Monday, September 21, 2009

Why I Worry About My 1-1 Raiders

I'm pretty jazzed about my Raiders win over the Chiefs yesterday, but I have some issues. Like this one from CBS:

Raiders coach Tom Cable on whether there’s a common theme to QB JaMarcus Russell’s erratic passing. “No, there’s not. That’s the real issue here, just finding out why those things are going on."

Hmm, well, that's a nice, direct answer. But I think he could have better answered it this way:

"Russell is a great kid, I really like him as a person. And admittedly, today was particularly tough for JaMar. I mean 7 for 24 and 109 yards is really, well, my son has better stats in the 10-12 year old division of Pop Warner. This was the same defense that Ravens' QB Joe Flacco torched for 350+ yards and 3 TDs last week, and he was the #18 pick in the draft, not the #1 like Russell. And he went to the University of Delaware, for God's sake.

Anyway, there are a lot reasons for his erratic throws. He locks in on receivers and, in turn, defensive backs lock in on him. What happens? Picksville. Then he forces the ball into traffic and—swat!—there's another pass defended. He holds onto the ball too long. He can't throw on the run, which is really weird for a QB from LSU. He thinks "going through his progressions" means trying different varieties of Progresso soups. And checking down to his backs? Jesus Christ, I know Darren McFadden is a small-ish back, but hell, JaMar is like 6'4" why the hell he can't find him is a mystery. But what am I supposed to do? I can't dumb down the offense to the Special Olympics level. So the whole erratic throwing thing really isn't a surprise to anyone paying attention—which clearly you aren't, reporter man.

Oh, and did I mention Al Davis drafted him because he can huck the ball 70 yards, but he can't hit a 15 yard down and out? Fuck, I really wish I could start Jeff Garcia, but we shipped him to Philly just before the season started. So there's question, please."

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Chicks Don't Dig Foul Balls*

Especially 3 or 4 year olds.

Great reaction by Dad!

*For anyone paying attention, yes, I stole that from my FB post. Self-plagarizing is not a crime.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009


I thought videos and MTV Video Awards died a number of years ago. Good thing they didn't or nobody would know what a classless cockring Kayne West truly is.

Classy move by Beyonce to bring up Taylor Swift (whoever the hell she is) to perform with her afterward the incident.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

I'm a Birther and a Racist

At least according to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen I am.


Because I'm oppose HR 3200 and the president's relentless attempts to shove it down our throats.

Mr. Cohen thinks he's free to wonder—no, premitted to wonder, in his words—that "if some of Obama’s more hateful critics are not expressing a repressed bigotry -- the feeling that the man up on the dais cannot really be the president of the United States. After all, he does not look like one."

Wait, how do you go from does one come to the conclusion, when you rudely yell "you lie!" and that makes you a....

Aw, screw it. I'm a birther and a racist, I guess.

But at least I'm not fucking nuts....

"You Lie!" And The Lying Liars Who Don't Want to be Called Out About Lying (Or, "You Call That Civil Discourse?")

Disrespectful. Uncivil. Rude. Lacking grace and dignity.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouting "You lie!" during President Obama's speech was all those things. (I was listening to the speech on the way home last night when I heard it and thought, 'Did I just hear that right?'.) Naturally, The Shout Heard 'Round The Country is plastered all over the main pages of media outlets. Columnists and pundits are all in a twitter and waggling their knowing fingers at Republicans.

It all makes me chuckle, really. I feel like channeling the guard from "Cool Hand Luke":

"What we've got here is...failure to remember."

Like when House Minority leader (at the time) Sen. Harry Reid calling President Bush a "loser" and a "liar" to high school kids.

Or when the late St. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-forever-Mass.) accused President Bush of being a liar by “telling lie, after lie, after lie”, in order to go to war in Iraq.

Or when President Obama misrepresented the oppostion last night calling them liars regarding "death panels", health insurance to illegals and use of federal dollars to fund abortions, when he himself is not fully disclosing that there are some truths to those claims*. So he is a liar for calling them liars.

But I think one of the more amusing responses in all this came from House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Queen of San Francisco, CA). Stories and columns today noted that Pelosi looked "visibly stunned" by Wilson's "You lie!"

She was quoted in the New York Times as follows:

Asked if she had considered gaveling Mr. Wilson out of order, she said: “No. Well, the — if he had continued. But the sergeant-at-arms — you know, the parliamentarian passed me a piece of paper that said what the options were, and I said we’re just going to move on.”

Well of course she wanted to move on—lest anyone else in the Chamber call her out on national TV for her baldfaced lies claiming she was never briefed on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques back in 2002. (Thanks to AG Holder for pulling off the "Triple Ooopsy!" by releasing the EIT documents that a.) prove Pelosi's a liar; b.) undermine CIA agents and future intel gathering operations and; c.) EITs actually do work.)

And where were the stories and columns and calls for apologies on those equally disrespectful and unprofessional remarks?

If you're hearing crickets and tumbleweeds in the Land of Double Standard you're not alone.

Look, no doubt Joe Wilson was way, way, way out of line and disrespectful last night. He's since apologized, and Obama has graciously accepted it.

But before the calls go out for Wilson's resignation—because you know that can't be far away—the feigned indignation over the demise of civil discourse in this country and double standards should be checked at the door.

*This is not to say that those who make such dubious claims regarding "death panels" aren't exaggerating or using hyperbole; they are. But those are discussions for another time.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

I Still Have Much Love for My Liberal Friends

But geez, when did they start drinking the rhetorical Kool-Aid by the vat?

This is all over Facebook today:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

Wow. Just wow. The first sentence is demonstrably false, misleading and deceitful that it would be laughable...if so many people weren't posting it on their Walls today.

Which begs a bigger question: In general, when did liberals, who've told us for years to "question authority" and "don't trust the government" or "don't trust anyone over 30", all of sudden find faith in the federal government to run a massively complex health care program, the very same federal government that can barely manage public education, and put decisions about their health care into the hands of bureaucrats? Really?

Moreover, do they just not have the time to investigate the matter? Are they just not that interested? Or are they just trying to be 'right' side of the issue with their friends? Do they not see the slow loss of their personal liberties? I honestly don't know how anyone who has read any critical and objective analysis—or, my God, simply seen the Congressional Budget Office report on the price tag of HR 3200—can feel good about or right in supporting such a poorly constructed and concevied piece of legislation. (And that doesn't even account for the poorly constructed arguments and misrepresentation and poor examples presented by President Obama on why the public should support it.)

Look, these friends are really, really smart people; many of whom I find to be truly incredible people who are much, much smarter than I am on numerous issues.

But I am absolutely, 100% Grade A perplexed by their willfull blindness to accept HR 3200 in any way, shape or form.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

I Read Stupid People (And Their Ignorant Slams on Religion Bumper Stickers)

The anti-religious bumper stickers always tickle my funny bone. I think that's mostly because the people who place them on their vehicles would sooner worship politicians (hint, hint: guess who?) than be caught worshipping an entity they can neither touch or see. What I find belly-jiggling is that they find it all too convenient to use religious symbols or figures or psalms in order to express an opinion about an issue.

For example, in order to chastise and waggle a knowing finger at all religions, there's the "Coexist" bumper sticker:

Clever on the surface, but ultimately ignorant and graphically retarded.

The designer just shrugged their shoulders and thought, 'Ah, who cares if the peace and man/woman symbols aren't really religions symbols, it works in the graphic. Besides I'm too lazy to look up other religious symbols that might make a better 'O' and 'E.' I can still use the Christian cross, the Jewish star and the Islamic moon and star in the same word and still make my point! Whatever that is...'

And is the point of this bumper sticker?

Aside from the graphical inaccuracies, there's the greater inconvenience in acknowledging the fact that it's incredibly ignorant of current events. See, nearly every major and current conflict or war in the world was started by—you guessed it—Islamists.

Lest you think I'm full of Shiite, here's a quick recap of current conflicts: Sudan? Islam. Chechnya? Islam. Afghanistan? Islam. Pakistan? Islam. Palestine? Islam. Lebanon? Islam. Iraq? Islam. (Yes, that may be over-simplifying or glossing over Israeli aggression in some instances, but this is a matter of 'original sin' in starting said conflict.)

Now, take some time and cite a current modern conflict started by Christians, Jews or Buddhists. Go on, no hurry. I'll wait.

Still thinking, huh?

That's cool, get back to me when you think of one.

So who's really not 'coexisting' with whom, Mr. Oh-So-Smart-Religion-Hating Graphic Designer?

How about leaving on the Moon and Star for the 'C' and using regular fonts for the rest of the word? Then a point would be made.

Here's another favorite:

Cute, huh? See how the writer used Jesus to point out Christian hypocrisy in supporting wars, insinuating that we should 'love our enemies'? I actually think this one makes a good point in that regard: As followers of a peaceful and loving God, war should be the last option.

Here's the deal, however: While I don't profess to know what Jesus may or may not think on the matter of war, I get the feeling Jesus would have a darn hard time 'turning the other cheek' or letting his beard be plucked' or 'loving the enemy' if he knew millions or thousands of people were being massacred and buried in mass graves like the Jews in WWII. Or in the killing fields of Cambodia. Or in Saddam's deserts. Or if humanity itself were threatened by any entity other Jesus' dad, dear old God.

Who knows, Jesus might even admire the extreme accuracy of modern weaponry in targeting the bad guys of today. (Of course, some of those cowardly fucks like to use women and children to hide behind posing a gut-wrenching dilemma even Jesus might have trouble dealing with.)

Finally, there's this one I saw in the parking lot at work (sorry, no picture):

"If religious groups want to be in politics, they should pay taxes."

Hmm, does that go for all nonprofit groups—like, say, the Sierra Club? Or the Nature Conservancy? Or Or just pick your favorite liberal nonprofit group that's heavily involved in lobbying for their interests. Should they pay taxes too? I'm thinking 'no' here. We just want those meddling Christians to pay! Bastards!

I think the final chuckle I get from all these is this: Professed and alleged tolerant and liberal people have no problem whatsoever openly expressing their intolerance and ignorance.

And in other news, water is wet.