Sportsfan Hell

As CowboyLaw so delicately pointed out, the month of October was perhaps the worst month of my life as a sports fan. Let me summarize:


Let me start with the least painful. I am not a big fan of MLB. You will not be surprised that I like $1 beer night (Thirsty Thursday, for those of you in Omaha) for the AAA Omaha Royals. If you can imagine how bad the MLB Royals are, the Omaha Royals are their minor league team and equally shitty at all things baseball. But, the games are fun or at least an excuse to drink $1 Miller High Life in cans. I was cheering for the Rockies because 1) I used to live in Colorado and 2) I hate the Red Sox. Do I need to elaborate on why the World Series was not enjoyable for me? For the record, Boston sports teams can lick my asshole roughly 12 hours after I eat Indian food. People, like CowboyLaw, who cheer for Boston sports teams having never lived there, can take sloppy seconds.


My Broncos are having a very very mediocre year. We get crushed by the Colts and San Diego, and then turn around and dominate the Steelers. The Broncos schedule is very soft, including 2 games against CowboyLaw's KC Chiefs (another team he cheers for in a city/state where he's never lived). The only thing worse than losing a World Series to Boston is getting beat by the Packers and their painkiller poppin' QB. We could lose every other game this season, but if we can beat the Cheats. It would make being a Bronco fan worth living. Stay tuned.



And now, the really bad news. Going into October, the Nebraska Cornhuskers were 4-1, the only loss to Southern California with one of the top rated recruiting classes in the country. Not to say that September was all puppy dogs and ice cream. We nearly lost to Testicle, I mean Ball State and Wake Forest. The signs were there, but at 4-1, who cares right? October brought not only 4 straight losses, but 3 complete ass-whoopings. Nebraska will be incredibly lucky to win another game this season. We fired our Athletic Director, and it looks like our coaching staff (along with some of their top recruits) will be gone the day after Thanksgiving.

Needless to say, I stick with my teams. The downside to this approach to being a sports fan, is that you have periods of time (like my entire childhood as a Bronco fan and as a Wyoming Cowboys fan) where your teams can't win the big one. Being a fairweather fan like Cowboylaw has the advantage of being able to drop your team like a stolen car with a dead hooker in the trunk if they don't win the Super Bowl. The disadvantage, of course, is that people like me will always be there to remind them that they didn't always like the Red Sux or that the KC Chiefs will never win a Super Bowl while we are alive.

These are dark times for my teams, but the best thing about sports is that there's always next season, and Nebraska will have a new coach, the Broncos will have a great first round draft pick, and the Rockies will have the experience that only a first rate ass kicking can give you.

On the Road

And no, not Jack Kerouac. I had a death in the family, so I've gone back home to be with them. Fortunately, I bought a laptop about a month ago, and my parents have wi-fi, so I'm not as out of touch as I usually am. I'll probably post more at some point this weekend, but I thought right now that I'd take a minute and give you an idea of just how small my hometown is.

This is the entrance to the airport:



Yeah.

Oh, and in a text message this morning, Miles reminded me that it's Caturday, so Happy Caturday, motherfuckers.

D'Oh!

D'oh.

In short, and to sum it up: Bad coupla weeks for sports fans in Denver and Nebraska.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

I did get to spend most of the World Series (what little of it there was) deep in the heart of Red Sox Nation (Rhode Island). Those people are more than a little terrifying. But, I'm a closet Sox fan (since I hate the Yankees, it comes naturally to root for the Sox), so it was all good.

P.S.: They close the bars in Rhode Island at 1:00 a.m. What kind of pussified state closes bars at 1:00 a.m.?

P.P.S.: You know you're doing well when you go to a bar for only the second time, and the bartender looks at you and your group and says "Oh shit, they're back."

Oops!

Oops.

Whoops!

Whoops.

Angry Midget is MIA

The three people who read this blog regularly have probably noticed that it's been pretty devoid of novel material for the last couple of months, particularly from the namesake of the blog: Ryan.

Since all three of you who read the blog know that I recently started my PhD program, I don't have to explain to you why I don't have any free time to post my thoughts here. But, that's going to change.

We're coming up on three years of fatanstic crap on this site, and I'm not about to throw in the towel because I'm spending 5 hours a day on statistics homework. No sir. I promise to be better, and you can stop sending me garbage email about my whereabouts or that I am throwing in the towel. You wish.

Want a free Radiohead CD? Sure you do.

So I guess I was out of the loop on this one until yesterday, but Radiohead just released their new album (called In Rainbows) on the internet, and if you want, it's free. Just go HERE and sign up, and then you have to 'purchase' it, but you can put in zeroes and it'll work. And it's not a glitch.

Man, it must be nice to have that kind of money, to be able to do something like this and not even flinch.

That 'L' stands for 'Lose'

This article pretty much sums up my feelings about the Chicago Cubs right now.

So, now there's just football (my Broncos are lucky they're not 0-4) and hockey (the Avalanche's goaltending is too inconsistent for them to make a serious run at the Cup). Which means I'll be on Xbox Live a LOT in the next six months. Here's a screenshot I took from a Halo 3 game last night:


Yes, that red corpse about 50 feet off the ground was me.

Not only does Halo 3 allow you to watch video of all of the games you've played, from any vantage point, but you can take screenshots and upload them directly to Bungie's website from your Xbox 360.

Here's me running over some noob:


Here's one more, with apologies to NIN in advance. However, it makes for great desktop wallpaper!


I said I was gonna drop a teabag on you, and I'm a man of my word.

Zoning Laws: Serious Business

"Y'all have put me under. ... I'm out of here."

This is why the 'CNN TV' service is worthless. Do they have footage of this event? Of course not. Oh well. I guess I'll just watch the Budd Dwyer video again.



And on another note, yes, I know, my Cubs suck. Not exactly a news flash.

Contracting and the War

I want to make two separate, yet related, points in this post. So bear with me.

1. The Rise of Government/Private Contracting

It should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that, during the Bush Administration, the government has increased private contracting by 85%, a massive number. The same official government statistics indicate that the Bush Administration has increased private, noncompetitive contracts by 115%. And we're absolutely not just talking about the war, here. We're talking about the systematic turnover of government duties to private contractors. In short, what was once done by government employees is now being done by private contractors.

Why? Very simple: Republican Reverse Robin Hood---the Republicans are taking from the poor and middle class (by way of imbalanced income and capital gains tax systems), and giving to the rich, which is to say, the people who own these private contractors. Consider, for a moment, the important implication every time the government issues a private contract: that contractor is going to make a profit. Which means the contractor can do the job for less than it bid. If the contractor can do the job for less, why can't the government do the job for less? Reagan (whom I'm not a big fan of) at least gave lip service to making the government run more efficiently. Bush II appears to have abandoned any attempt to make the government more efficient, and has decided instead to outsource as much government as he possibly can.

Once again, why? Because neo-cons, who essentially run this administration (I'm looking at you, Cheney), hate the very concept of taxation, and aren't that big a fan of government, either. The neo-con god Grover Nordquist famously said that he wants to shrink the federal government down to the size where he can drown it in a bathtub. Private contracting is a two-fer: you can simultaneously shrink the government and give back those tax dollars to the rich business owners who donate to your campaign.

2. The Myth of a Clean War

Bling's post, and Blackwater's general troubles, inspired this post, and certainly motivated my rant against government contractors. However, I don't mean to criticize Blackwater's performance in Iraq, and I won't join in any piling-on in criticizing Blackwater for potentially killing civilians. Let me explain why, starting with a parallel example.

At this very moment, the military is prosecuting Marine Staff Sargent Frank Wuterich for murder based on the shooting of several Iraqis in the immediate aftermath of a roadside ambush on Wuterich's squad. The military initially charged every member of Sgt. Wuterich's squad with murder, but has dismissed those charges one by one, until now only Sgt. Wuterich (who was in command of the squad) is still facing charges.

To briefly summarize the events which led to these charges (a full explanation can be found here): Wuterich's squad was driving down the road when a roadside bomb took out one Humvee, killing one member of Wuterich's squad and injuring others. The squad observed a group of Iraqis nearby in a car, and it is common for the people who detonate these bombs to do so from a nearby car. So, the squad ordered the Iraqis out of the car. Upon exiting the car, the Iraqis started running away, so the squad opened fire and killed them. Immediately thereafter, the squad came under fire from a nearby cluster of houses. The squad identified the house where the fire appeared to be coming from, surrounded the house, and rolled several grenades inside, killing the occupants. The squad then came under fire from another nearby house, and stormed the house, killing those occupants. Here's the problem: the Iraqis in the car were found to be unarmed, without a detonator, and thus were merely innocent bystanders. The first house that the squad attacked was inhabited mostly by women and children, with no arms anywhere in the house. Ditto the second house. So, at the end of the day, the squad killed a number of innocent civilians, which is indisputably a tragedy.

Now, let me tell you why the prosecution of any of these Marines is a total farce. And, since I've never seen combat, let me use the words of someone who saw a whole lot of combat: "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it...." Gen. William Sherman. And Sherman's words are as true today as they were in 1864. In every war ever fought, there have been civilian casualties. That's simply part of the bargain. In World War II, generally considered by Americans as a good and just war, Allied bombers firebombed Dresden, Germany, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Let's just say it plainly: in war, civilians die. Always have, always will.

The problem is, the Administration doesn't want to, and in some ways can't afford to, admit that to the American people. The Administration needs us to believe that this is a "clean" war, where we are killing only insurgents and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We all know that, in reality, this is total bullshit. But we must also recognize that this cannot be done, even in theory. The history of war proves otherwise. Indeed, the history of war suggests that military commanders are no more than passingly concerned with civilian casualties, so long as a strategic goal is met. The atom bombs dropped on Japan are convincing proof of this.

As Americans, we need to understand that every time our military flexes its muscles, the inevitable result is civilian casualties. Understanding this, we must always ask ourselves: is it worth it? It can be argued, and I would be willing to argue, that the civilian casualties in World War II, which probably topped ten million when counted world wide (Russian alone suffered several million), were worth it, given what was at stake. I think it is equally clear that, in Iraq, they are not worth it. Others may disagree, but we all need to understand that the debate cannot based on the theory that war can be conducted cleanly. If we believe in what we are doing in Iraq, we should be willing to tolerate civilian casualties. If civilian casualties bother us, and the government's treatment of Sgt. Wuterich and Blackwater suggest that the government is indeed bothered, we should take that as a sign that perhaps we no longer believe the hype. And when we recognize that, we must recognize that it is time to withdraw.

YEE-HAW!

THIS reminds me of a joke I heard once:

'What were the redneck's last words?
'Watch this!''

I'm not sure if any of you saw highlights of Erik Prince's testimony to Congress yesterday, but he didn't make a very compelling case. The fact of the matter is, if Bush and Rumsfeld had listened to General Shinseki, there wouldn't be a need for these overpriced mercenaries.

Cubs win! Cubs win!

Lou Pinella did it. He turned a last-place team into winners. Granted, the Cubs were in the worst division in baseball, but just getting to the playoffs is a huge accomplishment. I'm trying not to get my hopes up too high, but with 99 straight years of futility, I can't get too excited this soon. Playoffs start Wednesday!

Happy Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Pirates don't do it for me. I'm a ninja guy. Just ask my girlfriend. When we watched The Last Samurai in a theater, ninjas showed up about half-way through it, and I was surprised and ecstatic to the point of my yelling out, 'NINJAS!' She quickly shushed me, but it didn't damper my enthusiasm. I LOVE NINJAS. Not as much as this guy, but he's the ultimate fanboy.

I never understood the appeal that pirates have with some people. They wear frilly shirts and like to sword fight. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but still. To me, it's no competition. Ninjas are stealthy, they use stuff like smoke bombs and ninja stars, and they kill people. That's their job. Killing. How can there even be a question of who's cooler? Now, maybe if more pirates looked like this:



... instead of like this:



Having said all of that, I know Ryan pretty well. He is a full-fledged pirate, and he needs to have his day in the sun. So, today is his day:

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/

Now if you'll excuse me, I have ta be gettin' back to swabbin' the deck.

Religion vs. logic vs. rhetoric

Right off the bat, you need to read this. Okay? I know most of you have a lot of spare time as it is. So, invest some of it in reading the linked web page, and understand that it will really help your understanding of this post. And, it's fucking hilarious, so it's worth your time anyway. Go, read. I'll be waiting right here. Talking about the Apple Lisa. Remember the Lisa? I bet you don't. Not a great product. Really expensive. None of you owned one, right? Because none of your parents were rich. Same problem here.

Okay, you back? Let's get this started. Brief recap, just to get everyone on the same page. The illustrious linked website makes the following argument. (1) God has promised that He will answer all of our prayers. (2) There is a long history of God supposedly answering the prayers of other people. (3) God has never answered the prayer of an amputee to have his/her amputated limbs spontaneously regenerated. (4) Therefore, God is either a liar (not likely) or God doesn't exist. QED, in the mind of the website author(s). Now, all of you are free to have your own religious beliefs. I happen to believe that some sort of higher power exists, although I believe that none of us has any ability to comprehend the designs and wishes of that power. That's why I try to live my life by some simple principles that appear to form the core of just about every significant religion on the planet: (1) be nice to people, (2) help people when you can, and (3) try to be happy. BUT my critique here has nothing to do with whether or not a Judeo-Christian God exists. Rather, my critique focuses on the huge, gaping holes in the logic and rhetoric of the website. Ready? Let's do this.

1. The entire argument proceeds from an overly literal interpretation of the Bible.

The foundation of the entire argument is that God has promised to answer all our prayers. Well, folks, if that was true, I'd have my own Porsche and that slut I was interested in back in High School would have slept with me, rather than just the entire show choir. But that didn't happen. So it's not just amputees who aren't having their prayers answered. I hate to go out on a limb here, but maybe (just maybe) God didn't promise to be a bottomless pit of wish fulfillment for every human on Earth. Indeed, the rules of logic suggest this must be true, because oftentimes the wishes of different humans will be in opposition. Thus, for example, if she had known she was in danger, the slut I was interested in during High School would surely have prayed for deliverance from a fate as horrible as having to sleep with me. So, how would God have sorted out these conflicting prayers? More intelligent Christian philosophers have concluded that God is bound by the rules of logic. That being the case, it's easy to see that often, God would be forced not to grant certain prayers, since they would be diametrically opposed to other prayers.

The better interpretation is that God envisioned prayers as a vehicle for internal, rather than external, intervention. Put more bluntly, prayer is a vehicle through which individuals commit themselves to the task of fulfilling the prayer, rather than asking God to do it for them. For example, when we pray to be better people, the power of the prayer (if you think it has any power at all) is in its implicit commitment to personal effort towards that goal, rather than in the hope of external assistance.

Lord Bling's world provides an excellent analogy here. Anyone who has ever played video games seriously knows that the Intarwebs offer a host of secret cheat codes which, if used, will allow the gamer to instantly deal total death to his or her opponents and crush the game with little effort. Anyone who has ever employed these cheat codes in order to beat a game has also come to the realization that it makes the game much less satisfying than if you had beat the game on your own. I differentiate here between true cheat codes and assistance like FAQs and walkthroughs, which provide advice, but still rely on your skill to reach the game's end. If life was nothing more than a game with an obvious cheat code (pray for whatever you want and you get it), it would be wholly unfulfilling for any of us. We would learn nothing from our lives. There would be no struggle, no defeat, no self-examination. Just an endless litany of prayer to overcome all obstacles in our way. Ultimately, an unrewarding life. If, instead, you see life as an endless opportunity to learn things about yourself and others, then it makes sense that prayer would not serve as an avenue for instant gratification, but rather as a vehicle through which you commit yourself to a goal. Which, ultimately, is a lot more satisfying.

2. The world is NOT full of examples of prayers being granted.

The second major fallacy of the argument is the contention that there appears to be ample evidence of prayers being granted all around us. Put simply, bullshit. Isaac Asimov once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. By corollary, anytime modern science is unable to account for a certain result, some people will attribute it to a miracle, or to prayer. But that doesn't make it so. Particularly in the field of medical "miracles," professionals are quick to admit that modern science does not begin to comprehend the full complexity of the functioning of the human body. On a daily basis across the world, cancers disappear, fevers go away, some people even apparently beat the AIDS virus (Magic Johnson ain't just a show in Tijuana). But the fact that we can't explain a certain medical phenomenon doesn't mean it's the hand of God at work. It may be God or it may be Man; lack of proof one way or another does not constitute proof of one way rather than the other.

3. God's failure to regenerate amputated limbs does not prove His nonexistence.

Finally, forget all of the above. We can disprove this point on one basis alone. Let's assume you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God (and there are many reasons to have different beliefs). Let's assume you believe God has both the power and the inclination to become involved in the day-to-day minutiae of the lives of humans (and there are many reasons to have different beliefs). Let's assume you believe that God in fact grants the prayers of many of His subjects (and there are many reasons to have different beliefs). You could still believe that the plight of amputees is part of "God's Plan" (a phrase I hate so much it makes me itch, but let's continue) for that particular person. Perhaps God believes that that particular person needs to learn a lesson which only life as an amputee might teach. If God is indeed all-knowing (a necessary assumption for this model), who are we to argue with His plan? Each of us has room for personal and spiritual growth. There are a host of potentially enriching lessons to be learned as an amputee (patience, forgiveness, humility, and dignity come immediately to mind). Some of us might be able to learn those lessons easily. Others might need substantial assistance to learn these virtues. Perhaps God has identified these persons and intentionally planned for an amputation in other to assist them in acquiring these virtues. Jesus said "if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you: for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matthew 5:27-30. This clearly anticipates the need to sacrifice the functionality of a portion of your body, that you may learn an appropriate spiritual lesson.

4. Conclusion

Look, I don't pretend to have any answers here. At the end of the day, it is clear that God (if God exists) has chosen to leave us scant proof of his or her existence. The very nature of faith is the acceptance of and belief in that which cannot be proven. A cynic or skeptic can find ample evidence of the non-existence of God merely by surveying the world around us. Daily, thousands of people die in unnecessary and unjust wars around the globe, commenced by despicable despots, occasionally abetted by ill-informed and misled bodies public. Similarly, a believer finds proof of God's existence in the daily miracle which is life. One must be right, but neither can prove they are right. What bothers me is when True Believers from one side or the other pretend that the rules of logic prove their point for them. They don't. Anytime you believe you have established the existence or non-existence of God through the use of rhetoric, be assured all you have done is created a rhetoric full of holes. And such is the case here. The authors of this website may well be right---there may be no God---but they sure haven't proven it.

Students suspended for the Shocker

Two local high schools have suspended football players for displaying the Shocker in their team football photos this Fall. The sad part is that none of the articles in the local papers explain what the Shocker is, merely saying that its connotation is "sexual in nature". That's one way of putting it. The gesture essentially offers a person a way to use one hand to penetrate two female orifaces simultaneously. Try it sometime, but don't be sneaky about.

There's a funny twist to this story, however. In both cases, the pictures were taken, printed and distributed before an authority figure noticed (perhaps recognized would be a more appropriate term) the gesture. The untold backstory here is that in order to discipline the students, someone in a position of authority had to recognize the gesture and its sexual connotation, and explain the gesture to colleagues. Which raises the question: How did these people know what the gesture was and what it indicated?

The Shocker is obviously not a rural Iowa sex trick, as evidenced by the fact that in both cases the pictures went through production and distribution prior to raising someone's eyebrows. I would have loved to have been there for that discussion.

Religious Education (Oil) and Academic Freedom (Water)

Creighton University recently cancelled a speaking engagement for author Anne Lamott after university officials (priests) read her work and realized that she wrote in one particular instance about helping someone who was terminally ill commit suicide. Creighton is a Jesuit University, which basically means that the priests that run Creighton are among the most progressive and educated priests in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, these particular Jesuit priests are not educated or progressive enough to give people credit for having their own opinions and thoughts.

The situation with Creighton's reaction and cancellation of a speaker that in my mind is not all that controversial is a prime example of why religious education and academic freedom cannot co-exist. The priests at Creighton have said that they feel they shouldn't endorse ideas that are in conflict with Catholic doctrine, as if there is no other acceptable worldview aside from what a bunch of incredibly conservative individuals whose current pope was a member of the Hitler Youth as a child believe in.

The entire point of education is to develop your own views and opinions on matters, not just what the guys in black shirts and collars want you to have access to. If you're one of the students paying $20k a credit hour to attend Creighton, you should ask for a refund, because what the University has done in this situation is the antithesis of education.

Sleeper hold is so rad, dude.

This video cracks my shit up.



Brain damage is so rad, dude.

This news article sucks.

How does this pass as a 'news article?' Don't they know the rules? 'Pics or it didn't happen.'

If we don't get to see pictures of a bear chomping down on some drunks, the internet is of very little use to me. Google Image Search only brings up some random guro...

Sea of Red

The Real Deal

Since I moved back to Nebraska from Seattle, I have acclimatized to the attitude I get from non-Nebraskans about the state where I reside. I'm a big boy, so I can handle the crap, but at times I feel obliged to give back. This is one of those times.

No matter where you are in the world, you will not find more loyal, intense or crazed football fans than in Nebraska. There exist no greater fans in all of college sports than Nebraska fans. Do you want proof? Check out this article from the Kansas City star about the upcoming Nebraska at Missouri football game in October.

It's one thing for a team to sell out 282 consecuctive home games when their stadium seats 80,000 people. Nebraska has done this year after year. On game day, Memorial Stadium is larger than every other city in Nebraska except Omaha and Lincoln. It's larger than any city in the entire state of Wyoming. Love the Huskers or hate the Huskers, that's pretty damned impressive. People can say it's because we have nothing better to do out here, but I will remind you that as long as you have a mom and a sister, I will have something to do.

What's more impressive, and what the above cited article refers to specifically, is the experience that many teams have had when Nebraska comes to town. Notre Dame in 2000. USC in 2006. Major teams with giant fan bases and home games against Nebraska who are nearly outnumbered in their home stadiums! No other team can pull this sort of thing off. It makes me proud that our team forces opposing fans to take drastic steps to prevent us from turning their home stadium into a Nebraska annex. That is top shelf.

Men are pigs....

... and I say, 'Oink oink.'



Attack of the Show keeps getting better and better.

Fair Doesn't Mean Equal Doesn't Mean Identical

My favorite metasite, Fark.com, served me this little article today. For those of you too lazy to actually click over, let me sum it up for you. A single dad writes in to an advice column to state that his single, 30 year old female neighbor often sunbathes topless, although face down. Not a problem, except dad's 14 year old twin boys play baseball in their backyard and occasionally hit a foul ball into her backyard, and when they go to retrieve it, they see her naked back, and maybe some side-boob action. Plus, one time, the woman asked one of the kids to rub some lotion on her back. Dad asks, do I need to put a stop to this? Female advice columnist says absolutely.

The comments from Fark readers contain much of what you'd expect. However, one argument was launched there which bears some analysis. A Farker, defending the advice columnist, said "If this was a 14 year old girl and a 30 year old man, no one would think this was okay. Ergo, it's not okay, our gender biases are just getting in the way of seeing the truth."

I encounter this kind of argument all the time, and the biggest problem is it has a thick patina of credibility. A high truthiness quotient, if you will. The argument is a total sham, and I want to equip all of you with the tools to shove this down the throat of the next person who launches this BS on you.

The whole argument proceeds from the false premise that, in order to treat 2 people fairly, we must treat them identically, i.e., in the case above, because we would condemn lotion rubbing between a 30 year old man and a 14 year old girl, we must/should also condemn lotion rubbing between a 30 year old woman and a 14 year old boy. This false premise ignores the fact that there are almost always logical reasons why you would treat different people differently. For example, assume you run a food shelf and, in an effort to be "fair," your rules are that each person who comes into the store gets 2 cups of rice and beans each day. Single guys and gals will do just fine under this rule, but people with families are now screwed, unless you parade the whole family in. The better rule would be 2 cups of rice and beans per day per household member.

Perennial presidential candidate loser Steve Forbes was best known for his Flat Tax proposal, which also proceeded from this same premise. His idea to tax everyone at the same rate presumed that doing so was the only way to be fair. The problem, of course, is that when you make $20,000, giving 20% of it back to the government leaves you with $16,000, which is not much to live on. When you make $200,000, it leaves you with $160,000, which is more than enough. Even though the process is equal, the results are unfair.

This carries forward into the realm of employment. All employees have strengths and weaknesses. A good boss finds ways to assign work that plays to his or her employees' strengths, so that in the end, everyone is a more-or-less equal contributor (this is the GOAL, mind you, not how it necessarily turns out, because some people are slacker assholes). In assigning different work to different employees, the boss is not (hopefully) playing favorites, but rather tailoring the work done by each employee to that employee's strengths.

So, the next time someone whips out this "treating everyone the same is the only way to be fair" BS, wallop them a good one. Dumbasses need to be scared away from their weak rhetorical tools.

R Kelly trial set to begin in mid-September

I'm sure that CowboyLaw will have an educated opinion on the R. Kelly trial that starts next month, so I thought I'd go the other direction:


R. Kelly - Piss On You (Remix)

"Yeah. 40 oz. of malt liquor make me want to tell you somethin'.

Rollin round, sittin on dubs.
Countin the urs,
Was high on shrubs.
Coolin in my Escalade.
Man I'm paid, I got it made!
Take me to your special place.
Close your eyes,
Show me your face.
I'm gonna piss on it.

Haters wanna hate,
Lovers wanna love.
I don't even want none of the above.
I want to piss on you.
Yes I do. I'll piss on you;
I'll pee on you.

Now your body, your body
Is a Porta-Potty.
And my pee I'd kick;
Like it know's karate. (knows karate)
And you'll never feel quite the same
Once u take a whiff of my Hershey stains.
I want to poop on u too.
I want to pee in your food.
Only thing that make my life complete
Is when I turn your face into a toilet seat.
I'm gonna piss on you.

Haters wanna hate,
Lovers wanna love.
I don't even want none of the above.
I want to piss on you.
Yes I do. I'll piss on you;
I'll pee on you.

Before we start, I'm gonna fart.
I'm gonna fart on you."

'God can't help us now.'

It's now been told that some of Pat Tillman's last words were 'God can't help us now.' Wow. I wonder how those at Fox News will spin this, although they'll probably just ignore it, or hide it deep on their website.

Religious beliefs aside, the man did what he felt was right, and at great personal cost to himself. He gave up millions of dollars. How many people can say that? And what did our government do for him in return? They used him as a marketing tool, and then they lied about the cause of his death. Regardless of your political leanings, there is no excuse for how it was handled.

I've been against this war from day one, but that doesn't keep me from supporting our men and women who are over there. They may have signed up for service, but there's a certain amount of trust they should be able to feel about their commander-in-chief, that they won't be put in harm's way without a good reason for doing so. And for once, I'd like Fox News to stop showing footage of troops on camera saying how they agree with the president. That's PR spin. If you don't want to get fired (or in their cases, dishonorably discharged), you don't talk shit about your boss in public.

But I digress. I just want our men and women over there to not have to continually get maimed or killed for no good reason, and I want our government to stop lying to us. Lofty hopes, I know. But it shouldn't be that way. If this is a democracy, and a majority of Americans want the war to be over, why isn't it over yet?

Absolut NASA

Party at zero gravity

A report from a panel appointed to investigate NASA's policies related to astronauts was released this week. Basically, astronauts are not only crazy, as evidenced by Lisa Nowak's cross country diaper run to kill the hypotenuse in her love triangle with another astronaut in February, but they also like the hit the sauce before they fly the space shuttle.

We shouldn't really be surprised by all this drinking and carrying on really. At this very moment, many of you are likely making plans for how you're going to chemically dispose of your work week with alcohol and other substances. However, I doubt very much you're doing this while you're at work. If you are, send me the number for your Human Resources Department ASAP.

I wouldn't expect astronauts to behave any better than I tend to behave. Particularly given that before flights, they are often sequestered for long periods of time. But, I also don't fly a million dollar piece of equipment paid for with tax payer money that is so fragile that I think the wings are actually made out of the same foam as the cooler you keep fishing bait or dead hooker parts in when you go to the lake.

The drinking might explain, however, how an astronaut could stare this woman in the face and think about sex

So here's a toast to you NASA. May all of your spacewalks be drunken spacewalks and may you never drive cross country in diapers to kill your boyfriend's mistress only to be arrested and publicly humliated on this blog.

We Didn't Start the Fire

Did I just quote a Billy Joel song? Yeah, I guess I did.

I got asked by at least four people yesterday if I started the fire in Dallas that led to explosions at some industrial chemical plant. I like shit done blowed up real good as much as the next red-blooded American, but for the record, 'No, I was at my desk, slaving over spreadsheets.' I didn't even make it to the other side of the building, where I'm told people had a great view of it. But hey, that's what YouTube is for:

The Silver Ring Thing

A court in England ruled this week that a little girl couldn't wear her silver ring that signifies that she will be waiting until marriage to have sex in school. This ruling no doubt disappointed her male classmates, who were likely setting up a pool to prognoticate how many STDs this lass has by the time she leaves primary school. Really, you say? Shouldn't all 8 year-old kids promise their vaginas to Jesus until they walk down the aisle?

And as our 95% posting from last December points out, the vast majority of people do not wait until they meet that special someone that they have a 50% probability of divorcing before taking the skin boat to tuna town.

The only thing scientific that we can say about viginity pledges is that they do not keep people from having premarital sex. The 95% figure has been stable for a very, very long time. Rather, the only thing that virginity pledges accomplish is to make it more likely for those idealistic little bastards to engage in high risk sexual behavior, such as unprotected sex, oral sex or anal sex, since we all know that a lady is still considered a virgin by Jesus, no matter how many times she's taken a spicy beef injection up the backroad. If you think I'm kidding, click here to see the study that came out in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2005.

Now, I am not bagging on people who want to wait to have sex until they are married. I feel sorry for people who wait, because I think sex is a healthy thing that you should have when you're ready. Hopefully once we get all these fundies out of the White House, people will stop trying to treat premarital sex like vaginal terrorism, and realize that we all need to lighten up and get laid.

You need more Aquabats in your life.

If you can read this, you're not our President

The wild ride that has been the Bush Administration gets more and more surreal every day. If you had told me 4 years ago some of the amazing shit that has happened in the last 6 months would have gone down, even I wouldn't have believed it.

Here are my favorite pieces of evidence that President Bush is a complete idiot.

Tommy Chong killed in Iraqi crossfire?

I didn't even know Tommy Chong was in Iraq, much less got so involved in the conflict that he died in a crossfire.

Seriously though, are we done with this fucking 'war' yet? I put 'war' in quotes because we're not fighting anyone. Our men and women are playing police while militants from different factions all shoot at them. I have a cousin over there right now who's been in the National Guard his entire adult life, and even though he went down to a reservist long ago, he got called up late last year. United States National Guard. In Iraq. That's just fucking stupid. And that whole explanation of 'We're fighting them over there so they don't bring the fight over here' is nothing but jingoistic bullshit. We've already lost more American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan than we lost in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attack, not to mention the 100,000-plus injured. Does that fact not speak to anyone in Congress?

Man vs. Wild

Several months ago, I saw this video and it got me thinking (I would post the video, but then I would have to use YouTube's rather pathetic posting tool, and this will be a long post, but the video is important, so go watch the video and then come back and read the post. Go ahead. It's okay. I'll wait.): what self-respecting man, not to mention a hunter, lets a damn deer beat the crap out of him? I don't consider myself to be a paragon of manhood, but I can sure as crap beat the hell out of a damn deer. Size up the opposition: no claws, no useful teeth, no strong legs for kicking, weighs about as much as I do. All you have to do is get in close, grab ahold of that deer, throw it to the ground, stay on top of it and commence to whuppin'. Game over, man, game over!

But my thoughts ultimately went beyond deer (as, indeed, all thoughts eventually must). Having devoted a fair amount of time to thinking about it, I have narrowed the debate down to a simple scenario, which I share with you so that you, too, can ponder it. Consider the following:

If you were placed in a pit, roughly the size of a basketball court, and allowed to arm yourself as you saw fit (but no firearms), what is the most vicious animal you'd be willing to fight?

As you ponder that, let's first discuss the limitations. If at all possible, you should limit yourself to human-powered weapons, like swords, lances, spears, etc. Powered weapons (like a chainsaw) are allowable only if you're fighting a truly dangerous animal (like a bear). You can equip yourself with any style of shield you like, from the very large (modern SWAT or heavy knight) to the relatively small (classic Roman footsoldiers had shields maybe 2 feet in diameter). Other armor is also permissible, but weight often makes it a bad idea. You can put simple obstacles in the pit, but only in balance with the danger level of the animal you're fighting, and nothing that gives you an unfair advantage (like a high platform you can perch on and stab down at the animal). My primary obstacle (when I considered it) was a steel column about four feet in diameter. See, 4-legged animals have poor turning radii, so if you were going to fight something very dangerous (bear's a good example) you'd need something which you could put (and keep) between you and the animal.

As you continue to ponder your battle animal, and now that you understand some of the basic limitations, let's talk about why this is a relevant question. I think the issue is important because I'm alarmed at what I can only call the pussification of humanity in general and men in particular. The fact is, humans are incredibly rugged, tough animals and we're build to fight well and fight hard. And yet, several months ago, I was eating at a restaurant and saw a group of people flee a table because a cricket had hopped under the table. An extreme example, I grant, but the fact is that people have lost touch with our innate ability to fight, mano a mano, with animals. We're turning into a society of men more in touch with manscaping and creme rinses than with physical confrontation. You might argue that the recent global outbreak of war and violence suggests otherwise, but let me retort. At least with respect to Americans, even the way we go to war allows us to maintain a safe distance between ourselves and those we're killing. Navy ships fire cruise missiles from total safety hundreds of miles out to sea. Planes drop bombs from 30,000 above. Cannons lob shells at targets miles away. Tank commanders pull the trigger from inside a totally bulletproof war machine. Even foot soldiers keep maximum distance while shooting at the enemy.

Want proof I'm right? Watch the final battle scene from Saving Private Ryan. In 30 minutes of film, all of which is routinely bloody, there's only one scene which regularly gets my heart beating hard and me holding my breath: the scene where the Brooklyn Jew and the Nazi are wrestling each other with the knife. Instinctively, our mind understands the difference between shooting at people a hundred yards away and wrestling with your opponent face-to-face. Both may well be terrifying, but only one activates the primal responses in the depths of our brains.

Our distant ancestors fought saber-tooth tigers, giant bears, and woolly mammoths for survival (for any born-again Christians who are reading, your ancestors also battled T-Rexs, brontosauri, velociraptors, and all manner of deadly thunder lizards because, as the Bible theoritically says, we all lived on the planet at the same time, back when Earth was brand new, about 6000 years ago). And they did it with crude stone spears and wooden clubs. And if humans weren't capable of winning those battles, we wouldn't be here today. We have the physical capacity to square up with animals, we have just lost the mental confidence to do so.

Let me use a concrete example: battling a bull. Having had the opportunity to observe many bulls up close and personal over the years, I can assure you they are dangerous animals. Large, heavy, aggressive, horned, and fully capable of killing you. And yet, on a weekly basis, 120-pound Spanish men in fancy-pants suits go mano a toro equipped with little else but a tablecloth and a number of swords, and walk out unscathed. It can be done. And, to steal a line from Anthony Hopkins, what one man can do, another can do.

Let me use another example: battling a wolf. Wolves are scary, and may have killed one or more of your ancestors back in the day. But battling a wolf would not really be that hard. Here's my advice. I would wear a hockey-style catcher's mask and I'd strap two soccer shin guards to my left arm. Best weapon is a cutlass (a heavy, double-sided sword). The mask protects my face and neck. As the wolf ran at me, I'd crouch slightly and hold my left arm in front of me. 99 times out of 100, the wolf will bite the left arm (protected by shin guards) and start shaking. All I need is to land one good blow with the heavy cutlass, and the wolf is either killed outright or so badly hurt that the coup de grace will be easy to land.

So, take some time and ponder the question. What's the most vicious animal you'd fight, and how would you do it? So far, the only animals I've ruled out are the big cats (lion, tiger, etc.), bears, and huge African herbivores (elephants, hippos, rhinos). Other than those, I think I could devise a way to kill any of God's other creatures. Which is only reasonable, because humans are the pinnacle predator on this planet.

Landlords are tough

This makes me glad I am a homeowner.

Libby: Prisoner No More

Bush just commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby. Brief details are here.

Yes, dear readers. He really is that stupid, and he really is that hypocritical. Is he going to blame it on activist judges? Terrorism? Border security? The lack of social security reform? I guess we'll have to wait for the official statement.

I can't wait to see the McLaughlin Group this Sunday. When Libby was sentenced, all four panelists agreed (for once) that there would be no commuting of the sentence, unless it was a Christmas gift after the 2008 presidential election.

This just proves yet again who really runs the White House:


Stay tuned...

Your little American flags you put in your lawn this time of year don't make you patriotic

On the block where I live, there is a family that puts up little American flags in their lawn during this time of year. This is the same neighbor that drives a Mercedes with a Bush/Cheney sticker from 2000 on the back. People who put flags in their yard to show their patriotism for 7 days a year are missing the point. If you do this, you probably like Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" song, and think that because you know all the words, you're a patriot.

You want to do something that's actually patriotic? How about volunteering for the military and going over to Iraq to fight with the troops? How about campaigning for health care reforms, better education, and cheap prescription drugs so that your country men and women don't have to drive into Canada to get heart medication.

Why not do something actually patriotic, like standing up for poor people in your community? They are Americans too, they just don't have as much money as you do, so they can't buy 50 little American flags to put in their yard. Quit thinking that because you did something symbolic the last time you were at the Home Depot, that somehow you're supporting the troops. Buying shit like magnetic ribbons to hang on your car that were made by terrorists isn't helping us get anything done in Iraq any faster.

This 4th of July, if you're one of the real patriots who is actually doing something to make this country better, whether that's fighting in Iraq or working with underprivlaged kids here at home, I salute you. If you're like my neighbor down the street with his little American flags and pseudo-patriotism, kiss my ass.

footage from 'John Rambo'

Just another example of why the terrorists hate us...



Again, thanks to Viking for the link.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

This really bugs me. How did this case make it all the way to the Supreme Court? If you're in a public high school, and you make a banner speaking out against Christianity, why would you muddy the message by including a drug reference? Maybe he'd have actually won his case if it said 'Military Occupations 4 Jesus.' Or he could've just hung a banner of this:



There! No sending a mixed message, because the last time I checked, Snickers were legal for high school students to consume. However, please let me know if times have changed since the early 90's.

Also, how did Kenneth Starr become involved in this case? Was the kid wearing a blue dress? Did he mention a blow job? Held up The Shocker?

Your State Sucks News Trifecta

Residents of California (whether we're "from" here or not) are used to getting shit for the "freaky" stuff our state and the people in it do. Well, the last 24-hour news cycle proves that California has no monopoly on absolute stupidity.

Dateline: District of Columbia

When defending his refusal to turn over certain records to the National Archives, in violation of an Executive Order, Vice President of these great United States Dick Cheney stated that the Office of the Vice President is "not an entity within the Executive Branch." Now, I wasn't paying attention every single day in 5th grade, but if memory serves, there are 3 branches of the federal government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. The Legislative Branch, sometimes called Congress, can be identified by the fact that each member is directly elected by you, the voting populace (offer not valid in Ohio, where some are elected by DieBold). When you elect a congressman, he doesn't get to bring another congressman of his choosing along with him (or, to more closely parallel the current Bush/Cheney/election analogy, when you actually don't elect him, but his brother rigs the election, he doesn't get to bring another congressman of his choosing along with him). So, Cheney can't be a member of the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch can be identified by the fact that some are noted jurists of national renoun, and the rest are staunchly anti-abortion, and all were nominated for one of these two reasons (but no single Court member has both characteristics). While Cheney certainly can be characterized as staunchly anti-abortion, there's one more catch: as much as the current President may hate it, members of the Judicial Branch must be confirmed by Congress. And I, for one, don't remember any Cheney confirmation hearings. And I think I would have noticed. So, given that he's not a member of the Judicial Branch, nor the Legislative Branch, and apparently doesn't believe himself to be a member of the Executive Branch, where exactly does Cheney fall? The Dick Branch? Oh, and just remember: all of this would be HILARIOUS, except these people are actually running the country, and don't seem to be kidding.

Dateline: Lincoln, Nebraska

In the upcoming second trial of Pamir Safi for the alleged rape of Tory Bowen, Nebraska judge Jeffre Cheuvront has ruled that none of the witnesses (I assume this primarily means the prosecution's witnesses) can use the word "rape" when referring to the sexual contact between Safi and Bowen. The witnesses are also barred from using the terms "victim," "sexual assault," "assailant," and "rape kit." The court reasoned that referring to the sexual contact at issue as "rape" infringed on the jury's role, because it was the jury who would decide whether it was rape or not. Safi's first trial deadlocked, with jurors unable to reach a decision. In advance of the second trial, the prosecution countered the judge's ruling by asking the court to bar the words "sex" and "intercourse" based on the same rationale: if Bowen couldn't call the sexual contact "rape," it was unfair for Safi to call it "sex." The court, for reasons that will remain known only to the judge, denied this motion. Therefore, for the second time, Bowen will be required to testify about the alleged assault using only the words "sex" and "intercourse," despite her (strongly-held) belief that neither word is proper. Part of the job of lawyer is, of course, word-smith. The radical feminist literary critique posited that, since we think in language (i.e., our thoughts are not binary, but display across our mind as words), language shapes thought, which in turn shapes perception, behavior, and society. We cannot say "Chairman," because the word leads us to believe it is a position which can be held only by men. Why, you need look no further than the tenures of Carly Fiornia and Patricia Dunn as HP's Chairmen to see that women can do a double-plus good job of running companies. Thus, if we accept this notion as at least partially true, that the language we use to describe the world around us subtlely affects how we actually percieve the world, it would stand to reason that after a trial wherein everyone referred to the sexual encounter as "sex," it would be hard for a jury of good-ol-boy Nebraska farmers to conclude it was actually "rape." Aren't they polar opposites? If someone came into the courtroom before the jury got there and took a crap on the judge's bench, but everyone was required to refer to it as a "candy bar" during the trial, wouldn't the jury be justified in assuming that the brown log was indeed a delicious confection? And, more to the point, don't we elect judges with the intent that they import at least a little common sense into their courtrooms?

Dateline: Texas

In a display of good ol' fashioned Texas justice, a mob beat to death the passenger in a car which hit a child during Juneteenth fest. The child, notably, suffered entirely minor injuries. The crowd, however, was intent on beating the driver to death for his mortal sin of bad driving (which ain't hardly nobody in Texas does nohow). The passenger had the unforgivable temerity to object, and caused enough of a stir that the driver got away. The crowd, thus apparently denied their special brand of Texas justice, decided that, having gotten all riled up, they were definitely going to kill someone, and thus they beat the passenger to death.

Welcome to Texas!

The love of heavy metal is now a 'disability'?

Well, I probably shouldn't be posting this, cuz it'll just give RedneckLaw more room to rant against my favorite kind of music. However, I'm a good sport, and plus, I can't help it. This one is just too weird.

Apparently, someone in Sweden got his love of heavy metal officially stated as a 'disability,' and is going to receive sick benefits. It took him ten years to get this classification, but he finally succeeded. He used to skip work on a regular basis to go to concerts, and now he'll be able to, as long as he makes up the time later on. He also gets to wear whatever clothes he wants to work, and can listen to his music as loud as he wants while he works (as long as it doesn't offend customers).

I could take this one in a few different directions, but I'll keep it simple. All I want to know is, when are we going to get that federally-funded health care system here in the states, so I can get better parking spots when I go to Target?



Again, big ups to 'Viking' for sending me the link.

Travelling for work

These guys mean business

June is a great time of year to be in Omaha. The weather is great. The College World Series starts today, which means that the office is a much more relaxed and enjoyable place to be, since all of the bosses are supervisors are busy drinking wine coolers in their skybox seats at Rosenblatt Stadium. And that annoying bitch from Human Resources that won't call Cheap Trick back about a job is out on vacation. Now would actually be an excellent time to be in Omaha.

But, I won't be. As of 3 pm this afternoon, I am heading to Washington, D.C. for work. Normally, I don't mind this type of trip. When Lord Bling travels for work, he gets to find out nifty information. What kind of nifty information? It would be like say getting the set list for Guitar Hero 3 or getting to find out details on Grand Theft Auto 4. Not that information exactly, but certainly on that level.

When I travel for work, it's not nearly that cool. Here is the basic agenda for my trip this weekend to give you an idea:

Friday-
3:00 Flight from Omaha to D.C. - At least there is a direct flight. Omaha is close enough to everywhere in the U.S. to have a direct flight, but because of how airlines operate, this is a rare exception. Usually, I'm catching the connection out of Moose Jaw, Minnesota.
6:00 - Arrive in DC - Find place to eat dinner and drink beer. 7:00 -Ride Metro to hotel. Figure out how to hack hotel conference center free WiFi signal by chumming up with participants in Black Promise Keepers conference in hotel bar and getting conference password.

Saturday -
8:00 am - 8:00 pm - Meeting -
Sunday
8:00 am - 8:00 pm - Meeting -
Monday
See a pattern here?

While my friends are enjoying the best college baseball has to offer, I will be in a meeting. I'm glad that the CWS is 10 days long, as I might have a chance to catch some CWS madness when I return.

Deftones and the 3 for 1 rule

For a long time, the Deftones have been a favorite band on mine. Their hard, but melodic sound is unique. I was pretty excited when I heard that Chino and the gang were coming back to Omaha for a show at a great venue, Sokol Auditorium on Thursday night. Unfortunately, I won't be there, but not because it sold out or because I am trying to get caught up on last season's re-runs of Grays Anatomy.

No, the Deftones want to charge $40 for a ticket to see them. I've paid a lot more money to see a lot shittier bands, but I have a hard time shelling out $40 to see the Deftones. And it's all because of the 3 for 1 rule. Pay attention and you will learn how this rule works. Because it is one of the unbreakable rules of the universe and holds together the very fabric of space and time, I defy you to find an exception to said rule.

The 3 for 1 rule is simple: An individual will not pay as much or more for a single concert as they did to see the same band 3 times previously. The problem is that I've seen the Deftones 4-5 times, and each time was around $10-$15. When you calculate in the anal rape that Ticketmaster calls a "service fee" these days, I probably have spent roughly the same amount seeing every previous Deftones show as I would to see them Thursday.

I recently had the pleasure of shelling out $60 to see another great band, Tool. Why did I pay more to see Tool? Because I previously paid around $30-$40 to see Tool, and therefore had no problem paying $60 to see Tool again, as it did not violate the 3 for 1 rule. I have tickets to see Less than Jake and Reel Big Fish in August for $20. Despite the fact that I have seen both of theses bands for under $10, the fact that they are playing together means that the $20 ticket charge does not violate the 3 for 1 rule.

Doesn't that make perfect sense?

New Pig Destroyer album out on Tuesday!

Well, I'm excited. The new Pig Destroyer album is out tomorrow. They're one of the few bands that I will run out and buy whatever they release as soon as possible. I also know that I'm the only frequenter of this website who likes this band. However, I thought some of you would get a kick out of this video I found on YouTube tonight...



If PD were on the soundtrack, that's the only way you'd ever catch me watching that movie.

P.S. It's not heavy by any means, but you all should check out the new one from Clutch, called 'From Beale Street to Oblivion' (a video for their first single from it is here). They've really gotten into a bluesy vibe, complete with a full-time Hammond organ, and harmonica. But they still rock it out.

Sarah Silverman on Paris Hilton

Dey dook ur jahbs!

So it looks like the immigration bill is all but dead in the Senate (link is here). And then I see THIS story. No blacks in the MLB in 10 years?


While we're at it, I guess we could just slap Twins and Yankee jerseys on these guys:



And before Miles asks, this post is completely unrelated to the fact that a Mexican stole my PSP while I was on vacation last weekend...

I R in U Safway, Fukin up U order!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Insider

Those of you who read this website frequently know that we at Ryan the Angry Midget and Friends have very high journalistic standards and integrity. We don't display either of those traits in what we write here, but pretty much the only people who actually read this website are friends or relatives, and they have known us all long enough to see these traits in us. Buying that? If so, I've got some money in a bank account in Nigeria and I need you to send me your money to get it out.

Earlier today, one of the contributors to this site posted some sensitive material related to his work on the website. It's a long story, but it's related to a different website that's only legal in Arkansas because the acts displayed on said website involve animals, and he was advised to remove said content.

This was a difficult decision for us to make. Removing content is censorship, but aside from the occasional free drink at a local watering hole, we don't make money because of this website, so we all need to keep our jobs. We had a very tense meeting that can be dramatized by the following picture:


Those of you who read the blog as it is updated got some inside information. The rest of you, I apologize for removing the post at the request of the author.