Friday, December 21, 2007
Wow. So Harvard, carrying on their great tradition of intellect, has just found out something incredible: Most of the newest security measures at airports.... doesn't make flying any more secure.
Wow again. I wonder how long it took them to figure that out. And how much money. But hey- it was likely worth every dime to find out that forcing an 80 year old man to remove his shoes and belt probably won't prevent him from hijacking a plane and flying it into a building.
Sometime after September 11, I recall reading that a senior Israeli intelligence official testified before Congress. He asserted that airport security in the US was excellent for what it was intended to do- make people feel more secure. As for the reality of security, versus the perception?
Not so much.
Oh, and here's another brilliant piece of information that the Harvard group ferreted out:
"We noticed that new airport screening protocols were implemented immediately after news reports of terror threats,"
Wow cubed. I never would have seen that one coming either.
If the TSA is willing to fork over a large sum of money- say $10 million or more- I promise to study the incidences of airport hijackings over the past 10 years or so, and find a darned effective way of finding out whether somebody is a higher risk than others for being a hijacker. It'll take some serious research, and might step on a few toes (though they'll all still have shoes on), and might come to a completely un-PC conclusion, but I have a theory in my mind regarding potential hijackers. And a way to possibly even identify them.
And I could have the results back before say, the end of the year. Or I could drag it out- er, study it more in depth- for another 6 months.
Or, for $20 million, I could study it in a conclusive manner, and take an entire year. And I guarantee my results: I'll manage to root out at least one thing that terrorists have in common. Probably even more.
Toss in a few more millions, and I'll come up with viable methods to protect passengers.
Here let me point out an important fact. Not once has a flight been hijacked and flown into a building with me on board.
Oh, and a final note: Just to show that my services are the best available, I'll give TSA a piece of free advice. Exceptional cases make bad law. Or to put it another way, passing regulations to prevent an incident that already occurred, simply to ensure that you're seen doing something, is a really bad idea.
One more thing. Just to show how clever I am, and to demonstrate my final point above, here's another quote from the article:
"The U.S. told research teams requesting information their need for quick new security measures trumped the usefulness of evaluating them, Eleni Linos, Elizabeth Linos, and Graham Colditz reported in the ."
Image courtesy of someone I don't recall. Probably either Ace of Spades or Gates of Vienna.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
At any rate, here's something new. The Mitchell Report just came out on steroids in baseball. And the top name on the list? Roger Clemens.
Huh. Who would ever have thought that a player, who saw a significant improvement in performance when his numbers should have gone down, might be juicing? Assuming of course his name wasn't Bonds?
It's hardly the first time Clemens has been fingered, but it is the first time he's been officially and with solid evidence, named. At least to my knowledge.
Even I have to scratch my head here. I'm not usually one to look for a racist conspiracy of ex-Klanners behind every tree, but it is kinda odd. Black player sees his numbers improve (or at worst, not drop off as they normally do) as he ages, and everyone knows he's juicing. White player sees his numbers improve (or at worst, not drop off as they normally do) as he ages; and everyone shrugs.
So now a couple of the biggest names in Major League Baseball have been officially tainted. What to do....
There will be a lot of discussion about banning Clemens and Bonds (and others) from their place in the Hall of Fame. Normally, I'd be all for it- I still think that Pete Rose deserves to be locked out- but in this case, there's a problem. The steroid problem has been around for years, and everyone knew it. As I mentioned, rumors about Clemens are hardly new, and as for Bonds, everyone knew he was guilty. Ditto for some of the others mentioned.
The problem is, juicing was never looked on with the same sense of outrage as gambling. The owners knew it was happening, but they ignored it, since home run chases and records get fans into the seats. The players knew it, but most ignored it- why criticize someone when you might end up in their footsteps a few years down the road? And the Player's Union ignored it because that's what unions do.
So now the dirty linen is hanging out on the line. My thought is that the players who are named- or the players to be named later- should be allowed into the Hall of Fame, if their careers support it. Clemens was a shoo-in anyway, as was Bonds. Others, perhaps. Even Jose Canseco can make a strong claim to membership. Let them in, perhaps with an asterisk. Or even better, put their plaques front and center in a wing of the Hall devoted to Cheaters. Give them a shot, but make sure that everyone knows their inflated numbers (particularly for those like Clemens and Bonds, whose numbers got ridiculous at the end of their career) were the result of cheating.
Maybe just come right out and call it "the Hall of Shame".
It's too bad it came to this. But everybody knew what was happening, and thus everyone must bear a bit of the blame. Don't sanction those who did it, because they felt it was necessary. Would any of us do the same, if we had the opportunity to lengthen a very very profitable career? Not to mention the fact that inflated statistics mean inflated paychecks.
It's a mess. Baseball had it coming, and they can't play innocent anymore. The Mitchell Report blames everyone, and it should. Now let's just get the game fixed, and prevent it from happening again.
That way, the next time someone cheats, the people in charge will have an easier choice. After a cheating scandal rocked baseball many years ago, they made gambling illegal. Thus when that piece of slimy crap named Pete Rose was caught, there was no difficulty in deciding what to do.
Let's make it just as easy for the future commissioners. Sanction the guilty here, start a serious testing regimen, and make the rules explicit.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Beautiful. And tragic.
In the comments on the original post, there was some discussion of what the image brings to mind. One commenter, Mad Insomniac, said the following:
'I keep thinking about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address when I look at that photo, especially the last two sentences:
"It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."'
Amen brother, amen.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
And scary true!!
Oh, and a special Tip to the charming and delightful Emily Zanotti at The American Princess, who apparently actually created this version...
...Or perhaps stole it from another blog. Don't know for sure, but a big thank you to Whomever it was.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
But there was one interesting moment. I was walking past one of the ear-piercing carts (I estimate there were about 428 of them), and saw a guy just taking a seat in their chair, with an infant in his arms. I remember thinking that he was probably getting the baby's ears pierced. A few minutes later, I was walking past again, and I saw that the obvious conclusion was correct. The baby was screaming like her (?) little heart was breaking- I have no doubt that getting this done was pretty painful.
And next to them stood Mom, smiling proudly at her crying baby.
What the hell is wrong with these people? This child was literally an infant- I would question whether the baby was even a year old- and I doubt very much that she was able to communicate to her parents that she wanted her ears pierced. So they did it on their own, to satisfy their own egos.
At the expense of their child.
I wonder how often there are complications from ear-piercing. Because if there is any risk at all- and I wonder how well trained a 20 year old woman is- then I'd suspect it's worse for a baby. And I for one would never subject a baby to that.
But the other thought that crossed my mind was whether this could harm the child in any lasting, psychological sense. A child, especially one that young, is incapable of taking care of him or herself. She trusts Mommy and Daddy to do what it best for her. And then they pay someone to shove a needle through their ears. For what? Again, their own ego, I guess.
I would intuitively suspect that this sort of thing goes deep into a baby's memory bank, and stays there whispering "don't trust them, they'll do things to hurt you" at certain times.
If it weren't for the fact that I would never wish that outcome on anyone, I'd almost hope that this poor little girl grows up to cause massive problems for her parents.
Because they deserve it. I don't know why this is allowed- shouldn't it be considered child abuse? If it's wrong to spank a child on the rear for misbehaving, then why is it acceptable to pay somebody to shove a needle through their tiny and still not quite completely developed ear. Without their consent or knowledge.
Sick, sick, sick.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Especially read the part describing the medical emergency of Mrs. Steyn.
No way do I want any part of this.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The guy sounds almost too good to be true. He deserves a new nickname, with a nod to Elton John (who wouldn't understand) and Bernie Taupin (who would):
R.I.P. Ben Salomon, aka Captain Fantastic.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Or, perhaps it isn't the Muslims that are stupid, but Britain as a whole. Last week, it was a grocery store that decided to let them decide what they'll sell. Now, it's medical students who refuse to learn about things that offend them- like alcohol, venereal disease, women, and on and on.
And they aren't getting bitch-slapped for it, which is kind of amazing to me. I suppose that, in the end, if they're booted from school, that kinda accomplishes the end result, but still.
What is it with these people? If you're so messed up that you can't control yourself when you see a woman's ankle, chin or whatever, then you need to be locked up, and subjected to serious therapy.
And I suspect most people would be. But not if you're Muslim. Then, you complain to the authorities, and they'll support you. It's happened at least once that I recall- a woman was "blamed" for her own rape, because the man couldn't control himself.
It's becoming intolerable. In some communities in Scandinavia, women are forced to cover their heads to keep from being physically and verbally abused. Others are dying their hair brown, so they don't look European.
And yet, the Islamists still are being allowed to make even more rules for the rest of us.
Britain is very close to the tipping point, if not actually beyond it. It's now an Islamic nation, but it simply refuses to admit it yet.
And I used to be a complete Anglophile. Sigh.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Now one of my favorite internet reads.
Read it, live it, be it.
A lot of people wonder how the war is making us safer since there are still terrorists out there who want to kill us. Well, when the terrorists come to kill me, I'm like, "Why are you guys trying to kill me?"
And they're like, "Because of the war in Iraq!"
And I'm like, "I didn't have anything to do with that. I've been here in America the whole time minding my own business. You should take this up with the soldiers in Iraq."
And the terrorists are like, "We will!"
So they go to Iraq to kill the soldiers, but the soldiers have lots of guns and they kill the terrorists back. And that's why we've had no terrorist attacks in America in the past couple years but lots of dead terrorists.
I've probably explained this before, but it's always worth repeating.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Once again we have some wacked-out kid going to a school and starting to shoot people. Fortunately, the only person killed was the shooter, who offed himself.
At this point, insert the obligatory "sorry for his family, poor child had problems and was ignored by the system and whatever else" comments.
What strikes me though, is the fact that nobody else was killed. Why? Well, probably there are a number of explanations, but the fact that struck me on reading the article is that there seemed to be a plan for this.
At last! A school that seems to understand that bad things happen, and that if you prepare for it and it never happens, you're better off than if you do nothing and disaster strikes.
'...Student Latisha Hill told one television station students began taking cover when the emergency command was announced and she locked herself in a bathroom until police knocked on the door and let her out.
"All I know is I heard the principal yell 'code blue,"' Hill said.'
The school had a "code word" and when it was announced, it appears that students reacted properly- seeking cover and concealment, like well-trained soldiers do, and waiting for the authorities to arrive. No indications of mass panic, or little sheep sitting there waiting for the wolf to come and get them.
And that's not all: There's another, even more amazing piece of information in the article. The CEO of the school district seems to have a sense of perspective also.
'[School district CEO Eugene] Sanders said he was canceling classes at all on Thursday so that parents, students and faculty could "take a breather" and "put this in perspective."'
No bleating about "grief councilors" or any of that drivel. They're simply talking about "put[ting] this in perspective".
Wow. Simply wow. I am so impressed right now with the Cleveland School District. I hope that they keep this up, and don't give in to the whiny leftists who will want an army of councilors to come in and have healing circles for the victims, or whatever else they do.
Someone with an obvious problem came into the school and did something insane. The school district was prepared for it, and apparently helped prevent things from getting too out of hand.
That's the advantage of planning, folks.
I salute the Cleveland School District, and the faculty, staff and students at SuccessTech.
Plan for the worst, and you just might prevent it.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Scary stuff indeed. The absolute best points made about the whole thing are in the comments. Specifically, comments 7, and especially 37.
Not sure how this is even remotely legal. Or ethical. Which takes me back to comment 37.
It's all reminiscent of the whole issue of fathers being unjustly accused of child abuse by bitter, vengeful, psychotic wives, which hopefully peaked back in the late 80s and early 90s. (An issue with which my family unfortunately became quite familiar).
The ultimate example of stupidity with the abuse issue was a man who was almost sent to jail for molesting his daughter. Why? Because when she was being grilled by the authorities (mind you, the girl was about 5 years old) she said that she and Daddy went swimming. They asked her if she and Daddy wore clothes, and she replied that they didn't.
Of course, being 5 years old, she didn't get the nuance: no, they didn't wear clothes. When you go swimming, you wear bathing suits, not clothes.
Fortunately that guy was lucky.
I confess that I don't understand how this doctor could do such a thing. Asking about their parents seems pretty far out of line anyway. Reporting it to the police seems illegal on at least 2 or 3 levels. Not to mention, incredibly unethical.
But hey. Gotta protect the kids, even from Mommy and Daddy. Regardless of whether they're doing anything wrong or not.
God, I hate liberals.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
At the time, I said that her problems were due to her success at an early age, her desire to "have it all", substance abuse (presumed), the entertainment "system", her messed up family, yadda yadda yadda. I stand by that.
The problem is that she still had a solid chance to recover, both personally and professionally. Now, while miracles do happen, she's far worse off than she was 8 months ago.
Which is pretty amazing, considering where she was at back then.
Her comeback-thus far- is a disaster. Her kids have been taken from her, she might be charged with abuse, and yet another dirtbag "lover" is telling tales about their night of sex. And this one might have the video evidence.
Supposedly, she's going to be touring in support of her latest musical offering. At this point, it looks as though it'll be a disaster, if it even happens. Early reviews of her latest songs are pretty poor, and she's embarrassed herself every time she's performed publicly.
Of course, she's also embarrassed herself pretty much every time she's set foot in public, so that last point isn't terribly surprising.
She's closing in on a professional Black Hole. She's right on the event horizon, circling the drain, etc. If, or more likely when, her latest album flops, she'll be pretty much finished professionally. With no trace of a career left, she'll be more and more irrelevant than ever, and the shambles that is her personal life will also go downhill. She could well be heading for Dana Plato territory.
This is all more or less background. In reading more about what she's up to these days, I think she's only got a couple good options left. Even after the disaster that's probably imminent, she might be able to get it together. But how?
I think the first Good Thing that could happen would be a spiritual awakening of some kind. I'm not terribly religious, but if she had some kind of revelation, it would be great. Suddenly waking up one morning and realizing that she's kind of a loser- and definitely a bimbo- and deciding to look for something better is the sort of thing that would salvage her life, if not her career.
The next possibility would be for her to find a new manager. A nice Drill Sergeant type: somebody who's willing and able to kick her butt. What she needs is a lot of tough love. She needs to get into rehab- and stay there until she's actually beaten her addictions. Then she needs to get her lazy, chunky butt into shape (not that I'm in a great position to criticize, but I'm also not an entertainer). After that, she'd need to mend fences with family and friends, and finish up with a "contrition tour" of various magazines and TV shows. Oprah would of course be the crowning moment. Go on Oprah, admit to your mistakes, cry (hopefully with complete sincerity), show off your new look- sexy but understated and more mature (wearing underwear and keeping it hidden is a necessity), perform your newest song (which needs to be written and produced by the best talent money can buy), and you're golden.
The third option is finding A Good Man. This one is pretty unlikely, since she's been pretty bad on this count. But if she could find someone that she could really truly care for- and who really cared for her in return- it might inspire her. But he'd probably have to be similar to the Drill Sergeant. He'd have to be willing to put his foot down and tell her "if you want me, you have to earn me, cuz at this point you're a mess."
I'm a complete cynic, but I'm also a bit of a romantic at heart. It's worked before, right? But her new man has to be both tough and supportive. And as someone who spent most of his military career around Drill Sergeants, I have to say that's kind of their job. (The good ones, at any rate.) So options 2 and 3 seem to go together.
She needs to be lucky enough to find someone, and smart enough to trust him (or her) completely, whether as a lover or as a manager. Which again, sadly, takes us back to the realm of shaking our heads and doubting her judgment.
Here's hoping she finds at least a couple of the above. Unfortunately for her though, you don't usually meet them in tanning salons and nightclubs.
If she doesn't get lucky and find one of the three Good Things, then where will she end up? Well, we've already mentioned the Dana Plato "child star" suicide or accidental death disaster. Hopefully she'll avoid that one. But then what's left?
Well she can always go onto the reality show circuit. I'd say that in a few years, she'll be a strong candidate to appear on Survivor, Big Brother, or one of those other garbage shows that I never ever watch (really).
Or I bet Playboy would give her a shot- assuming she loses some weight (though airbrushing can fix a lot). Penthouse would also love to have her, but they'd probably want a bit more "action".
Both of those would be an admission that she's desperate, and as a career move, historically posing nude doesn't work out. Need proof? See Dana Plato again.
Retirement is the least bad choice, assuming she manages to hold onto her money without giving it all to her Ex for child support. Then perhaps in a decade or two, she can write a book (well... collect money from a publisher to have somebody write a book) about her rise and fall. Who knows? By that point, she might be forgotten enough to stage a genuine comeback. Especially if she were to get coaching in singing, acting, and dancing so that her new act would impress people.
Of course, she could always just take some time and try to better herself. Enroll in college, travel the world, work for charity, or enter a convent. But I don't see her having the desire for anything like that.
In any case, she's going to have to make a major choice soon. Disaster looms, and a successful album supported by a successful tour will only delay the inevitable fall. And make it that much worse when it does come.
As I said back in February, "Good luck kid. You need it."
And finally, as a postscript, here's a comment posted back then. With a nod to Pink Floyd, of course:
Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
You were caught on the crossfire of childhood and stardom,
blown on the steel breeze.
Come on you target for faraway laughter,
come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!
You reached for the secret too soon, you cried for the moon.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Threatened by shadows at night, and exposed in the light.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Well you wore out your welcome with random precision,
rode on the steel breeze.
Come on you raver, you seer of visions,
come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!
Friday, October 05, 2007
One would think that Britain of all places would understand the problem with appeasement, but sadly, they don't. It's now become the cornerstone of their national policy, both domestic and international.
I can't think of anything to say about this. It's messed up, and there's nothing more to add.
Thanks Jim, for doing what nobody else had the guts to do.
Hat tip: Gates of Vienna.
Update: Here's an interview with Jim.
Michigan is my home. I was born there, and have lived there most of my life. But right now, I'm in New Mexico. Part of it is personal, but things in Michigan are completely screwed up. The governor is clueless, and thinks it's a good idea to fly to Europe for a week or two, and come back with a promise of 150 new jobs for the State..
Of course, while she was gone the State lost a couple thousand jobs, not to mention the money that it cost to send her there. (And sadly, to bring her back).
But she and her fellow Dummocrats came up with a plan. Just raise taxes, and the problems will be solved! Sure, there's the whole thing about people having less money to spend. And the part where businesses have to cut jobs to save money. And the part where the spending by the State Government is still high...
But hey, raising taxes will fix everything, right? And even if it doesn't, well she's only been in office for 5 years, so it's clearly the fault of her predecessor. That's the argument made by all good Dummocrats, including one of my siblings. Of course, she works in education, so that could be part of her problem. And she is the one that once told me that if Bin Laden demands the US become a Muslim nation, then we should just declare it, and he'd leave us alone.
So you can imagine how much attention I pay to her political musings.
In any case, it's been interesting to see the "progress" that Michigan has made in the last few years. Most of the larger cities are dying, people are making less money, companies are moving out, and the government works on the logic that throwing water on a drowning man is the way to save him. Sure, because the fact that Michigan is economically worse off than any other state is just a coincidence.
Which is not to claim that everything is Jenny-Poo's fault. I rode a Greyhound from Michigan to Colorado some 20 years ago, visiting another sister. I sat for a while with a guy that was moving from Michigan back to his home state of Nebraska. As I recall the tale, he had moved up there a few years before, for whatever reason. While in Michigan, he opened a small shop. After a few years, it went under, and he was bailing out. The one thing that has stayed in my mind all these years is his comment "Michigan is a horrible place for small business".
Friends of mine that own small businesses today agree with that statement. So there is a problem with the system, and it isn't all the fault of the current administration. But it does need to be fixed.
(Of course, my brilliant sister says that it's all the fault of the previous governor, and that Jenny-Poo can't be held responsible. When I point out that she's in charge and thus has to fix things, she retorts that Jenny-Poo shouldn't be held responsible for the failings of another. At which point I mention that she has the job, things are broken, and therefore it's her responsibility to try and fix it; which earns me a "well it shouldn't be". I make the observation that things are worse now than when J-P took office, and are getting worse every day, and she says that it's proof of how bad things really were when J-P came in. I'm honestly not sure why I even bother, except that I hate stupidity.)
I could go on, but it would take forever to explain the problems. All I can say is that I greatly prefer Michigan to New Mexico, and I want to be back there with my family and friends, but I just don't know if it's possible. Next year, I'll probably be heading someplace different- this whole New Mexico thing was prompted by a deployment to Iraq in my family- but I just don't know if heading home is a valid option. Higher taxes, high unemployment, high crime, and so on just isn't a strong environment for someone who needs to start over at the point when he should be able to take things easier.
I wish I could head back today. Instead, I might not be able to ever return. And that breaks my heart.
It's about the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. It's a fun family event, sponsored by Miller. Miller Beer: The official beer of public orgies.
I'm tossing in the link, but I cannot stress enough that this link deserves the highest possible grade of NSFW. If you aren't into public masturbation, oral sex, and men abusing themselves in ways that God didn't really intend, then DO NOT click through.
The saddest part is that my headline isn't a joke. If you do click and you make it through far enough, you will see small children dressed "appropriately" for the events. The outfits aren't really disgusting, but seeing a couple of cute little 5 year old girls wearing leather and surrounded by this sort of thing is disconcerting to say the least.
Look, I'm all about personal choice and personal freedom. If a person is gay, terrific. I don't roll that way, but I'm not gonna judge you if you do. If you like to be spanked, whipped or whatever, good for you. Again, it ain't my thing, but roll on. I have my little quirks as well, and I don't want to be judged for them.
But then, I don't run around advertising my sexual fantasies. And especially not on public streets. With little children around.
Though I admit this last point is questionable- after all, the kids are there because their parents take them. Which to my mind opens up a whole other can of worms regarding their suitability as parents. But I suppose that if social services looked into the parenting of the men in question, that would be "homophobia", so they get a pass.
This is just too much. I don't understand how this is supposed to convince anybody that homosexuality is okay. To my mind, it shows how out of touch these people are, and gets them shunted further and further out of the mainstream. Fine, I get it: celebrate who you are, and don't feel guilty about it, because you aren't alone. But it's 2007, and if someone still feels abnormal because he or she is an exhibitionist, then he/she certainly has never been on the internet.
Go ahead and do your thing. Just don't shove it in the faces of the rest of us. Because it's too much for some of us to take. I have no problem with gay rights, but this is turning me from neutrality to opposition.
I wish I drank beer, just so I could swear off Miller products forever.
I think the exact words are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Anyway, the journalist in question- Johnathon Turley- thinks that this amendment was intended by the Framers to work in the exact same way as the one above it, which apparently allows people to exercise their religion freely, and also allows them to speak and assemble freely.
Hmmm. Sounds interesting, but can this be? After all, the media (when they aren't trumpeting their importance to "Truth, Justice, and... all that" (a big "hello" to the 4 people that saw the new Superman movie this year and get the point) has long said that this notional "right to keep and bear arms" doesn't really exist.
So perhaps some liberals are starting to read beyond the First Amendment. Trust me, there's a lot more to the Constitution than just that first part. Who knows, if they read a bit farther perhaps they'll discover a couple other interesting facts. Like the fact that "the wall of separation between church and state" that they so love to lecture people on isn't actually in the Constitution. Or, if they keep reading, they might notice a very distinct oversight: I have it on good authority (i.e my own lying eyes) that the word "abortion" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. And even more amazing, there is a line in the Document that implies very strongly (i.e. explicitly states) that any power not mentioned is reserved to the states and the people.
Which would seem to suggest (and any liberals, try to follow along here) that if abortion isn't mentioned, it isn't a matter that the Federal Government has any business discussing. And therefore, the legality of abortion should be decided by each individual state. Thus suggesting that "a woman's constitutional right to choose" is a complete load of hooey.
It's all there, folks. Read it and understand.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Picture this: You're the coach of a major college football team (Texas A&M). What do you do? You create a newsletter, and sell it to select subscribers for $1200 a pop. Ummm. Maybe not. But hey, the money is useful and can be used (allegedly) for a family run charity. Is that better?
Not so much.
Especially if the newsletter in question discusses things like injuries to players, and also gives evaluations of the players.
Your own players.
Uh huh. This one is really a prime example of where the "WTF were they thinking?" award comes from. It's wrong on so many levels. It violates the privacy of the injured players (given the reasonable assumption that the player didn't give him permission to talk about the injury); it includes information that seems to be geared towards gambling (which he apparently got around by extracting a promise from the subscribers that they wouldn't use the information for gambling); he failed to notify the university that he was doing it, and so on.
But in fairness, once he got busted, he stopped doing it. And pulled out the usual "I didn't realize that it was wrong" approach that works so well.
I'm not sure how this will shake out, though I think I can guess. If the School decides that his actions constitute an embarrassment, then he can be fired without any severance pay. Given that his team isn't exactly in the running for a championship, and people were already calling for his head, I suspect that he's toast. Kiss his $2 million annual salary goodbye.
And frankly, I tend to doubt he's gonna have a lot of success in the job market once he gets canned there. Most reputable schools will be scared off by his apparent lack of both brains and integrity. And since his record on the field is merely decent, it might not be enough to make schools overlook his amazing lack of judgment.
So he'll probably wind up someplace as an assistant coach, until somebody gets desperate enough to offer a shot at redemption. Hopefully, it'll be a while before that happens. Cuz I think he needs a lot of time to think about it.
Anyway, we salute you, Dennis Franchione and happily ask you "WTF were you thinking?"
In other news of the Stupid, I'd consider yet another Michael Vick nomination, but why bother? I'm tired of this moron, and "moron" is the correct word. How bright do you have to be to get busted for smoking pot when you're awaiting sentencing for Federal charges? Good idea, Mikey. That'll make the judge decide to give you a lenient sentence, won't it?
Oh, and kudos to pretty much every Democrat in Lansing Michigan, Ground Zero for the Depression that the country is mired in. What depression, you ask? Sorry, I forgot. It's only Michigan that's in a depression. And the governor apparently wants to keep the State in that elite situation for a few more years. Thus, her plan to end the budget deficit problems by raising taxes. And only by raising taxes. Cutting costs from the State budget? Not an option for Jen Jen. Gotta be more taxes, so that the people living there (the ones with jobs, at least) will have even less money to spend on their own foolish whims.
In the words of the infamous Bill Clinton, "We could give you a tax refund. But you might not spend it on the right things".
Ah yes. Know why the Democrats are the party of the poor? Because they keep trying to create more and more of them.
I guess I need to start giving serious thought to where I'm going to move. I don't see New Mexico as a long-term solution, and it looks less and less like returning home is an option either. Perhaps Nevada, or some other place in the great West. Fortunately, I'll have some time to think about it.
I often wonder if the whole world has gone crazy, and only a few select people have caught on. Maybe in another dimension, I'm Neo from "The Matrix" and have been shown that it's all a game. Cuz I just don't know if it's all real....
I still wonder what she was actually trying to do.
Just read a bit more about her. It would seem that she was simply making a "joke" or a "statement", but went about it the wrong way. Clearly. What's most fascinating is the way some of these people think. Particularly jaycerochester.
Oooh, yeah. Walk into an airport with something that looks, to the casual observer, like it could be a bomb, and because people react like it could be a bomb, the logical answer is, as the moron mentioned above says, to stop creating things, and let people live in their world of ignorance, etc.
I'd bet that particular moron is a libertarian. You know, somebody who is all in favor of freedom, but doesn't believe in letting the real world interfere with his ideals. And when it does, well the real world is wrong and must change.
Anyway, let's recognize Star Simpson (doesn't the name tell you 98% of what you need to know?) for being a complete moron, and then move on. Hopefully, next time she'll get move up in the awards world and get her a Darwin Award.
Or even better, let's hope that jaycerochester gets one.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Good to know that- at least once in a while- the Onion and I agree.
Of course, the developer is a friend and contributor. And he didn't have to bid on the deal either.
Want to know why Michigan is totally hosed, watch this video. It pretty much says it all.
There are some choppy portions, right where the developer denies that his contributions to the Democrats have anything to do with the deal. But he actually claims that legislators do what's best for the State.
Another good reason why I hate democrats.
Thanks to Nick and RightMichigan.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Let me check the math here.... So we're better than 13 months away from the election. And we're into the "final push"?
I think we need to go back to the old fashioned way. Or do something. My first thought was to just have every primary on one day. But wouldn't that kinda work out to just another election? If you held open primaries, then wouldn't Al Gore claim that he won more votes in the Democratic primary than Bush won in the Republican, and therefore he should be president?
Maybe we just need to do away with primaries altogether. Either nominate the candidates at the party convention, or do away with them altogether: just let people mark down the name of the person they want elected, and toss it into the ballot box. Then count the votes.
But no. Instead, we're gonna be stuck with this stupidity, where the election will be whittled down to two candidates before the Super Bowl.
Call me a grumpy old fuddy-duddy, but I think it's just another piece of evidence that we have a serious problem in this country. We need to get rid of this latest stupidity dumped on us by the politicians, and start over.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
When I first read about this on Ace of Spades, they mentioned the circuit board on her shirt, but that was all (or I just didn't click through to the rest). But when I saw the story on LGF, they had more details.
I don't buy the "art" defense. To go into an airport like this is completely asinine. She had an agenda, though I doubt that nearly winning a Darwin Award was part of it.
Oh, to be young and completely moronic.
H/T to Ace and LGF.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
So I'll just run a quick update, and then try to do better in the future.
In the most recent WTF were they thinking? contest, I think the winner would turn out to be obvious to anyone who had been reading: Jamie Foxx, come on down. Your stupidity in defending Michael Vick gets another win for Team Vick.
Whoopie Goldberg probably could have gained a nomination also, for-wait for it- defending Michael Vick. Apparently in her mind, dog-fighting is a bit of Southern Culture, and therefore should be tolerated, if not embraced.
As several people pointed out, things like lynching "Niggras" and burning crosses also were, at some point, part of Southern Culture. So does Whoopi support them as well?
Of course not. That's stupidity. But it's part of the glory that is Multi-culturalism. You can justify anything you want, while in the next breath accusing somebody else of racism for doing the same.
I might have more to say on this topic later, but I'm furious at Billy Belichick of the New England Patriots for his blatant attempts at cheating. In a nutshell, I've been screaming all along about "The Belichick Effect", a term that I think I created. Basically, it says that in a sport where wins and losses affect things like draft picks, which team plays which in the playoffs, who gets home field advantage, and so on; the long term effects of winning even one game a year by cheating can affect the League for years. So I think he should have been slammed a lot harder, though I do understand the Commissioner's view that he did the best he could.
Otherwise, just assume that I'm cheesed off about whatever the Dhimmicrats have done over the last few weeks. And not terribly happy about the Republicans either.
Oh, and I wonder what O.J. is thinking. I smell a nomination coming up for him...
Monday, September 03, 2007
But have no fear: There's a measure of redemption in another post from a great new site, English Russia. Pictures from the Moscow Auto Show. Lots of leggy young Russian women. For the first time in my life, I want a KIA.
As someone once said, "I'll be in my bunk".
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
I was thinking yesterday about another post on this moron. Seeing the Schultz article merely confirmed it. In truth, the post I had in mind was a bit different: while this guy accuses Vick of cowardice- a fair assessment- I was looking at it from the standpoint of his loyalty.
I read a few excerpts from Vick's plea deal. What I saw there was a guy that's trying to save himself at any cost. So he seems to be throwing his friends under the bus. Okay, in a way it isn't surprising- they all made deals before Vick, with the obvious intention of giving him up to save themselves. Fair enough, that's how it works. But now Vick comes along with his deal. Initial reports had him kinda-sorta admitting guilt, but not quite. Turns out that he did actually state the truth, to an extent.
The problem that I see (and bear in mind I have absolutely no training in the legal biz) is that Vick's friends all know the truth. And in his deal, he basically said "I didn't gamble and I admit that dogs died as a result of our collective actions. But my biggest mistake was that I was hanging around with a bad crowd."
In other words, he seems to be claiming that he just needs a higher class of friends. Well, duh. That's also pretty apparent to anyone with half a brain. However, I don't think that the whole dog-fighting thing was put into his head by these other morons. And he seems to be suggesting that it was. Which would really piss me off if I were one of the other guys.
I'm not sure that a claim like that is a Good Idea. As I said, these guys know the truth, and if they get the impression that he just pushed them in front of the bus, then they can still make his life miserable. At this point, they have little to lose- he's lost his Nike contract, has a good chance- especially since he still doesn't admit he's a slimeball- of being banned from the NFL, and it's possible that the Atlanta Falcons will go after him for some of the money they've already paid him. When the whole thing finally ends, there's a chance that he won't have a whole lot of money left over. So the golden goose has apparently died. And if (and I must clarify that this is merely a rant by me) he is guilty of more, and if his friends were to rat him out, then he might well be looking at a lot more time "in the service of the State", than seems to be expected today.
So it seems to me that he'd do better to keep him mouth shut about his loser friends. But then I question whether he's ever learned that lesson.
It all reminds me of a common story in military circles. We've all heard the tales of men hurling themselves on a grenade to save their buddies. It's a pretty solid way to get a medal, though generally posthumously. But in my younger days, when I was in the Army, I was talking to a couple Vietnam veterans. (Again, a quick disclaimer: what I'm saying here is what I was told. It may or may not be true, so take it for what it's worth.) At any rate, the explanation these guys gave me was that the whole "throwing himself on the grenade" myth was just that: a myth. Their explanation was a bit more... sinister. Or perhaps mundane. Supposedly, there were two reasons for someone dying this way. The first was that he was a less than stellar soldier, and when the grenade bounced into the bunker, someone managed to shove Snuffy on top of it. So the unit got rid of a weak soldier, and the dead guy's cohorts all got together and branded him a hero, getting him a medal that his family could cherish.
The second, far more relevant explanation is that the guy who "fell" on the grenade was simply the slowest guy of the bunch. Everyone else bailed out of the hole, and he couldn't keep up. So the slowest guy loses, and the fastest guy gets away with the least amount of injury.
Remind you of anyone?
I'd consider making some comments here, but really- why bother. This is just too breath-takingly stupid for words.
Apparently, torturing dogs is A Black Thing. And Mikey should be given a break, since he didn't know it's also A Bad Thing.
So, Jamie Foxx: On behalf of normal people everywhere, I have to ask you: "WTF were you thinking?"
'It's a cultural thing, I think," Jamie said. "Most brothers didn't know that, you know. I used to see dogs fighting in the neighborhood all the time. I didn't know that was Fed time. So, Mike probably just didn't read his handbook on what not to do as a black star. I know that cruelty to animals is bad, but sometimes people shoot people and kill people and don't get time," Jamie continued. "I think in this situation, he really didn't know the extent of it, so I always give him the benefit of the doubt."'
A hat tip to the redoubtable Idontlikeyouinthatway.com
Thursday, August 23, 2007
I wonder if this maternal genius has any clue of the irony here. Yes, according to the article, there were some safety issues. But from what I read, the producers did a good job of keeping on top of it.
But here's a clue for Supermom: Put your kid on a tv show, and there's a chance that something bad could happen. Especially a "reality" show. Might I suggest not putting your kid on tv if you don't want them to be "abused"?
Nah, that might make sense.
I think that this doesn't quite rise to the level of a "WTF were they thinking?" nomination. Does anyone disagree? I'd like to see this as a contest with reader input. Let me know what you think.
Monday, August 20, 2007
This week, it's our friends across the sea, in Merrie Olde England. Here's a link to the incomparable Mark Steyn.
It seems there is a clown over there, Tony Turner, aka Barney Baloney. (I'll let you guess which is his real name). And Barney was booked to appear at a Tesco supermarket in Leeds. And then, in the interest of public health, he was told that making balloon animals was strictly off limits.
It's all about the children, you see. You can't have balloons anywhere near children because of the risk that one of the little imps might be allergic to latex.
I'll have a bit more to say on this point later.
Sadly, it seems that poor Barney is having a hard time of it. He can no longer use a bubble machine to make bubbles for the tots. Why? Well a child might slip and fall, and we all know that plays havoc with Clown Insurance. (Remember the big crash of the clown insurance industry? Millions of clowns were put out of work, and the damage to stock markets almost caused a world-wide depression)
Of course, if you do have balloons (this being before the health risks of latex were discovered by the crack scientists at the Grocery Institute), well there are additional issues. Not everything made of balloons is good. Some things are evil.
All together now: "We can't allow clowns to make balloon guns because that encourages children to commit violence".
When balloon guns are outlawed, only clown-outlaws will carry balloon guns. Or something.
But in news that will surely warm the hearts of the Immortals, balloon swords are allowed. In case you ever run into a balloon Kurgan. Of course, kids with balloon swords are forced to fight until they're all dead, except a single child. There can be only one, you know.
So now, after that brief visit to Clown Hell, we come back to the latex allergy point. Steyn has a link in his article on poor Barney to another pundit, Rush Limbaugh, who points out the irony of forbidding an entertainer to expose children to latex. Why? Well here's Rush:
Have you heard anything more ridiculous than this? The children -- the little children -- might be allergic to latex? Meanwhile, in every damn school in the country we're urging them to wear condoms, for crying out loud! Well, what the hell is a condom made of? Give 'em condoms for every damn thing in the world that's wrong with them, and then they can't go to a circus and be around a clown with a bunch of balloons?
Nicely put. Teach kids "condoms, condoms, and more condoms" from the time that they're 5 years old, and then later tell them that latex is dangerous. Makes perfect sense to me.
So to Tesco and their idiotic attempts to protect the children from anything and everything, including fun, I hereby nominate you for this week's "WTF were they thinking?" award.
And if we're lucky, I'll find a way to get hold of Barney, who is no doubt on the verge of being transported to Australia for his crimes, and he can make a cool trophy for the winner. From forbidden balloons of course.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
I'm amazed. But in fairness, Shakespeare is a tough read. I always had doubts about his plays, since they don't work too well when just reading them silently to oneself. But I recently discovered something that points out the obvious: He was writing plays for God's sake. They were intended to be presented by actors, in front of an audience. So of course they're easier to follow and more enjoyable that way.
My discovery, by the way, was a terrific mini-series called "In Search of Shakespeare" by Michael Wood. Now I enjoy the heck out of Wood's shows- maybe someday I'll write about him. But "Shakespeare" is pretty close to being his best. Part of it is wandering around England learning about Will, but he also has scenes where he has the Royal Shakespeare Company perform scenes from the plays. It makes a huge difference. The dvd of the Series could be hard to find, but it's worth the effort.
Anyhow, if you check out the first link, which leads to the article in The Daily Mail, scroll on down to the text samples. They present a nibble of text from Macbeth and another from Henry V. Now maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't think the "short versions" are the same. They leave out a lot, particularly from the Macbeth quote. I think Lady Macbeth's two lines in the original version say a lot more than the one line does in the comic version. Shakespeare was, from what I know, a careful writer- he wasn't merely trying to fill space on a page. There's a difference between His Lady Macbeth telling her husband that if he screws up his courage they won't fail, and Comic Book Guy's Lady McBeth (I took the liberty of shortening her name, since it fits the theme here) simply saying "we won't fail". To me, it's apples and oranges.
But what do I know?
Ah well. I guess I'll just give a big "Harumph" and move along.
Like the step-daughter he refers to, I never needed comic books to learn to read. My parents just took us to the library. Every two weeks or so, we piled in the car, and away to the Edison Branch of the Detroit Public Library. There, we'd fill our arms with books, sign them out and take them home.
This even happened during the school year. We were just reminded to lessen the armload. We could read, but studying did come first.
Here's an interesting little fact: (or not. I find it interesting). When I was in school, we had "Reading" class every day. For a good many- most if not all of my grade school years. (Sorry if I'm a bit vague, but it's been a goodly number of years).
In those primitive days, being taught by known Papists, there was a little drill for Reading class. On the first day of the year, we would be given a standardized reading test. Then the scores would be evaluated, and the class would be divided up into groups based upon the reading skill level. Normally, there would be three groups- the slower kids, the average kids and the faster kids. The groups would each choose a name- the Sparrows, the Eagles, the Whatevers.
It kinda seemed to work, which is why I suspect it's a system that died out long ago.
At any rate, tying the whole tale here together, the library trips of my childhood threw the whole system into confusion. Why? Well in my grade at least (and it could well have been the same for my siblings- perhaps some day I'll ask them), the normal breakdown was inadequate. Because while the class as a whole could be broken down into their groups, there was one child who didn't fit into any of the above. A child who was waaaay the hell ahead of the fastest kids in the fast group. A child reading on a high school level- when he was in the fourth grade.
A child whose parents took him to the Edison Branch of the Detroit Public Library every two weeks, and allowed him to bring home an armload of books.
I wonder if there was any sort of correlation....?
So now young adults have to read comic books in order to learn how to speak and read their native tongue at an adult level.
It would seem funny to me, except it isn't.
Perhaps there's something wrong with our educational system. I dunno. I don't have a Master's Degree in Education, Gender Studies, or anything else. I just have this weird idea that giving kids books to read when they're young teaches them to read. I wonder if teachers today have figured that one out yet.
[Oh, and for the record: When our precocious young hero here reached high school, his reading skills had continued apace. Still miles ahead of the group. Which was actually a pain when he took a literature class. Each student was expected to read 3 books over the semester. Our intrepid hero was told by the teacher one time that he should have read at least 6. She never knew that he had done, but never mentioned them. Too much trouble to keep the required journal, since it took up time that could be better spent reading. Or hiding in his bedroom playing Risk with himself while listening to AM Radio. Our hero might have been clever, but he wasn't exactly normal.
Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure: The same test that ranked the intrepid young man as being the best reader in his class also ranked him as being below average in Math. I guess his parents should have taken him to the Math section of the library.]
Maybe someday an educational anthropologist will find under a rock an old fossilized teacher's book, and notice how things were done by these primitive teachers, and there'll be a revolution in the field. A revolution that will result in high school graduates being able to read books more complicated than "See Spot Run".
But I doubt it. That might make sense.
Monday, August 13, 2007
And that the Second Amendment is not only relevant, but important.
It's a tragedy what happened to the family he writes of, to say the least. But I wish in my heart that the father had gotten a gun at some point. While the gun-grabbers use as one of their arguments the fear that the gun will be used by a family member in a domestic dispute- a claim that I don't buy, under the old "guns don't kill people..." rule- in the end there's almost nothing that could have happened to this family that could have been worse than what they went through.
And the alternative- a member of the family popping one or more of the attackers, prompting the rest to flee- would have been infinitely preferable.
I do think there are other options that families can use. Any military veteran can tell you that the best defense is a "mobile" one, which can respond to a specific threat, rather than a prepared defense (think Maginot Line). Or another option is a "defense in depth", where an attacker is forced to fight his way through several layers to get at the objective.
In other words, you start off with an external camera system and an alarm, that can detect an intruder early on and perhaps deter him, giving the potential victim time to react; whether by fleeing, calling the police (obviously), or grabbing the nearest pistol.
A dog is a solid option too. But they don't work on their own. I recall someone telling my sister and me some years back that in his rural area there had been a rash of break-ins. All the people had dogs, and they all worked in the city. So the attackers knew the houses would virtually all be empty during the workday. So that's when they made their move. Pick a house, take a quick look at it, then start. If there was a dog there, shoot it- there's nobody around to hear the shot, right- and then you're in. Easy as pie.
When the time comes that I get things together again, I intend to have an alarm with motion sensors, cameras to monitor the doors (perhaps even windows) and hopefully a big protective dog- some kind of mastiff would work well.
And of course my trusty pistol by my side. And perhaps a shotgun in a convenient place. Cuz that's a weapon that says "I'm serious, and you're in serious trouble" better than anything else in existence.
It seems that the author here has had a revelation- or what in the Army was called a BFO or "Blinding flash of the obvious". I certainly don't want to cheer or say I told you so, but it seems that another person has realized what the Founding Fathers knew as well as you and I: That an unarmed person can be attacked without fear.
Tied in with this is a link from Rants and Raves, written by a man who "gets it". Lots of good stuff here.
Here's hoping that the poor father of this family recovers from what is surely a devastating blow. Nobody should have to deal with this kind of pain.
And here's hoping the bad guys die a slow lingering death. The kind they inflicted on their victims.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Well, you know what you're thinking.
And so let's bring out our presenters, Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan.
Okay, it's like totally cool that we've been asked to present this nominee for like such a like distinguished award. Like, nothing could ever be better than this, except maybe receiving the award ourselves for being like, totally stupid and immature and being stoned and like narciss... Narkizz... nersusistik... Ummm can somebody like totally explain what the word means cuz like it sounds like a like twelfth grade word and like that's like way too far advanced for us to like know, like you know?
Anyhow, so here's a nominee. He's like a professional baseball player, and he like can't really hit at all, which you'd like sorta think would be like important for somebody making like 2 million dollars a year. Sorta like you'd expect somebody making millions of dollars as a singer and actress to like be able to sing and act, do you like totally know what I mean?
[Long pause while our presenters try unsuccessfully to figure out if there's any significance to that line]
Okay, let's usher these two geniuses offstage. Girls, there's plenty of Vodka and cocaine backstage. We even brought some panties in. Brit, you might find they're in your size. And we even have a coach there to explain to you how they work.
And rumor says there could be a couple of third-rate actors there that haven't already risked their health by "making love" to either of you.
Now go away. And preferably, don't come back.
[Heavy sigh of relief from G-T-W]
Okay, so anyway Neifi Perez gets a nomination for getting suspended twice for using a banned substance in baseball. What makes this nomination most impressive is that his second suspension was announced the day before his first suspension ended. And it was for the same substance. And this all costs him roughly seventy five percent of his salary for the year, which is waaaay more than he should be earning anyway, considering his batting average is quite a bit south of the Mendoza line.
Of course, in fairness to Perez, it might be A Legitimate Mistake. He says it was an over the counter medicine for ADHD that triggered the positive result, and Baseball won't say what the timeline was for testing- so the second test could have been within a matter of days of the first. Though I find that a bit hard to believe.
But no matter. Professional athletes have access to medical care and advice that is unique. The teams have doctors, therapists, and God only knows what other kind of personnel to take care of the players- hardly surprising considering the incredible salaries they make. But no, our Hero decided to run out to the local Walgreen's and pick something up to replace the prescription medicine which he ran out of. Smooth move, since that box of medicine will wind up costing him someplace in the neighborhood of $1.5 million this year, and perhaps more next year.
Though that isn't likely, since his career would seem to be in trouble. Poor hitting and an 80 game suspension came make a team hesitate to spend a couple million bucks on a player that, if he ever gets stupid again, would be suspended for an even longer time, if not outright banned.
Our next nominee is an offshoot of our most despicable winner ever. Yes, Michael Vick. Not only did Vick win the award himself for his attempts at creating Doggy Hell, but he also led Pro Football Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith down the path to insanity the very next week. And now he's done it again.
Last week there was an announcement by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that, as part of their celebration of a new building or something, they were going to "honor" Vick for being- and I quote here- an "outstanding human being".
Funny, most people I know are having trouble right now considering Vick to be any kind of human being. But I guess that's the advantage they have. When someone offers to "open their heart and arms to us", well gosh darn it, that person needs to be recognized.
Even now, a week later, I think this smells like indulgence selling from what used to be a respected religious group. Remember the saying which so annoyed Martin Luther? "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs".
I suspect this concept isn't alien to the SCLC. Not that this is a new idea on my part.
Now again, to be fair, it should be pointed out that Vick wasn't supposed to be anywhere near the conference for his "recognition". But it should also be pointed out that there's no evidence that Vick contacted them and asked for their help. They just decided he needed it (or else his mother asked for their help).
And once the news got out, they gave a great big "OH S---" and announced that there were no plans to "honor" this slimeball. So I guess that sorta counts in their favor.
And then we have our third and final nominee. A delightful woman named Tracy Jarman. Jarman, an open lesbian (and not what some would call the "good kind" of lesbian) who happens to be the fire chief for the city of San Diego, announced that it would be a good idea if her department would take part in the City's annual Gay Pride parade.
On a volunteer basis, of course.
Oh, except for those firemen who say they were ordered to take part, and feared that they might face some kind of retaliation if they refused. So off they went.
During the course of the parade, they got to listen to such charming expressions of "Gay Pride" as "show me your hose" and "give me mouth to mouth". When the four men refused to get into the wacky spirit of things, they were subjected to increased hostility from the crowd.
Oh, and also note that no "gay pride" parade would be complete without men rubbing their crotches and blowing kisses at folks.
The men and their lawyers point out that this sort of behavior in a workplace would get the perpetrator fired in a heartbeat. But I suppose an event that your employer orders you to attend doesn't count as "workplace", now does it?
So now the men are suing, the City is apparently taking a "what did we do?" approach, and I've never heard a word out of Jarman. Under ordinary circumstances, I'd predict a quick settlement with the men, and strong disciplinary action against the person behind it. But in this case, I have my doubts. Straight men suing a lesbian for sexual harassment? In California? You're kidding, right? They'll be laughed out of court, and possibly subjected to more harassment on the way out.
But in fairness to Jarman, we have to give her the same rights as our other nominees received. You know, the whole Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Rights thing. So we'll take this opportunity to mention a few things that could mitigate her actions.
Sorry, nothing's coming. I can't find any good reason for her to do this to her subordinates, other than ego. And stupidity.
Therefore, since there seem to be no witnesses for the defense, and since her actions are staggeringly ignorant, I guess we'll have to bring back our two starlets and have them award Tracy this week's trophy.
Hell, it could be a dream come true for her.
So here we go. Tracy Jarman, Fire Chief of San Diego, in the state of Mexifornia, I hereby take this opportunity to ask you, on behalf of common sense advocates everywhere, as well as your subordinates in the Department, "WTF were you thinking?"
Thank you, and good night.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Well, here we have another nominee. This time, it's a woman. I think. Hard to tell from the picture that accompanied the article I read. Tracy Jarman, the Fire Chief in San Diego. Jarman, a lesbian, decided that it would be a "fun event" if the fire department would take part in the City's Gay Pride parade.
On a volunteer basis, of course. Oh, except for those firefighters who say they were ordered to attend. But I guess they don't count.
At any rate, at this "fun event", they were subjected to comments from the crowd along the lines of "show me your hose" and "give me mouth to mouth". Later, the men allege, when they obviously were not replying in kind, they were subjected to increasingly hostile comments.
And of course they were forced to watch as bystanders rubbed their crotches (their own, I assume and not those of the firemen), blew kisses at the firemen, and so on.
Yeah, that's my idea of a good time. Good clean family fun.
It's bad enough that the men felt as if they were being forced to attend this idiotic bacchanal. But the thought that crossed my mind was that there have been- as yet- no repercussions for Jarman, who clearly subjected these men to a hostile environment. If she were a man, and this was a parade celebrating heterosexuality, then the fire chief would have already been dismissed from the job. But of course, she's both a woman and a lesbian. Therefore, she's safe. Because we all know that women are incapable of sexual harassment, and of course no lesbian could (or would) ever discriminate against men.
Realistically, I wonder if she knows that she likely only got the job because as a lesbian, she hit the jackpot- a minority on two counts, her gender and her sexuality. But I have no doubt she's well aware of it- her status is far too useful for someone looking for an appointed job in government.
None of which is to imply that she's completely unqualified. She might be terrific, and could have been the best candidate out there. But of course, one of the wonders of "affirmative action" and similar programs is that there's always that lingering doubt. More likely, she was a slightly qualified candidate, who's skills were exceeded by any number of heterosexual white men, but she was picked over them.
At any rate, she clearly is lacking in judgement. As I said, if this were a male putting this kind of pressure on gays or women in his department, he would be lynched. But she'll likely get away with it. My best hope is that the men will win their lawsuit, and the City will be forced to apologize and promise never to subject anyone to such harassment again. But this being California, I wouldn't bet on any of that happening.
So for volunteering some of her subordinates to take part in an event which is completely based in sexuality, where one man yelled at them "blow my hose"- a clearly inappropriate sexual comment- I nominate Chief Tracy Jarman for this week's "WTF were they thinking?' award.
Monday, August 06, 2007
And now we have another Vick related nominee. Via WithLeather, a great sports website, we now have the story of a group that supports Vick. No that's not strong enough. It's a group whose leader, Charles Steele, said last week "We will recognize Vick for being an outstanding human being... We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us."
So what is this group that regards an accused dog-abuser as "an outstanding human being"?
Why it's the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The group founded by The Greatest American Ever, legendary plagiarist Martin Luther King Jr.
On the surface, it would appear that they're acting out of good old Christian morality- the desire to save the soul of a "man" who has shown no interest (to my knowledge) in being saved. But I think the key is in the above quote: "We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us".
Call me a cynical bastard (and you won't be the first) but when I read that, what I saw was "we will work with anyone who opens their wallet to us". It seems to be a trend in the Black Christian community- fork over some money, and voila! You're now one of The Good Guys.
After all, didn't Jesus say "it's easier for a rich man to pass the gates of heaven than anyone else, if they just open their wallets to me"?
No, this one bugs me. It just feels like they're soliciting money from him, in order to grant absolution for his sins/crimes. And even if I'm wrong(!), I don't know that he's asked for their prayers. And given that one of their other heroes, adulterer and traitor Bubba Clinton used the Southern Baptist community to make points when he was in trouble, it seems to me that the SCLC has gone the way of the old Catholic Church- the one that prompted the real Martin Luther to launch the Reformation- and is giving indulgences to anyone that will toss them a few shillings.
So let's bow our heads in honor of the SCLC and it's leader Charles Steele, and reverently ask them "WTF were you thinking?"
Sunday, August 05, 2007
It's John Engler's fault.
Hat tip to RightMichigan.com
Friday, August 03, 2007
But have no fear. As long as we have athletes, we'll have nominees. This one is infielder Neifi Perez of the Detroit Tigers. Long renowned for his incredible batting prowess- Barry Bonds look out- Neifi has a slight problem. Apparently he likes his stimulants.
Maybe he needs them to stay awake while he sits on the bench. Cuz call me crazy, but I don't know that a .172 batting average is quite enough to keep him in the Major Leagues for too much longer.
Now, I think he has another reason to plan on being retired.
How stupid does somebody have to be to get busted for a banned substance just before you come back... from a suspension for the same substance? I mean, come on. Did he think that the League would give him a pass because he'd already been busted? Or is he so low-energy that he can't stay awake during a baseball game (that's a freebie to any non-baseball lovers out there), and needs to take caffeine intravenously?
At any rate, it's gonna cost him a total of $1,188,525 out of an annual salary of $2.5 million.
I wonder if he's married, cuz I'd love to hear him 'splain this one to his wife.
So Neifi, here's your moment in the sun. Pop some speed while you contemplate your impending life after baseball. Because your post-baseball life is pretty damn close now.
Here it is amigo. On behalf of all sports fans everywhere, I have to ask "WTF were you thinking?"
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
A quick review of the candidates: First off, Senator Joe Biden gets nominated for responding to a question from a gun-owner during a debate by commenting that the man needs to have his head examined, and speculating that he might not be mentally qualified to own a gun.
Well. I grant that the questioner didn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Biden went too far. Of course, it won't matter. First off, all leftists agree with Biden that the guy must be an idiot- after all, he owns a gun. So it won't hurt him among his "base" (I use that term loosely). And I doubt the Senator has many supporters amongst gun-owners anyway, so again, it won't cost him any votes there.
And lastly, since Biden's only chance to be elected- or even nominated- is a plane crash involving every other potential Democratic candidate, it won't have the slightest impact on the presidential election anyhow.
Sorry Joey, you're an idiot, but you don't quite rise up to our level. But the good news is, this will remind you of what it's like to be a loser, so perhaps next year it won't hurt as much.
The next nominee was "comedian" A Whitney Brown. He made a video for YouTube, that graveyard of the most pathetic Saturday Night Live alumni ever, in which he said he supports our troops.
Or not. It turns out that this comedic giant means his taxes pay for the "fat, whining" families of the troops and-horror of horrors- he also pays the salaries of the soldiers.
Actually I doubt that. I think one has to have a job to pay taxes, and I don't know if this moron has worked since he was (presumably) fired from the crapfest that SNL has been.
But while I find his comments both insensitive and stupid, he's clearly a moron. Again, as so often, I have to excuse him on the grounds that he didn't actually make a comment that forces one to go "Huh?" so much as he just said what he really, truly believes.
Besides, there's a chance someone might read this, and I'd hate to think that I doubled his audience. And I'd feel humiliated to think that, whenever he shuffles off this mortal coil, someone might decide to list the only award that Brown won in his lifetime, and mention this one.
Sorry, A (can I make a guess what the A stands for? Pretty please?). But no dice.
The next candidate is Pro Football Legend Emmitt Smith. During the weekend where he was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame, Smith commented upon our last winner, A**H*** Supreme and likely future Mrs. Bubba, Michael Vick. Smith commented that Vick was charged by the Feds with Conspiracy and a few other goodies because "He's the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond so they're putting the squeeze on him to get to everyone else".
As many people, myself included, pointed out, that's the wrong way 'round. The prosecutors go after the little guys, to get the evidence to get the bigger guys. Since Fido is clearly the biggest fish among the four defendants, his testimony wouldn't be much use against them.
Of course, at least one of the other arraignees agreed. He pled guilty and is gonna help the Feds nail Rover to the wall. So it looks like Emmitt's career as a legal analyst is gonna come to a screeching halt. Possibly along with his career as a football analyst, since rumor has it that his new employer, ESPN, is concerned that he talked without thinking. But we'll see.
At any rate, Emmitt fumbled this one. He's just ignorant, but didn't quite do enough to make it to the G-T-W Hall of Fame. Of course, had he gone a bit further and made comments like his fellow retiree, Deion Sanders, who suggested that Vick "loves" his dogs, and that there are other athletes (read football players) who also participate in this disgusting "sport", then Smith would have been a shoe-in.
Better luck next time. Maybe you two should get together and write something else. If it's stupid enough, then you might well get a win.
And finally, our last candidate. Frankly, once this story leaked out, the contest for this week's award was over. Until somebody else starts voting, I get to make the decision as to the winners, and this one is so obvious that I can't see how anybody- even a previous winner like Dhimmi Jhimmi Carter- could have had a chance.
Last week, a report came out that informed the world that NASA has been sending astronauts up into space after they've had a couple for the....road- Sky- Atmosphere-Ozone layer? Whatever.
This is a tough call. Who's the best candidate for our esteemed award? The crewmembers that decided that the best way to go into space was in an alcoholic daze, or the administrators that were apparently told about it and ignored the problem?
Well, we have a simple solution: Give the award to the entire cast of NASA. Sure, there are a lot of people there who are trying to do their jobs well, and it's kinda hard to be blamed because somebody else is an idiot, but that's life in the Big Bureaucracy.
So to those members of the NASA gang that felt a couple shots would make you fly higher, even without a shuttle underneath you, and those higher-ups that decided to let it ride, since there was no chance of anybody ever finding out, or caring if they did find out, I say "Hoist a few beers to celebrate your victory".
And then climb into a multi-billion dollar aircraft and go for a drunken joyride. You've earned it.
NASA, I raise my glass to you and proudly ask "WTF were you thinking?"