much as I absolutely hate agreeing with Bud Selig instant replay shouldn't be a part of the game. The other thing that shouldn't be fucked with is the traditions of the wedding reception. The previously listed dances should not be fucked with, but there are things that can be omitted. Things such as the garter/bouquet toss, dollar dance, and whole wedding party dances don't need to be included in the reception, but can add to the experience. Personally, the dollar dance should not be involved in any receptions. A and I agreed not to do a dollar dance because we didn't want to feel like prostitutes. Our friends had a funny spin on the dollar dance earlier this year. Because of the recent economic struggles, they had a quarter dance. It was fun and in jest of the tradition, but I still felt a little dirty while standing in line waiting to dance with one of our close friends.
I try not to use the word 'hate' because I feel that it is one of the strongest words in the English language, but I feel this strongly about this subject. As I was re-reading what I had just written, that word fits well into the whole 'feel' of this entry. I do write this entry a little in jest of the whole trend that seems to be taking over some weddings, but there is also this feeling of...well.......hatred. Stupid trends.
I suppose it could be worse. There could be more douches like these people in the world.
I have been sitting in front of the computer trying to think of something to write about. I have done much of nothing tonight and needed to find something worth while for the evening. As I was trolling through the internet I finally found something to write about: choreographed wedding dances.
I'm not talking about the YMCA or the chicken dance (although they should be outlawed) I'm talking about stupid shit like this. I don't look down upon people that get out and have a good time to a popular song that includes choreographed dance that has taken over the world for five minutes, it's created to give white people a sense that they know how to dance. I'm not much of a traditionalist, but when it comes to weddings there are three things that really need to happen at the reception.
- First dance
- Mother/son dance
- Father/daughter dance
I feel that the people that are doing this are attention whores above all else. Everyone knows that when you agree to attend a wedding it is all about the bride and the groom. There is no reason to draw even more attention to yourself. Superficial people are the ones that make their friends and family watch them perform some awful dance to a song that will be nothing more than a footnote in the archives of musical history.
As these choreographed dances become more popular I feel that there is a little bit of the old institution dying. I'm all about change and development of certain aspects of our world, but there are also things that should not be fucked with. The first major thing is baseball but that has been surpassed by the introduction of instant replay. The human element was a great part of the game and as much as I absolutely hate agreeing with Bud Selig instant replay shouldn't be a part of the game. The other thing that shouldn't be fucked with is the traditions of the wedding reception. The previously listed dances should not be fucked with, but there are things that can be omitted. Things such as the garter/bouquet toss, dollar dance, and whole wedding party dances don't need to be included in the reception, but can add to the experience. Personally, the dollar dance should not be involved in any receptions. A and I agreed not to do a dollar dance because we didn't want to feel like prostitutes. Our friends had a funny spin on the dollar dance earlier this year. Because of the recent economic struggles, they had a quarter dance. It was fun and in jest of the tradition, but I still felt a little dirty while standing in line waiting to dance with one of our close friends.
I try not to use the word 'hate' because I feel that it is one of the strongest words in the English language, but I feel this strongly about this subject. As I was re-reading what I had just written, that word fits well into the whole 'feel' of this entry. I do write this entry a little in jest of the whole trend that seems to be taking over some weddings, but there is also this feeling of...well.......hatred. Stupid trends.
I suppose it could be worse. There could be more douches like these people in the world.
18 March 2010
About that cocaine...
Ron Washington, manager of the Texas Rangers, tested positive for cocaine half way through the season last year. It is being touted as not a real big deal because it is a first time offense and it won't happen again (allegedly). He is also being patted on the back because he went to his bosses and to Major League Baseball and told them that he was going to fail the drug test because of this. I don't think that cocaine is a one time only kind of drug. It is a hard drug. You don't roll up to a party or hang out with some people and think, 'you know what sounds like a good time? Snorting coke.'...or maybe you do, but if it was a 'one time thing' and a 'moment of weakness' you don't. You have to be going down a very dark road or dealing with some huge personal demons to want to do this. I think anyways.
Shouldn't the managers of baseball teams be held to a higher standard? If you want to lead a team of young men who look to their manager as a mentor, what does this say about the Rangers organization? I think that the Rangers are letting this one slide but are going to hold this over his head for as long as he is the manager. If the team doesn't win their division or make the wild card this year, he is done. Game over. And he won't be managing again for a long long time, or ever again.
There was no suspension for Washington last year, no punishment, and it took all this time to make the news. If a player did this....he would be drawn and quartered. People can make the argument that the players are out on the field and how can they play if they have drugs in their system. But how can a manager make decisions for the team if he has drugs in his system? There is no difference here people. It's the same. Washington should have been suspended for the remainder of last season and should have lost his job and his pay. It is a ridicules situation.
Are there going to be charges drawn up against him, can there be? This isn't a man getting a drunk driving ticket, this is a man using an illegal substance! There are law enforcement teams that spend their entire careers trying to stop the distribution of drugs and they are going to let this slide just because a man admitted using it and as a one time thing? People go under cover and put their lives on the line to bust drug dealers. If there was ever a time for the government to get involved in baseball the time is now. Where are the useless congressmen wanting to control baseball's drug use now? Oh, it is different because this man isn't using steroids to be a better performing player, he was using another illegal drug, but it's okay because he isn't hitting an insane amount of home runs.
Shouldn't the managers of baseball teams be held to a higher standard? If you want to lead a team of young men who look to their manager as a mentor, what does this say about the Rangers organization? I think that the Rangers are letting this one slide but are going to hold this over his head for as long as he is the manager. If the team doesn't win their division or make the wild card this year, he is done. Game over. And he won't be managing again for a long long time, or ever again.
There was no suspension for Washington last year, no punishment, and it took all this time to make the news. If a player did this....he would be drawn and quartered. People can make the argument that the players are out on the field and how can they play if they have drugs in their system. But how can a manager make decisions for the team if he has drugs in his system? There is no difference here people. It's the same. Washington should have been suspended for the remainder of last season and should have lost his job and his pay. It is a ridicules situation.
Are there going to be charges drawn up against him, can there be? This isn't a man getting a drunk driving ticket, this is a man using an illegal substance! There are law enforcement teams that spend their entire careers trying to stop the distribution of drugs and they are going to let this slide just because a man admitted using it and as a one time thing? People go under cover and put their lives on the line to bust drug dealers. If there was ever a time for the government to get involved in baseball the time is now. Where are the useless congressmen wanting to control baseball's drug use now? Oh, it is different because this man isn't using steroids to be a better performing player, he was using another illegal drug, but it's okay because he isn't hitting an insane amount of home runs.
17 August 2009
irritating football
I'm watching NFL Live right now on ESPN, and I don't know why. I know what 'stories' they are going to be talking about for the next half hour. Michael Vick and Brett Favre.
I'm sorry, but Michael Vick doesn't deserve to be playing. I think that all the teams should have blacklisted him. The only reason Philly signed him is to sell seats, but guess what Philly Fan, he ain't playing this year. Andy Reid will back Donavon McNabb until either of them retire. I think he is done playing for good teams. Only sad desperate teams will sign him in the hopes that he can play for a game or two.
Memo to Mr. Farve
Re: Your Career
It is over.
Sincerely,
Me
Enough of this 'unnamed Vikings player' saying that he has signed with the team and that he will start playing right before the regular season starts. IF he does play with them, it will be a waste of time. He isn't going to be in shape, he is just going to try to throw the ball like he did ten and fifteen years ago (even though he doesn't have the arm strength for it) and it will result in interceptions. Don't get me wrong, I want him to sign and play with the Vikings so Detroit can beat the hell out of them because they have an old beat up quarterback that doesn't know his career ended when he retired the first time two years ago.
18 December 2008
wreaths and bows
The fact that it is seven days from christmas doesn't stop me from hating on people. Today's topic: people who put wreaths or bows on the grills of their vehicles. What the hell? I don't remember seeing this in Michigan (where there is snow and feels like christmas for a few months) and have only noticed it down here in Kansas. I can't wrap my mind around this vehicular decoration.
Why did this trend start? It serves no purpose. Why not just drive with a santa hat on. And that is another thing, people shopping with santa hats on. Or reindeer antlers. Stop it! Just wear a christmas sweater.
Why not use that wreath or bow to cover up that marriage equals one man plus one woman bullshit bumper sticker you plastered on you car?
11 October 2008
old navy ad
One of the most unfortunate 'holidays' is coming up. Columbus Day. How does some raping, pillaging, murdering douche bag get a day named after him? I always ignored the columbus day sales. Whatever companies can use to boost sales, they'll do it.
I was taken aback by Old Navy a couple of weeks ago. I was watching tv, and an old navy ad came on with the tag line of 'party like it's 1492'. Yeah, I'm gonna party like there are people getting raped and murdered. I'm gonna party like there are some new guys taking full advantage of my people. What a party. It'll be a block party. Fuckers. How do they not research this? News flash people: Christopher Columbus was an arrogant asshole. Dude deserves no respect. He didn't even 'discover' anything. People make arguments for the Vikings hanging out in north eastern canada for a while. And then there is us...the native americans! Yeah, let's talk about us. we've been here for quite a while, despite the fact that the united states government tried to push us into the pacific ocean.
This is why I could never be a history teacher for little kids. We would get to him in the history books and I would have kids running home and asking their parents what a murdering douche bag was. I can't stand the fact that people know what he did and still have a day with his name.
Wear a black arm band, print and hand out some flyers, do something proactive against the guy who murdered at will. Go back in time and kick him in the junk if you can. Put a hole in his ships so he never gets to the western hemisphere.
He is on my list of historical figures I would go back and kill. Him and Hitler. Yeah, I just put him on a list with another mass-murdering fuck head.
And he deserves it.
06 October 2008
right to protest
listening to Bombs Over Baghdad by Outkast.
Living in Kansas I now just expect to see dumb shit going on. This is a very red state. Red to the point of disturbing. If there isn't an 'adoption is the only choice' or 'repent or die a horrible death' on every other fence post along the highway someone isn't doing their job. The further west you get the more overbearing it gets.
So after work yesterday, I was in need of some hops and barley because it was the end of a very long weekend. It wasn't too long ago that I couldn't go buy beer because there was no alcohol sales on Sunday (weird, I know). anyway, I went to a local establishment and as I'm sitting at an intersection waiting for the light to change there is a line of about two dozen people with signs. Faaaaaantastic, abortion protesters. I'm not gonna sit here and complain about the fact that they were protesting it, I'm gonna sit here and talk about the fact that there were families with signs.
Listen, believe what you want. Stand up for what you want. That is the wonder of the Bill of Rights. Amendment number one: freedom of assembly. Rock out, get your assembly on. It was peaceful. They weren't yelling or screaming they were standing around holding their abortion kills children signs. It was the fact that they brought their kids with them. Jesus, leave the kids at home to watch cartoons while you go out and make asses of yourselves. Throw on the christian channel and let them get their t.v. church on. It was one of those moments when you wish you were in a movie so you could run someone over and they would be fine.
Fucking morons. Don't drag your kids to something they don't understand. The only thing they know is what you tell them, which is going to be twisted because you are some religious nut job who wants to save everyone and everything.
Faith is fine, and so is religion. But the minute you start using it for an agenda you have lost the point. Every time you try to tell someone they are going to hell for not believing what you believe, you are missing the point of being religious. I was out last summer with a few friends and we were just drinking and having a good time. I said something and then followed it up with 'well, I'm going to hell for that, but at least it'll be a party.' or something along those lines. My friend then looks at me and goes off on how I need to try my best to get into heaven and save myself and blah blah blah. I'll believe what I want and you can't change that in me. It was ridiculous.
I just can't stand those kinds of people and I only met people like that down here in Kansas. Says a lot about this state. Just sayin'.
24 September 2008
rant and rave and rant and rave...
Listening to Painter's Song by Nora Jones. One would think that I would be calmed by the voice of Nora Jones, but not so much.
Hank Steinbrenner, co-owner of the New York Yankees, wants major league baseball to change the format of the playoffs. Pointing to the multiple divisions as the main culprit. The L.A. Dodgers are going to be in the playoffs because they won their division. The record of the Dodgers is worse than the Yankees, but because the Dodgers play in a weaker division, they are going to the post season and the Yankees aren't (they play in a strong division with Tampa Bay and Boston ahead of them). You don't hear the other owners wanting the playoff system changed because they miss the playoffs. Why not get rid of the playoffs all together and just play an extra three weeks and whoever has the best record wins the championship. The baseball world does not revolve around New York City. So..........
Shut the fuck up already. Okay? Just stop it. Not every organization has twenty six championships. so shut the fuck up. No one wants to hear you cry over missing the playoffs for the first time in thirteen years. so shut the fuck up. Don't blame the format of the league because your team couldn't play better than the Rays or Red Sox. so shut the fuck up. Why did you fire the manager who got your organization to all those playoffs? Shut the fuck up. So take your egotistic, childish ways and shut the fuck up. Break in your new golf shoes, start working on your short game, and shut. the. fuck. up.
I cannot stand Hank Steinbrenner, or his dad George, they both need to take a note from their brother/son and not say anything. Once again Hank.....
shut the fuck up. (sorry if you don't like all the f-bombs mom.)
12 September 2008
VMAs, hurricanes and rain
MY NAME IS SUE! HOW DO YOU! NOW YOU GONNA DIE! Those could possibly be the best lines ever written in music history. (I don't think I need to post the title to that song, if you don't know it, get fucked my friend).
A is watching the mtv music awards that she tivo'ed. Two things wrong with that sentence. The fact that she used the tivo to record an mtv program and the music. Honestly, I didn't recognized the majority of the bands or performers that were on there. I knew Kanye West, Kid Rock, (and unfortunately Britney Spears), etc. And at what point is it considered music when all you do is play the same guitar and piano parts to Sweet Home Alabama and just write new words? Thanks Kid Rock, way to kill a classic song. Asshole.
If I don't know it, I don't care. I would love to see a band like the White Stripes on there again. They played when Fell in Love With A Girl was popular, but that was nowhere near their best music. They were just getting started when that album came out.
There was an article on msn about people not wanting to leave their Texas homes with an oncoming hurricane. I am as stubborn a German as you will find, but that is just idiotic. As my dad says, 'I'm sorry, but...' Who's fault is it that you are stuck on your roof with twelve feet of water surrounding you? Not me, not the government. You, dumbass. I did feel bad for the people of New Orleans a few years back, but...why blame the government for your decision to stay in your home when you were told to evacuate? If I sit in my home with a tornado bearing down on me and I get sucked out and my house gets destroyed after I was told that I should go to a shelter, who do you blame? Me right? Yes. If I came out yelling at the government for my decision to stick it out, I would be no better than the people complaining from the top of their houses waiting to get picked up. And who wants to live in a city that is below sea level anyways?
With that said, we are getting a shit ton of rain right now. Flash flooding is going on in the surrounding areas of Wichita. Many people that I work with were worried about not being able to get home because of the flooding. I am not sure what I would do in a situation like that. Not being able to get home after work. I would more that likely crawl into a bar for a few hours and wait for the water levels to lower. That would make the most sense to me.
22 April 2008
One and done
Currently listening to Lose Yourself by eminem. Yeah, I don't know either...I just like this song.
So after the ncaa basketball tournament was over, there was the yearly exodus from the college ranks to the NBA. However, the major people heading off to make big bank were not seniors or juniors. The big names were freshmen. Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, and Kevin Love are the biggest names going into the draft who were all underclassmen this year. Personally, I think that two of the four (Beasley and Love) are NBA ready (but what do I know). The other two are really good, and could get better playing another year or two in college.
The only reason that they went to college was because of the 'one and done' rule. Basically, the NBA was sick and tired of these high school kids skipping college and going right to the bank with their huge checks that they don't really deserve. Granted, players like Kevin Garrnet, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James (to name a few) had no issues making the transition to the NBA, they are all gifted players. However, you also have the teens that think they are good enough, and the media is partly to blame. You get EPSN playing high school (yes, high school) games on prime time televison because of one player. All the analysts talk about how one said player is so good and how they are a man among boys. That's because they are bigger amongst younger players. However, if you match an eighteen or nineteen year old against a twenty four or twenty five year old, they're going to get hosed...big time. It'll just happen.
So why not make them all go to school for two or even three years. You know, give them an education. They are going to need to do something after they're playing days are up. Any person that wants to go from high school to a professional sport may say that they want to take their game to the next level, or they don't have anything left to prove at whatever level they are playing at, are so full of shit it isn't funny.
They just want to make bank and spend their money on some fucked up suburban or hummer (fuH2). I think that a two year minimum of college (or semi-professional level) experience should be required.
05 April 2008
Building my case to take down the radio
Old school punk in the form of The Clash singing London Calling is playing...I want to wear safety pins in my clothes and not shower for a week now.
As A and I were driving home last night I wanted to throw my radio out the window. The main reason why I really can't stand listening to the radio is all the commercials. I understand having them, just like I understand having commercials on the television. But they just go on and on. As one ad comes on, you turn the station only to find the next station on a commercial break, and the next one, and the next station is playing country music (so it gets turned quickly. I do enjoy some country music, but I have to be in the right mood for it, which isn't too often these days). It just irritates me. I did have Evil Empire in the cd player, but A wasn't in the mood to rage...whatever. There is never a time when you shouldn't be in the mood to rage (against the machine).
So there is the first point as to why the radio sucks. Point two: Early morning talk shows. I'm not talking about NPR or the right wing lunatics (who are AWESOME!). I'm talking about the Bob and Tom type shows. I don't see the appeal. I just want to slap them through the airwaves. There is a local show like that and I walk into work every morning and it is on the overhead system while the overnight team listens to it. I just can't see why anyone would want to listen to it. Its as if to frat boys and a few friends somehow got a radio show and the masses thought it was a good time. Wake up people. There are better things on the radio. Find npr and learn what is wrong with the world or the economy. Boring? Yes. But educational. And calming, so you won't want to run someone off the highway just because they cut you off.
So as we were pulling on to the highway last night, I asked her to put abbey road into the cd player. It made it better.
As A and I were driving home last night I wanted to throw my radio out the window. The main reason why I really can't stand listening to the radio is all the commercials. I understand having them, just like I understand having commercials on the television. But they just go on and on. As one ad comes on, you turn the station only to find the next station on a commercial break, and the next one, and the next station is playing country music (so it gets turned quickly. I do enjoy some country music, but I have to be in the right mood for it, which isn't too often these days). It just irritates me. I did have Evil Empire in the cd player, but A wasn't in the mood to rage...whatever. There is never a time when you shouldn't be in the mood to rage (against the machine).
So there is the first point as to why the radio sucks. Point two: Early morning talk shows. I'm not talking about NPR or the right wing lunatics (who are AWESOME!). I'm talking about the Bob and Tom type shows. I don't see the appeal. I just want to slap them through the airwaves. There is a local show like that and I walk into work every morning and it is on the overhead system while the overnight team listens to it. I just can't see why anyone would want to listen to it. Its as if to frat boys and a few friends somehow got a radio show and the masses thought it was a good time. Wake up people. There are better things on the radio. Find npr and learn what is wrong with the world or the economy. Boring? Yes. But educational. And calming, so you won't want to run someone off the highway just because they cut you off.
So as we were pulling on to the highway last night, I asked her to put abbey road into the cd player. It made it better.
02 March 2008
The cold is in your mind
At work today, I was approached by this rather bitchy person complaining about the store being cold. 'This building is cold. Everyone is cold.' I was fine, the temperature didn't bother me. Nonetheless, my response:
'Okay.'
What the hell. First off, you are standing in the freezer aisle. Yes, its going to be cold. Second, fuck off. I don't look remotely like someone in charge of anything really. In actuality, we have a huge thermostat in the back room to control the temperature of the building. Yup, we just want you to be miserable. You don't look miserable enough, what with your too tight jeans and your leathery skin from too much tanning. Go bitch to your yuppie husband, I don't want you in my store anyways. We want you to be cold.
In my next life, I want to control the weather and make it cold everywhere. Just because.
'Okay.'
What the hell. First off, you are standing in the freezer aisle. Yes, its going to be cold. Second, fuck off. I don't look remotely like someone in charge of anything really. In actuality, we have a huge thermostat in the back room to control the temperature of the building. Yup, we just want you to be miserable. You don't look miserable enough, what with your too tight jeans and your leathery skin from too much tanning. Go bitch to your yuppie husband, I don't want you in my store anyways. We want you to be cold.
In my next life, I want to control the weather and make it cold everywhere. Just because.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)