I got to thinking today that, for all intents and purposes, today's GOP is still fighting the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It makes me wonder, if WWII had not occurred, might they have stopped him via politics or assassination and brought us to an oligarchy back in the late 30's?
Remember- a group of wealthy men conspired to take over the country in 1934. They made the mistake of assuming General Smedley Butler, USMC, would lead the troops in a coup. He declined and he went public with their plot. There was an investigation but the conclusion was that it had been a lot of loose talk which probably means that, there just wasn't enough evidence to go to trial or take these guys out back to shoot...because they didn't get that far. Butler was a two-time Medal Of Honor recipient and the sort of military man who, respected by all the others in the ranks, probably could have pulled off a coup. This was at a time when the country was deep into The Great Depression. The Mr. Potter's of the day were opportunists and very fearful of the Tom Joad's of the day. Communism frightened them. Along comes President FDR and his calm, social programs to deal with the economic despair and you can see why the old men Potter's were pissed. They were poised to take over. FDR stood in their way.
This country didn't truly achieve "greatness" until after WWII. We saved the world. I wonder though, if WWII had not transpired, would the world have saved us? Would the world have survived us?
We had a great run here post WWII up until the late 70's or so. Let's face it- the Leave It To Beaver era (my childhood) was what defined us as we want to be defined today. It's what the republicans say they want back, when you get them to waxing about "...the good ol' days..." Except that you are thinking of neat suburban lawns and kids on bikes with baseball cards in the spokes, pedaling off to play baseball and they are only thinking of the absence of blacks. The republicans, the ones in charge at least, know that America can't go back to that time- not even get close- with anyone they currently have on their roster. How ironic that our last great, republican president, Dwight Eisenhower presided over that period of a 90% tax rate on our nation's wealthiest and all that strong, union saturated prosperity, and Ike wouldn't get the time of day from the GOP of today.
You see, capitalism as we know it to have been, was only a success when it was blended with socialism. We took care of business and business took care of us. The American Dream was actually pretty much open to anyone, more or less. They took away the more and it's less now. Capitalism only worked because of the inclusion of social programs. The world has always been sodomizing poor people but never like capitalism as practiced in a republic. We're so...civilized about it now. We can legislate it and make a lot of people think it's a good idea and that it was really their idea, all along. Some even think it's what Jesus would do. Not what he would have done- what he would do. Big difference.
In 1955 the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour. Seemingly not a lot but, it was enough to live on. In 1956 it went to $1 and I am pretty sure republicans screamed unholy Hell and that it would destroy the country. I know this because they have screamed the same thing every time it came up in the 60 years since and, come to think of it, since the inception of the minimum in 1938. In 77 years the wage has risen from 25 cents to $7.25. Compare that to the price of anything and, if you have active brain cells, you know it hasn't kept pace. Yet republicans not only balk at raising it at all, they want to eliminate it. Forget "The Fight For $15", they don't think the nation can afford $7.25. I guess that 25 cents an hour looks good- if that's what the free market dictates, that is. It was good enough for your grandfather- even though it was "too much" then...
I don't know that I can say that the greed is unprecedented. Certainly it's never been done on this scale before. I think we are poised to be a 3rd world country. What else could the elimination of a minimum wage and social services bring? The GOP is telling us that we can't afford to be America anymore. They are also offering less and telling us, it will somehow lead to more? The only thing cheap these days seems to people talk. But, having said that, the paid windbags in Washington and on TV are costing most of us all that we ever dreamed.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Spankability!
It's the best kind of ability to have- according to some bloggers. But, at what point does a woman lose her spankability? Watch and see:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/a30bcg/inside-amy-schumer-last-f--kable-day---uncensored
I like Amy Schumer a lot. Like any comedian, she's an acquired taste. Much of her stand-up is: "I'm so fat" and "I'm such a slut!" that you might want to write her off as a somewhat funny, fat, slut. You'd be wrong to do that. Stand-up comedy is the road some have to travel to get the TV series or the movie deal. Look at Jerry Seinfeld. He's remembered for being in one of the best TV shows ever, far more than for the stand-up career that got him there. As soon as I saw Amy on her show "Inside Amy Schumer" I knew she had acting talent. I'm not sure if she has writing credit on the above but, if so, she's good at that too.
Julia Louis Dreyfus is the oldest in that clip, at 54. She's got some spankability. I recall not thinking much of her talents when she was on SNL in the 80's. However, she killed as Elaine on Seinfeld and as Christine on her own show, "The New Adventures Of Old Christine". I don't have Showtime so I haven't seen "Veep" but, I hear she's quite good on that. No doubt. Tina Fey's spankability is pretty damn obvious and she's a damn fine writer and actress. I'm honestly not very familiar with Patricia Arquette though. She's got a new CSI show and quit watching those in the 20th century. Most crimes are solved by beating confessions out of people who fit the profile. Forget that magical scientific crap. Save that for people who aren't smart enough to realize that- DUH- it's cold in winter and hot in summer!
Spankability, is a relative term. I believe that it's in the eye of the beholder. I'd be holding any of the aforementioned bottoms if given the opportunity. My handsomness has changed over the years and I accept that. Women should accept that their beauty has changed as well. That's life. It might not be fair, but the alternative is death or the insanity of plastic surgery.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/a30bcg/inside-amy-schumer-last-f--kable-day---uncensored
I like Amy Schumer a lot. Like any comedian, she's an acquired taste. Much of her stand-up is: "I'm so fat" and "I'm such a slut!" that you might want to write her off as a somewhat funny, fat, slut. You'd be wrong to do that. Stand-up comedy is the road some have to travel to get the TV series or the movie deal. Look at Jerry Seinfeld. He's remembered for being in one of the best TV shows ever, far more than for the stand-up career that got him there. As soon as I saw Amy on her show "Inside Amy Schumer" I knew she had acting talent. I'm not sure if she has writing credit on the above but, if so, she's good at that too.
Julia Louis Dreyfus is the oldest in that clip, at 54. She's got some spankability. I recall not thinking much of her talents when she was on SNL in the 80's. However, she killed as Elaine on Seinfeld and as Christine on her own show, "The New Adventures Of Old Christine". I don't have Showtime so I haven't seen "Veep" but, I hear she's quite good on that. No doubt. Tina Fey's spankability is pretty damn obvious and she's a damn fine writer and actress. I'm honestly not very familiar with Patricia Arquette though. She's got a new CSI show and quit watching those in the 20th century. Most crimes are solved by beating confessions out of people who fit the profile. Forget that magical scientific crap. Save that for people who aren't smart enough to realize that- DUH- it's cold in winter and hot in summer!
Spankability, is a relative term. I believe that it's in the eye of the beholder. I'd be holding any of the aforementioned bottoms if given the opportunity. My handsomness has changed over the years and I accept that. Women should accept that their beauty has changed as well. That's life. It might not be fair, but the alternative is death or the insanity of plastic surgery.
Monday, April 20, 2015
More Bad Girls!
Well, another Spankable-American is in the news for bad behavior. This one, Michelle Manhart, wrestled an American flag that she felt was being desecrated by some African-American protesters at Valdosta State University, in Georgia. Michelle, 38, had previously gained some notoriety for posing for Playboy in '07, while she was a sergeant in the Air Force. She got demoted for that and left the service a short time later.
While it's nice to see her using her spankability for the purpose of good rather than evil, taking other people's belongings is still often seen as "a bad thing" in the US. The protesters were encouraging folks to walk on the US flag which, though it is not proper use of the flag, is not illegal. That's according to the US Supreme Court, the second highest court in the land, after the Court Of Public Opinion.
Though four cops wrestled her to the ground, she wasn't actually arrested, just detained. As far as theft goes there really wasn't a lot to charge her with considering the circumstances. Someone had made a point of calling her to alert her to the protest and that kinda raised a red flag with me. I wondered if she wasn't looking to get a little publicity. Given her looks and military background, perhaps she's angling for a job at FOX. They're not all blonde there. In fact, how do we really know any of them are blonde? Investigation for another day, I guess.
Another Spankable- American in the news is Rebecca Francis, a mom of 8(!?) a a hunter of sorts, from Wyoming. Comedian Ricky Gervais tweeted a pic of her lying down, smiling, next to a giraffe she killed. What kind of a c-word kills a giraffe? What possible skill could be involved in a c-word hunting a huge animal that eats leaves instead of people? Of all the alleged sport hunting that c-words of all genders do, there can't be a *good* reason for murdering a giraffe, you fucking c-word. Or zebras. Whatta dick.
Here, BTW, is Michelle in her glory with Old Glory when she felt a little less stringent about proper flag etiquette:
http://www.gafollowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/83leic8200xq280e.jpg
While it's nice to see her using her spankability for the purpose of good rather than evil, taking other people's belongings is still often seen as "a bad thing" in the US. The protesters were encouraging folks to walk on the US flag which, though it is not proper use of the flag, is not illegal. That's according to the US Supreme Court, the second highest court in the land, after the Court Of Public Opinion.
Though four cops wrestled her to the ground, she wasn't actually arrested, just detained. As far as theft goes there really wasn't a lot to charge her with considering the circumstances. Someone had made a point of calling her to alert her to the protest and that kinda raised a red flag with me. I wondered if she wasn't looking to get a little publicity. Given her looks and military background, perhaps she's angling for a job at FOX. They're not all blonde there. In fact, how do we really know any of them are blonde? Investigation for another day, I guess.
Another Spankable- American in the news is Rebecca Francis, a mom of 8(!?) a a hunter of sorts, from Wyoming. Comedian Ricky Gervais tweeted a pic of her lying down, smiling, next to a giraffe she killed. What kind of a c-word kills a giraffe? What possible skill could be involved in a c-word hunting a huge animal that eats leaves instead of people? Of all the alleged sport hunting that c-words of all genders do, there can't be a *good* reason for murdering a giraffe, you fucking c-word. Or zebras. Whatta dick.
Here, BTW, is Michelle in her glory with Old Glory when she felt a little less stringent about proper flag etiquette:
http://www.gafollowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/83leic8200xq280e.jpg
Friday, April 17, 2015
Toe Zone
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/17/400329400/espn-suspends-reporter-over-rant-recorded-by-towing-company?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150417
YIKES! Way to make a tow company(!!!) look sympathetic. Did anyone think that were possible? In the same week they go from the bad press of attempting to tow a car with children in it (???!!!!!!) to this.
Frankly, I like the dirty talk from a woman. Britt McHenry can talk dirty to me just about anytime, anywhere but- that's me. Others might not think she's protected under the ASA (Americans with Spankability Act) I'd be a willing participant and match the foul-mouthed little whore word for dirty word. That's slut-shaming and a story for another day. Suffice for now to say that it belongs in the bedroom or any other mutually agreed upon venue.
In the real world though, it's not right. The unseen female clerk in the video is just a Nazi doing her job and not the tow truck driver who actually hooked Britt's car. She did not deserve the abuse. We don't see her but, I bet she's not as attractive as Britt. Perhaps only a million or two women are. To be fair to Britt, we only so far get to see the video that the tow company is willing to show, so we might not be getting the whole story. Perhaps the clerk baited her? No one in the history of the world has been happy about paying a ransom to get their car back so everyone enters that trailer at least a little cranky. I'm going to venture that a person in that profession might be a little thick skinned. And, no, I'm not trying to say she's fat....
Personally I have never been towed. Years ago, however, a carload of us went down to Rush street. We studied the parking sign and though none of us were pre-law, it seemed like we were in the clear to park there. Ya know, we probably were. It doesn't matter in the big city. Do you want your vehicle back? That's all that matters. You pay or you walk. And don't forget the storage fees! That night we all agreed that the space was legit and if the car did get towed, we'd share the fee. I think the fee then was $105. Something like that. It was an odd number and they didn't take credit cards then and they did not make change. You had to have one hundred and five dollars, exfuckingzactly. A hundred and ten and "keep the change" would NOT work. You might as well give them $105 in pennies. They wouldn't accept that either. I'm not kidding. Very anal assholes I'd have to say with little or no irony intended.
So Britt's not winning hearts and minds with her spiel about her spankable exceptionalism. Frankly, I had not heard of her before this. I love sports but I try to keep the love strong by not taking sport's pundits to heart. They are worse than the political pundits on TV. ESPN recently suspended another reporter for disagreeing with Curt Schilling on Twitter(!) vis a vis creationism and evolution. Schilling, who is often shilling for the reichwing.... is a creationist. He's also an employee of ESPN, annoying people on Sunday Night Baseball as the number two color man to John Kruk. Dukeing it out on Twitter with a fellow employee might get you called on the carpet but shouldn't cost one employee a weeks pay. I'm not too sure Britt should be suspended either since her diatribe wasn't work related. But, the message might be that every aspect of our lives is work-related now and that we all must toe the corporate line. And have exact payment.
YIKES! Way to make a tow company(!!!) look sympathetic. Did anyone think that were possible? In the same week they go from the bad press of attempting to tow a car with children in it (???!!!!!!) to this.
Frankly, I like the dirty talk from a woman. Britt McHenry can talk dirty to me just about anytime, anywhere but- that's me. Others might not think she's protected under the ASA (Americans with Spankability Act) I'd be a willing participant and match the foul-mouthed little whore word for dirty word. That's slut-shaming and a story for another day. Suffice for now to say that it belongs in the bedroom or any other mutually agreed upon venue.
In the real world though, it's not right. The unseen female clerk in the video is just a Nazi doing her job and not the tow truck driver who actually hooked Britt's car. She did not deserve the abuse. We don't see her but, I bet she's not as attractive as Britt. Perhaps only a million or two women are. To be fair to Britt, we only so far get to see the video that the tow company is willing to show, so we might not be getting the whole story. Perhaps the clerk baited her? No one in the history of the world has been happy about paying a ransom to get their car back so everyone enters that trailer at least a little cranky. I'm going to venture that a person in that profession might be a little thick skinned. And, no, I'm not trying to say she's fat....
Personally I have never been towed. Years ago, however, a carload of us went down to Rush street. We studied the parking sign and though none of us were pre-law, it seemed like we were in the clear to park there. Ya know, we probably were. It doesn't matter in the big city. Do you want your vehicle back? That's all that matters. You pay or you walk. And don't forget the storage fees! That night we all agreed that the space was legit and if the car did get towed, we'd share the fee. I think the fee then was $105. Something like that. It was an odd number and they didn't take credit cards then and they did not make change. You had to have one hundred and five dollars, exfuckingzactly. A hundred and ten and "keep the change" would NOT work. You might as well give them $105 in pennies. They wouldn't accept that either. I'm not kidding. Very anal assholes I'd have to say with little or no irony intended.
So Britt's not winning hearts and minds with her spiel about her spankable exceptionalism. Frankly, I had not heard of her before this. I love sports but I try to keep the love strong by not taking sport's pundits to heart. They are worse than the political pundits on TV. ESPN recently suspended another reporter for disagreeing with Curt Schilling on Twitter(!) vis a vis creationism and evolution. Schilling, who is often shilling for the reichwing.... is a creationist. He's also an employee of ESPN, annoying people on Sunday Night Baseball as the number two color man to John Kruk. Dukeing it out on Twitter with a fellow employee might get you called on the carpet but shouldn't cost one employee a weeks pay. I'm not too sure Britt should be suspended either since her diatribe wasn't work related. But, the message might be that every aspect of our lives is work-related now and that we all must toe the corporate line. And have exact payment.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Ferrerman Endorses Bush!
Bush is making a comeback. I think this is a good thing. America tried going without bush but, we're ready to welcome bush back.
Dedicated non-readers know that I am, of course, speaking of women's pubic hair rather than George or Jeb. This isn't about dicks, it's about lady business. More precisely the reemergence of said hair. According to an article I read in Salon it's making a comeback. Which article? It doesn't matter as every third Salon article is something about men's or women's naughty bits. This was one of several I've seen on the internet regarding this topic so that in itself tells you it's the real deal. This isn't like coffee is good for you this week but will kill you the next. It's a serious, growing trend.
The whole shaving nonsense started with porn. Gotta push that envelope, you know, and that was some pretty easy pushing really. Some people thought it was sinister, playing into pedophilia fantasies that people might harbor. I think I wrote once before about reading the otherwise reliable Playboy Adviser ranting about a man desiring that of his woman made him a pedo and a woman choosing that for herself meant she was reliving a repressed childhood memory. It made me think: Dude! Tell someone what wine to choose on a third date or answering a boring stereo dilemma- don't psychoanalyze how people dress their genitalia. It's probably not that big of a deal!
But, for some it was. He wasn't the first to wax profoundly about possible psychosexual grooming reasons. There's several billion people on this planet and they do things for very odd reasons. I think most did it because they saw it in a porno and thought, "Cool!" And boyfriend or hubby echoed that sentiment. A lot! Still, the debates raged. Why does he want you to look like a young girl? Why do you want to look like a young girl? Why would you want a sharp object anywhere near there? Or the waxing? Yikes! Why, indeed.
Well, to express your individuality like a few dozen million other individualists. It's like people are with tattoos, only those are pretty much forever. In Asia, it's very common for women to suffer from pubic atrichosis which is a lack of pubic hair. Culturally this is a problem for them and hair transplants are becoming more popular. I'd love to see the commercials for The Hair Club For Women! I don't know how they promote it but Don Draper could find life after Mad Men in the Far East. I think that's the kind of doctor Rand Paul is but I might be wrong about that. Maybe he's just a customer.
Anyway, as a young Ferrerman looking at Playboy magazine back when pubic hair on women was a rumor we suspected older guys had started, Hefner was not allowed to show bush. Different time. And not that long ago. It was considered pornographic. If you've been anywhere else on the internet besides the Ferrerman blog, you know that porn has come a loooooong way since then. I'd truly fear being a curious ten year old boy today. You'd think it'd be Heaven but it's waaaaaay too much. Nothing's left to the imagination anymore. It was better when it was a stack of nudies in some guys garage. It was the stuff dreams were made of.
Dedicated non-readers know that I am, of course, speaking of women's pubic hair rather than George or Jeb. This isn't about dicks, it's about lady business. More precisely the reemergence of said hair. According to an article I read in Salon it's making a comeback. Which article? It doesn't matter as every third Salon article is something about men's or women's naughty bits. This was one of several I've seen on the internet regarding this topic so that in itself tells you it's the real deal. This isn't like coffee is good for you this week but will kill you the next. It's a serious, growing trend.
The whole shaving nonsense started with porn. Gotta push that envelope, you know, and that was some pretty easy pushing really. Some people thought it was sinister, playing into pedophilia fantasies that people might harbor. I think I wrote once before about reading the otherwise reliable Playboy Adviser ranting about a man desiring that of his woman made him a pedo and a woman choosing that for herself meant she was reliving a repressed childhood memory. It made me think: Dude! Tell someone what wine to choose on a third date or answering a boring stereo dilemma- don't psychoanalyze how people dress their genitalia. It's probably not that big of a deal!
But, for some it was. He wasn't the first to wax profoundly about possible psychosexual grooming reasons. There's several billion people on this planet and they do things for very odd reasons. I think most did it because they saw it in a porno and thought, "Cool!" And boyfriend or hubby echoed that sentiment. A lot! Still, the debates raged. Why does he want you to look like a young girl? Why do you want to look like a young girl? Why would you want a sharp object anywhere near there? Or the waxing? Yikes! Why, indeed.
Well, to express your individuality like a few dozen million other individualists. It's like people are with tattoos, only those are pretty much forever. In Asia, it's very common for women to suffer from pubic atrichosis which is a lack of pubic hair. Culturally this is a problem for them and hair transplants are becoming more popular. I'd love to see the commercials for The Hair Club For Women! I don't know how they promote it but Don Draper could find life after Mad Men in the Far East. I think that's the kind of doctor Rand Paul is but I might be wrong about that. Maybe he's just a customer.
Anyway, as a young Ferrerman looking at Playboy magazine back when pubic hair on women was a rumor we suspected older guys had started, Hefner was not allowed to show bush. Different time. And not that long ago. It was considered pornographic. If you've been anywhere else on the internet besides the Ferrerman blog, you know that porn has come a loooooong way since then. I'd truly fear being a curious ten year old boy today. You'd think it'd be Heaven but it's waaaaaay too much. Nothing's left to the imagination anymore. It was better when it was a stack of nudies in some guys garage. It was the stuff dreams were made of.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
America's Past Time
The 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War passed the other day, on April 9th. There was surprisingly little on the internet about it despite the numerical value of a century and a half. 149, 151- no big deal. One-fifty is a pretty big deal. I read something about the formerly warring soldiers playing baseball outside while Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Maybe that was true.
State's rights, 150 years later, are still a big deal. They might be a bigger deal now than they were then. More people now probably believe that "state's rights" were the cause of the civil war, rather than slavery. Make that- instead of slavery. See, a lot of people think that slavery had scant little to do with the war, that it was just southern states yearning to be free from the yoke of Yankee oppression and enslavement...and taking their nigras with them....
Well, there's rarely just one cause of any problem. Personally I don't think that most southerners want to believe that their ancestors died for black folks. Many in the north might feel that way too though certainly not as heartfelt as in the south. There are untold thousands of people below the Mason-Dixon that might wake up screaming in the middle of the night wondering why they lost that war, but everyone above the line sleeps like a victorious baby. That's to say that no one wakes up celebrating that we won! WOO HOO!
So, perhaps it was a state's right to own human beings as pets and farm animals?
There's often a lot of irony associated with history. Republicans of today like to point out the the republican party was formed just prior to the Civil War to free slaves. Indeed, that is on their resume. They haven't done a goddamned thing for blacks since, but they did do that. And, yes, they like to point out that the south was democrat who battled against Civil Rights. Of course, they don't complete the thought that those democrats left the DNC, became republicans and kept their racist views. Leopards don't change spots but people do change political parties. It's kinda important that the racists left the "D's" to join the "R's", don't ya think? I can see why they leave that out though. It's fascinating to see outright white racists so matter-a-factly blame today's democrats for the sins of those former democrats of fifty years ago, while claiming credit for the freeing of slaves 150 years earlier, and basically hating all blacks this side of Ben Carson- which, by the way, is all of them. Now, THAT is politics!
So, back to state's rights. It was a cop out then and it's a cop out now. In a way it's still about slavery though. It's about economic slavery and the elimination of the Federal minimum wage. And a few other things... Actually all things Federal. That's the small government bullshit that they talk about while declaring this "The Greatest Country In The WORLD!!!" How do you do that and then say you want to shrink government to a size that it fits in a bathtub, so you can then strangle and drowned it? I'm not saying that "government is country". But the Federal government is the UNITED States and without it we are pretty much Europe, but with pretty much one language. Yep. We'd be 50 countries instead of one. Well, 50 for awhile. There'd be some wars. You can count on that.
In theory- if the GOP has an actually theory- there would be 50 Americas all competing in a free market of American exceptional-ism. That would make the whole country stronger, even if it weren't a country anymore. That's like saying your marriage is stronger, ya know- since the divorce....
It's ridiculous and, most of it is cheap political rhetoric. Much of the country is like White Sox fans who, before inter-league play when ballgames between the two didn't actually count, used to plead of the Sox players: "We don't care what you do all year- just beat the Cubs in The Crosstown Classic!!!"
I'm not kidding. Fuck the entire season, just beat the team we hate in an exhibition game. That's their approach to baseball. Fucking disgusting. Sad too.
Politically it's like telling the GOP: "You can do whatever you want with our tax money, civil liberties and children's futures- just don't let them queers marry!"
Just like with the Sox *fans* who hate the Cubs and their fans more than they love their team, there are those in the south and all over the GOP who hate America more than they love...America. That seems incongruous and nonsensical but that's only because it is nonsensical and incongruous.
I wonder who won the ballgame 150 years ago?
State's rights, 150 years later, are still a big deal. They might be a bigger deal now than they were then. More people now probably believe that "state's rights" were the cause of the civil war, rather than slavery. Make that- instead of slavery. See, a lot of people think that slavery had scant little to do with the war, that it was just southern states yearning to be free from the yoke of Yankee oppression and enslavement...and taking their nigras with them....
Well, there's rarely just one cause of any problem. Personally I don't think that most southerners want to believe that their ancestors died for black folks. Many in the north might feel that way too though certainly not as heartfelt as in the south. There are untold thousands of people below the Mason-Dixon that might wake up screaming in the middle of the night wondering why they lost that war, but everyone above the line sleeps like a victorious baby. That's to say that no one wakes up celebrating that we won! WOO HOO!
So, perhaps it was a state's right to own human beings as pets and farm animals?
There's often a lot of irony associated with history. Republicans of today like to point out the the republican party was formed just prior to the Civil War to free slaves. Indeed, that is on their resume. They haven't done a goddamned thing for blacks since, but they did do that. And, yes, they like to point out that the south was democrat who battled against Civil Rights. Of course, they don't complete the thought that those democrats left the DNC, became republicans and kept their racist views. Leopards don't change spots but people do change political parties. It's kinda important that the racists left the "D's" to join the "R's", don't ya think? I can see why they leave that out though. It's fascinating to see outright white racists so matter-a-factly blame today's democrats for the sins of those former democrats of fifty years ago, while claiming credit for the freeing of slaves 150 years earlier, and basically hating all blacks this side of Ben Carson- which, by the way, is all of them. Now, THAT is politics!
So, back to state's rights. It was a cop out then and it's a cop out now. In a way it's still about slavery though. It's about economic slavery and the elimination of the Federal minimum wage. And a few other things... Actually all things Federal. That's the small government bullshit that they talk about while declaring this "The Greatest Country In The WORLD!!!" How do you do that and then say you want to shrink government to a size that it fits in a bathtub, so you can then strangle and drowned it? I'm not saying that "government is country". But the Federal government is the UNITED States and without it we are pretty much Europe, but with pretty much one language. Yep. We'd be 50 countries instead of one. Well, 50 for awhile. There'd be some wars. You can count on that.
In theory- if the GOP has an actually theory- there would be 50 Americas all competing in a free market of American exceptional-ism. That would make the whole country stronger, even if it weren't a country anymore. That's like saying your marriage is stronger, ya know- since the divorce....
It's ridiculous and, most of it is cheap political rhetoric. Much of the country is like White Sox fans who, before inter-league play when ballgames between the two didn't actually count, used to plead of the Sox players: "We don't care what you do all year- just beat the Cubs in The Crosstown Classic!!!"
I'm not kidding. Fuck the entire season, just beat the team we hate in an exhibition game. That's their approach to baseball. Fucking disgusting. Sad too.
Politically it's like telling the GOP: "You can do whatever you want with our tax money, civil liberties and children's futures- just don't let them queers marry!"
Just like with the Sox *fans* who hate the Cubs and their fans more than they love their team, there are those in the south and all over the GOP who hate America more than they love...America. That seems incongruous and nonsensical but that's only because it is nonsensical and incongruous.
I wonder who won the ballgame 150 years ago?
Monday, April 6, 2015
PLAY BALL!
Well, that's why they play 162.
The big story is the continuing drama of the renovation of Wrigley Field. Did anyone really believe that the bleachers could be done- over a Chicago winter- in time for Opening Day? Evidently not. There was no serious consideration by the Cub officials to open and play in Milwaukee or even a little farther south at The Cell. The Cub's didn't even ask to open on the road giving themselves another week or ten days to punch out the new work, if things got dicey. I don't think this was over confidence in the construction folks. I'm here to tell you that jobs of that magnitude rarely come in on time even in good weather. If you've ever had work done on your home, you can probably relate.
So, I think owner Ricketts knew he'd be opening sans bleachers. The videoboard is up and it's good. I think it's a welcome addition to the park. I'm a purist but I'm happily impure when it comes to modernizing my favorite ballpark. There's no hot tub in centerfield, for example, and there never will be. There was never a thought of double-decking the bleachers to seat more fans. The renovation is a direct attempt to modernize a very old structure that desperately needs it. It's more than putty and caulk, which they've been doing for the past few decades. They want the place to last another hundred years. So do I. The players and most fans want that too and, they want that video screen too. I mean- replays! In the old days at Wrigley, if you didn't bring a radio (or later a portable TV) you might have had a fan nearby who did have the benefit of Vince Lloyd or Lou Boudreau confirming that, yes, that was a bad call at first and Adolpho Phillips did beat the throw. As of yesterday, fans at Wrigley can see that Castro beat it out. That, Cub fans, is the new millennium come home. It's a good thing.
Evidently the construction also put some bathrooms out of commission and that caused loooog lines for the bathrooms even for the fellas. Wrigley Field still has the troughs for us penis bearing fans. They may seem archaic- and they are- but there sure are quick and convenient. And they are not the "smorgasbord" that those silly White Sox fans think they are. Get in, whip it out, get out. Very efficient. Ya only rent beer, ya know.
But, construction brought plumbing issues as in, not the usual number of bathrooms and so, there were lines. Not good for business, but no one was stranded like the 13 Cubs left on base, in line trying to score. Ouch. The hated Cardinals scored three times and the Cubs lost. 161 more to go.
The left field bleachers are set to be completed (I think) May 11. Right field, maybe early June. I guess it's true what left field has said for years- RIGHT FIELD SUCKS! The lack of outfield seating is costing the Cubs @ 5000 fans per game but, I think they'll survive. If that were really a big deal they would have used Miller Park or The Cell. The bleachers weren't built until 1937 (same with the famous, manual scoreboard) so, it's not as if not having bleachers is a new thing. Prior to that fans were seated in the outfield for big games, kinda roped off from the field. I guess people weren't the assholes back then that they are now and no one thought it cool to just run out onto the field of play. Well, there was no TV to get one's 15 seconds of fame at least.
Never say never but, I may never set foot in Wrigley Field again. It's nothing personal even though I do not care for the Ricketts family's politics. It's more practical and financial. Since the 90's when the Cubs and the park really took off in popularity, its become more of a hassle to go into the city, pay a small fortune to park and pay another small fortune for tickets and concessions. I've probably been to 300, 400 games since I was kid. I long for the old days when the bleacher seats were $5 and on any given summer day you could wake up, call a buddy and go to the game and buy tickets with no worries. Into the 70's the upper deck was only open on the weekends. The Cubs, and baseball itself, just weren't the draw that they are today. I saw Banks, Mays, Rose and Koufax for relatively little money. Well, they played for relatively little money too. Free agency made light-hitting utility players rich and we all paid for that. That's America. We used to be a pretty big deal back then, and a good deal at that back when Ernie, Ron, Billy and Fergie broke my young heart.
Good and bad, I have those memories. They are priceless. They may be subject to renovation as I age but only for upkeep. The integrity of the Ferrerman memories can never be torn down. And I've had the video in my mind for decades now. I like that.
The big story is the continuing drama of the renovation of Wrigley Field. Did anyone really believe that the bleachers could be done- over a Chicago winter- in time for Opening Day? Evidently not. There was no serious consideration by the Cub officials to open and play in Milwaukee or even a little farther south at The Cell. The Cub's didn't even ask to open on the road giving themselves another week or ten days to punch out the new work, if things got dicey. I don't think this was over confidence in the construction folks. I'm here to tell you that jobs of that magnitude rarely come in on time even in good weather. If you've ever had work done on your home, you can probably relate.
So, I think owner Ricketts knew he'd be opening sans bleachers. The videoboard is up and it's good. I think it's a welcome addition to the park. I'm a purist but I'm happily impure when it comes to modernizing my favorite ballpark. There's no hot tub in centerfield, for example, and there never will be. There was never a thought of double-decking the bleachers to seat more fans. The renovation is a direct attempt to modernize a very old structure that desperately needs it. It's more than putty and caulk, which they've been doing for the past few decades. They want the place to last another hundred years. So do I. The players and most fans want that too and, they want that video screen too. I mean- replays! In the old days at Wrigley, if you didn't bring a radio (or later a portable TV) you might have had a fan nearby who did have the benefit of Vince Lloyd or Lou Boudreau confirming that, yes, that was a bad call at first and Adolpho Phillips did beat the throw. As of yesterday, fans at Wrigley can see that Castro beat it out. That, Cub fans, is the new millennium come home. It's a good thing.
Evidently the construction also put some bathrooms out of commission and that caused loooog lines for the bathrooms even for the fellas. Wrigley Field still has the troughs for us penis bearing fans. They may seem archaic- and they are- but there sure are quick and convenient. And they are not the "smorgasbord" that those silly White Sox fans think they are. Get in, whip it out, get out. Very efficient. Ya only rent beer, ya know.
But, construction brought plumbing issues as in, not the usual number of bathrooms and so, there were lines. Not good for business, but no one was stranded like the 13 Cubs left on base, in line trying to score. Ouch. The hated Cardinals scored three times and the Cubs lost. 161 more to go.
The left field bleachers are set to be completed (I think) May 11. Right field, maybe early June. I guess it's true what left field has said for years- RIGHT FIELD SUCKS! The lack of outfield seating is costing the Cubs @ 5000 fans per game but, I think they'll survive. If that were really a big deal they would have used Miller Park or The Cell. The bleachers weren't built until 1937 (same with the famous, manual scoreboard) so, it's not as if not having bleachers is a new thing. Prior to that fans were seated in the outfield for big games, kinda roped off from the field. I guess people weren't the assholes back then that they are now and no one thought it cool to just run out onto the field of play. Well, there was no TV to get one's 15 seconds of fame at least.
Never say never but, I may never set foot in Wrigley Field again. It's nothing personal even though I do not care for the Ricketts family's politics. It's more practical and financial. Since the 90's when the Cubs and the park really took off in popularity, its become more of a hassle to go into the city, pay a small fortune to park and pay another small fortune for tickets and concessions. I've probably been to 300, 400 games since I was kid. I long for the old days when the bleacher seats were $5 and on any given summer day you could wake up, call a buddy and go to the game and buy tickets with no worries. Into the 70's the upper deck was only open on the weekends. The Cubs, and baseball itself, just weren't the draw that they are today. I saw Banks, Mays, Rose and Koufax for relatively little money. Well, they played for relatively little money too. Free agency made light-hitting utility players rich and we all paid for that. That's America. We used to be a pretty big deal back then, and a good deal at that back when Ernie, Ron, Billy and Fergie broke my young heart.
Good and bad, I have those memories. They are priceless. They may be subject to renovation as I age but only for upkeep. The integrity of the Ferrerman memories can never be torn down. And I've had the video in my mind for decades now. I like that.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Legal Review
I really don't get this Indiana law. There's already a federal law that protects religion and all sorts of reichtards all over the internet have pointed that out. What they don't point out is why Indiana needed this law when there is already that law. Well, they counter, seemingly not understanding the question, 20 other states have a law like Indiana's new law so why aren't you boycotting those states? That might be a good question. I'm not sure they meant it as such though.
Yesterday, Arkansas passed a similar law and their governor was all set to sign it- until Walmart stepped in and the gov reconsidered.
Corporations are people too, my friend! Evidently they are kind and benevolent persons at that?
No, I'm not buying that. There is nothing kind and benevolent about the Walmartian hierarchy. Everything is a business move with these people. Don't kid yourself about them raising their minimum wage either. The actual non-corporate citizens of America want that raise and, in most states, they are doing better- even in red ones. Walmart's decision to go to $10 was because of that handwriting on the wall, but more importantly, to stave off $15 by making it look as if $10 was their idea. It'd be pretty ungrateful of America to demand $5 more after Walmartian leaders reached into their own pockets (well, someone's) and pulled out a raise to $10 (and some lint).
So, well played, Walmartian assholes. At $10 an hour, many Walmart employees can still maintain their social services eligibility. With a living wage, they'd lose that...
Walmart is headquartered in Arkansas so, that gov rules by their leave. Indiana's governor is standing fast (so far) despite objections by NASCAR and a condemnation from Angie's List that might cost the state a $40 million dollar expansion by Angie of her business. Who knew the criticizing business was that lucrative? Certainly not YELP I bet. Well, as far as I know. Angie's List sounds like a shake down like the Better Business Bureau. It's my understanding that you have to pay to join the BBB. I think that means your check has to clear to get a good rating. YELP just sounds like Topix trolls do all the reviewing.
Which leads me to the first Indiana business to publicly side with the law and go on camera about it. Their Christian pizza place has declared they will refuse to cater any gay weddings! It's April Fool's day, dedicated non-readers, but, no, Ferrerman is not making that up! I don't think that all gays are snooty fancy boys but, a wedding is a wedding and I bet not too many of the gay persuasion would likely go the pizza route. When your whole existence seems to be one big legal battle, when you can get married, you might want to make the occasion more memorable than Domino's. Ya know, a pizza wedding sounds more rural Indiana, now that I think about it.
I think the state's are taking the teabagger notion that "...we are a Christian nation..." a bit too much to heart and maybe a bit too literally. If this protects religious freedoms, doesn't it also protect the religious freedoms of...MUSLIMS? Isn't this an open door for Sharia Law? Surely that door is ajar. Are they so arrogantly dense as to believe that the law protects only Christians? Seriously now- what would Jesus do, faced with this law?
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we don't practice what we believe.
Yesterday, Arkansas passed a similar law and their governor was all set to sign it- until Walmart stepped in and the gov reconsidered.
Corporations are people too, my friend! Evidently they are kind and benevolent persons at that?
No, I'm not buying that. There is nothing kind and benevolent about the Walmartian hierarchy. Everything is a business move with these people. Don't kid yourself about them raising their minimum wage either. The actual non-corporate citizens of America want that raise and, in most states, they are doing better- even in red ones. Walmart's decision to go to $10 was because of that handwriting on the wall, but more importantly, to stave off $15 by making it look as if $10 was their idea. It'd be pretty ungrateful of America to demand $5 more after Walmartian leaders reached into their own pockets (well, someone's) and pulled out a raise to $10 (and some lint).
So, well played, Walmartian assholes. At $10 an hour, many Walmart employees can still maintain their social services eligibility. With a living wage, they'd lose that...
Walmart is headquartered in Arkansas so, that gov rules by their leave. Indiana's governor is standing fast (so far) despite objections by NASCAR and a condemnation from Angie's List that might cost the state a $40 million dollar expansion by Angie of her business. Who knew the criticizing business was that lucrative? Certainly not YELP I bet. Well, as far as I know. Angie's List sounds like a shake down like the Better Business Bureau. It's my understanding that you have to pay to join the BBB. I think that means your check has to clear to get a good rating. YELP just sounds like Topix trolls do all the reviewing.
Which leads me to the first Indiana business to publicly side with the law and go on camera about it. Their Christian pizza place has declared they will refuse to cater any gay weddings! It's April Fool's day, dedicated non-readers, but, no, Ferrerman is not making that up! I don't think that all gays are snooty fancy boys but, a wedding is a wedding and I bet not too many of the gay persuasion would likely go the pizza route. When your whole existence seems to be one big legal battle, when you can get married, you might want to make the occasion more memorable than Domino's. Ya know, a pizza wedding sounds more rural Indiana, now that I think about it.
I think the state's are taking the teabagger notion that "...we are a Christian nation..." a bit too much to heart and maybe a bit too literally. If this protects religious freedoms, doesn't it also protect the religious freedoms of...MUSLIMS? Isn't this an open door for Sharia Law? Surely that door is ajar. Are they so arrogantly dense as to believe that the law protects only Christians? Seriously now- what would Jesus do, faced with this law?
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we don't practice what we believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)