Thursday, July 19, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
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.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
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?
Saturday, July 07, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Monday, July 02, 2007
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...
Sunday, July 01, 2007
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.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
footage from 'John Rambo'
Just another example of why the terrorists hate us...
Again, thanks to Viking for the link.
Again, thanks to Viking for the link.
Monday, June 25, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
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!
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!
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 15, 2007
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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Friday, June 08, 2007
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...
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...
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
I need a vacation.
Seriously. My vacation this week couldn't have come at a better time. My dad is taking his girlfriend to Cancun for her birthday, and I'm gonna meet them there for a few days. Lying on a beach, doing absolutely nothing, is EXACTLY what I need right now. I'll return next weekend and post a few pictures, and most of them will not include farm animals and very loose women.
I'm still waiting to hear about my truck. There is a dispute as to whose fault the accident was, but although the police report says it was my fault, we have a really good case against it, as there are no lines on the road, nor are there any signs, to indicate that there are two lanes. It will probably end up in arbitration, so I should know more in a few weeks. I hope to find out pretty soon if my truck is totaled or not. However, I've been ready to make a vehicle change for a while now, and this got me off my ass and out shopping. I bought a 2004 Volkswagen Passat on Memorial Day:
I bought it at a VW dealership, and it's certified by VW, so it comes with an automatic 2-year, 24,000 mile warranty. It's roomy, has leather interior, and has power everything except the seats, which is no big deal to me. I was determined to buy a convertible (I test drove an '03 Audi A4 last Friday), but common sense won out this weekend. It wasn't worth the extra money right now, and the sunroof comes pretty close to making up for it.
My goal right now is to not be in a Mexican prison when the first payment is due. Wish me luck...
I'm still waiting to hear about my truck. There is a dispute as to whose fault the accident was, but although the police report says it was my fault, we have a really good case against it, as there are no lines on the road, nor are there any signs, to indicate that there are two lanes. It will probably end up in arbitration, so I should know more in a few weeks. I hope to find out pretty soon if my truck is totaled or not. However, I've been ready to make a vehicle change for a while now, and this got me off my ass and out shopping. I bought a 2004 Volkswagen Passat on Memorial Day:
I bought it at a VW dealership, and it's certified by VW, so it comes with an automatic 2-year, 24,000 mile warranty. It's roomy, has leather interior, and has power everything except the seats, which is no big deal to me. I was determined to buy a convertible (I test drove an '03 Audi A4 last Friday), but common sense won out this weekend. It wasn't worth the extra money right now, and the sunroof comes pretty close to making up for it.
My goal right now is to not be in a Mexican prison when the first payment is due. Wish me luck...
Friday, May 25, 2007
Josh Hancock and the blame game
Definitely don't drive after one of theseIn the aftermath of pitcher Josh Hancock's death, his family filed a lawsuit against essentially every person who was alive in Illinois or Missouri the night of his fatal car accident. Autopsy toxicology reports revealed that Hancock was two times over the legal limit when he plowed his SUV into a tow truck that had stopped on the left side of the road to assist a motorist.
Among the people being sued are the bar that overseved Hancock, the tow truck driver, the driver of the broken down vehicle and the tow truck company. More defendants may be added later.
What really gets me about this is how it relates to the issue of overserving. At some point, adult people have to take responsibility for how much they drink. If you want to get technical about it, any restaurant or bar shouldn't serve anyone more than two drinks, since that puts a good portion of the population at or near the legal limit. Instead, Hancock's family is blaming everyone except who they should be blaming: Josh Hancock.
People have made attempts to blame the clubhouse culture in baseball in general, and the St. Louis Cardinals in particular for allowing drinking in the clubhouse, and not noticing that this guy needed help.
Our culture is the one to blame. One of the most popular and least effective programs to quit drinking, AA, begins with the alcoholic admitting they are powerless to control their disease. This perception that alcoholics are not capable of making sound decisions is lame. We blame drug users, people with AIDs, children of the poor, minorities, immigrants for things that they actually cannot control, but when it comes to alcoholics, we throw a huge pity party because they can't stop drinking.
We can debate whether or not alcoholism is a disease or not, but if you believe it is, the alcoholic is still to blame is many cases for not seeking treatment. You want to say it's a disease? Fine. But, then would you feel sorry for someone with AIDs who didn't get any treatment? That person would be vilified. Time and time again when alcoholics fail to complete treatment or relapse, we blame the disease.
That lack of accountability is what killed Josh Hancock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
