The NY Times reports that Donald Trump likely paid zero taxes for as long as eighteen years. No cheating- he was able to pull this off because he was smart enough (I gather...) to lose more than $900 million dollars in a single year. He took advantage of the rules. Who does that?
Welfare recipients, that's who. Welfare is perfectly legal and millions of Americans ingeniously take advantage of it every year. Who could find fault in anyone who so wisely takes legal advantage of the system?
Republicans, that's who. It's genius for an alleged billionaire to game the system and pay no taxes but, criminal when poor people take advantage a pittance of money, just to survive.
We do love people who steal big. Finance your lifestyle with a bogus charity or play legal hardball with people who do work for you but you don't want to pay- as Trump does- and you are a genius. Steal a loaf of bread to feed your family- you go to jail! You can steal more with a pen than you can with a gun. America respects that. So many of us root for the gangsters. Bonnie and Clyde cinematic-ally at least, were heroes for robbing banks. In reality though, they mostly robbed the mom and pop grocery stores of the day. Their press got better in later years.
Trump complains about our crumbling infrastructure. Well, our race to the bottom of infrastructure begins with a congress unwilling to spend money on roads, bridges and the like because it does them no personal good and, in the case of the last eight years, could make a certain black, democrat president look good. Who the hell thinks like that?
Republicans, that's who. Not doing stuff is perfectly understood by many in the electorate. You cut welfare because that's how your team wins. You don't fix roads and bridges to win too. Same goes for USSC justices. You don't allow him to pick one because he'll pick a winner that won't overturn Roe v. Wade, the ACA and the 14th Amendment.
Politics is a team sport and your team has to take advantage of everything they can to win. But, just as important, is the other team losing. It no longer matters what is best for the country and that is so clear this season. People actually believe that a candidate who refuses to release his tax returns- likely because he paid no taxes for close to two decades- is a genius for not doing that, especially if it's true.
Taxes paid by an (alleged) billionaire like Trump could have prevented that bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007. It could have repaved untold miles of streets and highways or levees in New Orleans. But, no. Trump is like a bizarro Oskar Schindler putting on an expensive watch, marveling at the tragedy that enabled him to buy it. And that makes him a "genius"?
Monday, October 3, 2016
NO FAT CHICKS!
"No fat chicks!"
~ Homer J. Trump
Of all the insanity of this election, Trump doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his ill treatment of former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado is perhaps the most puzzling. It strikes me as more of Trump's (perceived) "tell it like it is/blunt *honesty*" persona that idiots admire so much.
Republicans have long been leading up to this though. What is condemnation of political correctness but a backlash by assholes against common decency? They are once again trying normalize their assholiness.
Yet Hillary's assertion that half of his supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables" is seen by them as "offensive"? That was extremely tame (but honest!) on her part. Anyone offended by that, basks in the basket of deplorability.
But, what about spankability? More precisely, the once upon a time, robust spankability of a former Miss Universe? Alicia Machado is lovely by any tip of the scale.
It's interesting that one of the angles of the oh-so-republican attack is from the oh-so-republican angle of business because, as pedestrians have noted, there was a weight clause in her contract. There you go. It was legal. I've seen the same defense with slavery before. Forget morality. Forget right or wrong. It was "legal". You gotta read that fine print when you sign.
True. But, have you fully read your iTunes agreement or anything else you have signed off on internet-wise? Whether you did read or not, you owe iTunes your first born child. Look it up! You signed it!
That aside, she signed nothing saying Trump could drag her body through the mud, years later. The asshole chose that tact himself. Hillary helped by mentioning it in the debate but Trump and his apologists opted to bring their supply of shovels. It was a brilliant move on Hillary's part. She baited him but it either takes off like this or it's ignored. It worked. It dovetailed nicely with her current commercial of all the other horrible things Trump has said about women and (as per the commercial) and how it pertains to women of all ages. The guy is a fucking pig. There's no doubt about it. They counter that Hillary is worse but, the only bad things she has to say about women were about the tramps who slept with her husband. What would you expect from a spurned wife- sisterhood?!
Beauty is subjective. I can assure you that millions of men prefer full-figured women. But, this isn't really about that. As all things in life these days, it's all about Trump and how he feels picked on because Hillary and the media won't stop him from digging all these holes for himself.
Trump isn't funny anymore. He hasn't been funny for awhile. I personally do not know anyone who supports him. The closest you get is people who are just so anti-Hillary that they seem to be supporting Trump. When pressed though, they won't commit to voting for Trump. That basket of deplorables might be bigger than polls suggest. You toss in people who know Trump is a deplorable, incompetent candidate but they hate Hillary for generic, unsubstantiated reasons, and that certainly is a recipe for political catastrophe, right here in the United States.
Frightening. A major party candidate spends part of a debate and then five days attacking a woman who was Miss Universe twenty years ago, for her past weight gain. A nation that is already dangerously obese supports that. Incredible! And, on top of that, he and they want to take away health care from millions of Americans and replace it with nothing. That's not healthy for America.
~ Homer J. Trump
Of all the insanity of this election, Trump doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his ill treatment of former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado is perhaps the most puzzling. It strikes me as more of Trump's (perceived) "tell it like it is/blunt *honesty*" persona that idiots admire so much.
Republicans have long been leading up to this though. What is condemnation of political correctness but a backlash by assholes against common decency? They are once again trying normalize their assholiness.
Yet Hillary's assertion that half of his supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables" is seen by them as "offensive"? That was extremely tame (but honest!) on her part. Anyone offended by that, basks in the basket of deplorability.
But, what about spankability? More precisely, the once upon a time, robust spankability of a former Miss Universe? Alicia Machado is lovely by any tip of the scale.
It's interesting that one of the angles of the oh-so-republican attack is from the oh-so-republican angle of business because, as pedestrians have noted, there was a weight clause in her contract. There you go. It was legal. I've seen the same defense with slavery before. Forget morality. Forget right or wrong. It was "legal". You gotta read that fine print when you sign.
True. But, have you fully read your iTunes agreement or anything else you have signed off on internet-wise? Whether you did read or not, you owe iTunes your first born child. Look it up! You signed it!
That aside, she signed nothing saying Trump could drag her body through the mud, years later. The asshole chose that tact himself. Hillary helped by mentioning it in the debate but Trump and his apologists opted to bring their supply of shovels. It was a brilliant move on Hillary's part. She baited him but it either takes off like this or it's ignored. It worked. It dovetailed nicely with her current commercial of all the other horrible things Trump has said about women and (as per the commercial) and how it pertains to women of all ages. The guy is a fucking pig. There's no doubt about it. They counter that Hillary is worse but, the only bad things she has to say about women were about the tramps who slept with her husband. What would you expect from a spurned wife- sisterhood?!
Beauty is subjective. I can assure you that millions of men prefer full-figured women. But, this isn't really about that. As all things in life these days, it's all about Trump and how he feels picked on because Hillary and the media won't stop him from digging all these holes for himself.
Trump isn't funny anymore. He hasn't been funny for awhile. I personally do not know anyone who supports him. The closest you get is people who are just so anti-Hillary that they seem to be supporting Trump. When pressed though, they won't commit to voting for Trump. That basket of deplorables might be bigger than polls suggest. You toss in people who know Trump is a deplorable, incompetent candidate but they hate Hillary for generic, unsubstantiated reasons, and that certainly is a recipe for political catastrophe, right here in the United States.
Frightening. A major party candidate spends part of a debate and then five days attacking a woman who was Miss Universe twenty years ago, for her past weight gain. A nation that is already dangerously obese supports that. Incredible! And, on top of that, he and they want to take away health care from millions of Americans and replace it with nothing. That's not healthy for America.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
In Defense Of Cocksuckers
You hear it all the time. In fact, I recently said it in a post here about baseball umpires.
"How the actual fuck can that cocksucker call that a fucking strike???"
Yikes. Why so hard on cocksuckers, Ferrerman? That's not nice!
It isn't. Anyone who has ever received a blowjob probably realizes that it was a very nice thing for that person to do. It is widely acknowledged that bad head is better than no head at all. Recipients are grateful. And they should be. When someone cares enough to take your penis in their mouth, you should be thrilled at that and with them for doing so. It's one of the nicest things someone can do for you and, subsequently, one of the nicest things you can do for someone. So, why do we denigrate cocksuckers so much?
Well, the easy answer is that it's something you wouldn't do so you (literally) look down on anyone who does. OK. But, why do we voice this so often and with such contempt? It's a guy thing to say but women say it too. It's a common part of the vernacular today in public, in film and damn near on television. I've heard women say it as well for years, about each other, about men and about situations. One of the funniest women I've ever know would say "Suck my dick!" to other people even though she most definitely did not have a dick to suck. I LOL'ed the first time I heard Karen say that. By her own admission, she was a talented cocksucker herself. Yet, she seemed to be denigrating her own actions every time she said this. To her, it was something she enjoyed doing but she also seemed to be declaring to to be a "bad" thing that "bad people" do. Maybe. It might have been her owning it in a way like black people calling themselves "niggers".
It isn't always meant as a literal pejorative either. You can say it without it literally meaning you think that person sucks dicks- just as if to say you don't like them or what they may be doing at the time. That's like with me and the umpires, other drivers or many internet posters.
However, when you do say it disparagingly you are actually belittling the act itself whether you give, receive or both. Kinda odd, don't you think? Especially when said around women, by men. Like saying, "Honey, that guy is a cocksucker! Oh- it's OK that you are too but, not that guy..." So, the act is generally considered a gay thing- something that straight guys don't do- but have done to them- by women. It's a bad thing when done by guys to guys but a truly awesome thing when women do it! Just so you know, honey!
I've never been gay or anti-gay but, yeah, I have disparaged gays for what they do. I don't really care though. Just because doing something doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean others shouldn't do it. I'm not the judge here. Over time, with luck, we evolve instead of devolve about things in life. Condemning people for the type of very popular sex they participate in is pretty disingenuous when you participate too, just by receiving.
I was thinking about this last week when International Bisexuality Day came and went without much fanfare other than a "trend" on Facebook and Yahoo. If you missed it, now you know what it's like to be late for Happy Hour and miss out on 2 for 1 at the bar. In my youth I thought nothing of women being bisexual as I figured it came natural to them. Women are soft and sweet and desirable and why wouldn't they desire each other? That's a pretty common male take. The common take though for men who might play both sides of the street is that they are really gay. Like my old tale of Jimmy W. dealing on Richard, whom we worked with: "Richard, you can work all your life and maybe no one calls you "a painter". But, you go out there in the parking lot and suck one dick and everybody is going to call you a 'cocksucker'!" It was pretty good, break-time humor. Even Richard laughed. All things being equal, men and women can be bisexual. Why not? It can be argued that they do unto others as they would like to be done themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
We need to stop and think about what we say, who we say it too, and how we mean it so that we don't unintentionally hurt others. It's more than just being politically correct. Show some motherfucking courtesy!
Oh damn... We'll leave that one alone for now...
"How the actual fuck can that cocksucker call that a fucking strike???"
Yikes. Why so hard on cocksuckers, Ferrerman? That's not nice!
It isn't. Anyone who has ever received a blowjob probably realizes that it was a very nice thing for that person to do. It is widely acknowledged that bad head is better than no head at all. Recipients are grateful. And they should be. When someone cares enough to take your penis in their mouth, you should be thrilled at that and with them for doing so. It's one of the nicest things someone can do for you and, subsequently, one of the nicest things you can do for someone. So, why do we denigrate cocksuckers so much?
Well, the easy answer is that it's something you wouldn't do so you (literally) look down on anyone who does. OK. But, why do we voice this so often and with such contempt? It's a guy thing to say but women say it too. It's a common part of the vernacular today in public, in film and damn near on television. I've heard women say it as well for years, about each other, about men and about situations. One of the funniest women I've ever know would say "Suck my dick!" to other people even though she most definitely did not have a dick to suck. I LOL'ed the first time I heard Karen say that. By her own admission, she was a talented cocksucker herself. Yet, she seemed to be denigrating her own actions every time she said this. To her, it was something she enjoyed doing but she also seemed to be declaring to to be a "bad" thing that "bad people" do. Maybe. It might have been her owning it in a way like black people calling themselves "niggers".
It isn't always meant as a literal pejorative either. You can say it without it literally meaning you think that person sucks dicks- just as if to say you don't like them or what they may be doing at the time. That's like with me and the umpires, other drivers or many internet posters.
However, when you do say it disparagingly you are actually belittling the act itself whether you give, receive or both. Kinda odd, don't you think? Especially when said around women, by men. Like saying, "Honey, that guy is a cocksucker! Oh- it's OK that you are too but, not that guy..." So, the act is generally considered a gay thing- something that straight guys don't do- but have done to them- by women. It's a bad thing when done by guys to guys but a truly awesome thing when women do it! Just so you know, honey!
I've never been gay or anti-gay but, yeah, I have disparaged gays for what they do. I don't really care though. Just because doing something doesn't appeal to me doesn't mean others shouldn't do it. I'm not the judge here. Over time, with luck, we evolve instead of devolve about things in life. Condemning people for the type of very popular sex they participate in is pretty disingenuous when you participate too, just by receiving.
I was thinking about this last week when International Bisexuality Day came and went without much fanfare other than a "trend" on Facebook and Yahoo. If you missed it, now you know what it's like to be late for Happy Hour and miss out on 2 for 1 at the bar. In my youth I thought nothing of women being bisexual as I figured it came natural to them. Women are soft and sweet and desirable and why wouldn't they desire each other? That's a pretty common male take. The common take though for men who might play both sides of the street is that they are really gay. Like my old tale of Jimmy W. dealing on Richard, whom we worked with: "Richard, you can work all your life and maybe no one calls you "a painter". But, you go out there in the parking lot and suck one dick and everybody is going to call you a 'cocksucker'!" It was pretty good, break-time humor. Even Richard laughed. All things being equal, men and women can be bisexual. Why not? It can be argued that they do unto others as they would like to be done themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
We need to stop and think about what we say, who we say it too, and how we mean it so that we don't unintentionally hurt others. It's more than just being politically correct. Show some motherfucking courtesy!
Oh damn... We'll leave that one alone for now...
In Support Of Our Boys In Blue
How would you like cameras watching your every move on the job, leading to second-guessing by experts, civilians, and people on the scene observing? How would you like cameras all over your job, recording your every move- good or bad- for scrutiny? I bet you'd hate it, or at least balk at that.
Well, if you did balk, an umpire would be there to call it. That may be the one call they always get right too because they are the only ones who (seemingly) know what a balk is anyway. I guess they do it well. Who knows?
However, they sure as fuck seem to be in the dark as to balls and strikes. The best thing you can say about their rather fluid strike zones is that they are generally unfair to both teams. Yep. Wrong but, fair. Does it get any better than that? I hope so.
Is it fair to the umpires to judge their work with cameras and computer systems like Pitchtrax? I think so. I am a Cubs fan and watch a lot of other Major League Baseball games, as well. I love baseball. The coverage on any given game is very good and you get a great view of every pitch. After years of playing (as a kid) and watching MLB, I'm a pretty good judge of the strike zone. That doesn't mean I could go behind the plate and be as good as the average MLB umpire. Nor does it mean I'd be worse. It's a tough job. Just to get to the bigs, they work of thousands of hours calling tens of thousands of balls and strikes. The way the major's works, they are only calling balls and strikes behind the plate every fourth game as they rotate around the bases. It's not something each guy does every day. It's hard to become an expert at that rate.
Pitchtrax might not be perfect but, it's better than any MLB umpire. And it might be perfect. It sets a standard strike zone and it stays there. There's a lot to be said for that. Essentially, the strike zone is between the letters (on the players uniform) and his knees, and over home plate. It is a pitch that a batter should be able to hit. A good pitch. The problem, and my beef, is that to a lot of the boys in blue, a pitch a foot off the ground is all too often called a strike. It's not what anyone would reasonably call "hittable" yet of late, many umps call it a strike. There are a lot of questionable calls east and west as well- pitches that aren't exactly over the plate, but the low-strike seems to be in vogue.
By and large, MLB umpires are the best referees in sports. It's a tough job but on the bases at least, replay often proves them right. They tend to get safe and out right and if they don't, replay review now corrects that during the game. Prior to that you had to write it off to human error and accept that mistakes are made. Nobody is perfect.
But, too many of them really suck behind the plate. And it's killing the game.
It's time for MLB to fully enter the 21st century and let computers call balls and strikes. The umpires have a union and I don't want to see anyone lose their job ('cept maybe that fucking asshole, Joe West) so, retain a guy in the capacity of home plate umpire but, do NOT let him call the pitches. Obviously a human being needs to be there to document runs and call safe or out in plays at the plate. You can't change that.
The players deserve consistency and so do the fans. The players make their living playing this wonderful game and how well they ply their trade should not be subjected to the whims of an arbitrators subjective interpretation of balls and strikes. A player or manager can be thrown out of the game and fined just for arguing balls and strikes. If they didn't have that in place- as awful as umpires can be- we'd still be in spring training now with players arguing bad calls. Take humans out of the equation. Take the arguing out of it too by relying on the consistency of modern technology. It will speed up the game and certainly take some of the angst and vulgar language out of it, at least in my house. Wouldn't we all be better off without a Ferrerman screaming: "How the actual fuck can that cocksucker call that a fucking strike??!!" It would sure clean up the game in so many respects.
Well, if you did balk, an umpire would be there to call it. That may be the one call they always get right too because they are the only ones who (seemingly) know what a balk is anyway. I guess they do it well. Who knows?
However, they sure as fuck seem to be in the dark as to balls and strikes. The best thing you can say about their rather fluid strike zones is that they are generally unfair to both teams. Yep. Wrong but, fair. Does it get any better than that? I hope so.
Is it fair to the umpires to judge their work with cameras and computer systems like Pitchtrax? I think so. I am a Cubs fan and watch a lot of other Major League Baseball games, as well. I love baseball. The coverage on any given game is very good and you get a great view of every pitch. After years of playing (as a kid) and watching MLB, I'm a pretty good judge of the strike zone. That doesn't mean I could go behind the plate and be as good as the average MLB umpire. Nor does it mean I'd be worse. It's a tough job. Just to get to the bigs, they work of thousands of hours calling tens of thousands of balls and strikes. The way the major's works, they are only calling balls and strikes behind the plate every fourth game as they rotate around the bases. It's not something each guy does every day. It's hard to become an expert at that rate.
Pitchtrax might not be perfect but, it's better than any MLB umpire. And it might be perfect. It sets a standard strike zone and it stays there. There's a lot to be said for that. Essentially, the strike zone is between the letters (on the players uniform) and his knees, and over home plate. It is a pitch that a batter should be able to hit. A good pitch. The problem, and my beef, is that to a lot of the boys in blue, a pitch a foot off the ground is all too often called a strike. It's not what anyone would reasonably call "hittable" yet of late, many umps call it a strike. There are a lot of questionable calls east and west as well- pitches that aren't exactly over the plate, but the low-strike seems to be in vogue.
By and large, MLB umpires are the best referees in sports. It's a tough job but on the bases at least, replay often proves them right. They tend to get safe and out right and if they don't, replay review now corrects that during the game. Prior to that you had to write it off to human error and accept that mistakes are made. Nobody is perfect.
But, too many of them really suck behind the plate. And it's killing the game.
It's time for MLB to fully enter the 21st century and let computers call balls and strikes. The umpires have a union and I don't want to see anyone lose their job ('cept maybe that fucking asshole, Joe West) so, retain a guy in the capacity of home plate umpire but, do NOT let him call the pitches. Obviously a human being needs to be there to document runs and call safe or out in plays at the plate. You can't change that.
The players deserve consistency and so do the fans. The players make their living playing this wonderful game and how well they ply their trade should not be subjected to the whims of an arbitrators subjective interpretation of balls and strikes. A player or manager can be thrown out of the game and fined just for arguing balls and strikes. If they didn't have that in place- as awful as umpires can be- we'd still be in spring training now with players arguing bad calls. Take humans out of the equation. Take the arguing out of it too by relying on the consistency of modern technology. It will speed up the game and certainly take some of the angst and vulgar language out of it, at least in my house. Wouldn't we all be better off without a Ferrerman screaming: "How the actual fuck can that cocksucker call that a fucking strike??!!" It would sure clean up the game in so many respects.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Post Debate Analysis
I thoroughly enjoyed the debate. Of course, my candidate won so, I would enjoy that. Hillary did fine. We knew she would. Trump was a belligerent, bully. We all saw that coming.
But, it all means so little. At this point are there any real undecided voters? Should we even care about people so fucking dumb as to be on the fence wondering which way to fall? I think undecideds are just people who want to get on TV and think they sound smart when they say they haven't made up their minds yet and won't until they get more facts or something.
I hate to use a Topix poster's personal name but, it's Crystal Clear that Trump is a racist, alleged-billionaire, conman who does not care a lick about average American people because he only cares about himself. Conversely, Hillary Clinton is an extremely qualified woman who can and should be president. She can do the job. Trump can't.
If anyone can't see Trump for the asshole he is, they're beyond hope. However, if anyone thinks that might be okay for a president to be an asshole because (I'm guessing here) "he can get things done", then those people are beyond being just assholes. They are idiots. There is just no sense backing up any of the alleged pluses of Trump.
This goes beyond the usual partisan politics and you know that is true when famous conservatives like George Will completely and willfully denounce Trump. How stupid can anyone be to not see the magnitude of that? No living president endorses him and that includes two guys named George Bush. Spin it any way you want about Jeb but it speaks volumes that two men who had the job know that Trump cannot do it and, most important, should not do it. They could have easily and honestly endorsed any of the other candidates that Jeb lost with- even Cruz- for party unity and no one would be surprised. And Carter, Clinton and Obama I believe would come to the same conclusion if their party were running a Trump too.
I understand republicans not liking Hillary. It's stupid but, politics is stupid. It's sports for people who can't play sports- or worse- think they can. You pick a team in politics and you hate the rival team. It's as deep as the Bears/Packers rivalry. It's that simple. If there is anything worse than political coverage on cable, it's sports commentary anywhere in the media. It's hard to tell The NFL Today from any CNN panel. Same spin. Same nonsense. They sorta stop just short though on The NFL Today of saying: "The (losing team) really won according to the polling..." because, though they do poll a lot, the bottom line in sports still is wins and losses. Ultimately that's the bottom line in politics too but, it takes soooo fucking long to get there. It's painful to watch.
It's also painful to see that so many people are so fucking stupid as to believe Trump has their interests in his heart. Love your team but don't tell me the Bears will beat the Packers this season. Yes, it could happen but you are mistaking hope and dreams for practicality if you believe that. Leave the fantasy to football and masturbation where it belongs.
If you think that an (alleged) billionaire jagoff should be president, fuck you. If you don't think that is a flaw of any sort that should preclude him from the presidency, fuck you. If you think Hillary Clinton would be worse than Trump "because of the emails or BENGHAZI! or pantsuits, fuck you. And, if you're just supporting your team because that's what a good fan does, bless your heart, you stupid fucking idiot.
It's going to be close. Fucking asshole Trump could win. We all have to face that possibility. Worse, we will all have to deal with the carnage if he does prevail. The idiots do not realize that. Because of them though, we all may deserve the horror. At least in sports we survive the winners and upsets.
But, it all means so little. At this point are there any real undecided voters? Should we even care about people so fucking dumb as to be on the fence wondering which way to fall? I think undecideds are just people who want to get on TV and think they sound smart when they say they haven't made up their minds yet and won't until they get more facts or something.
I hate to use a Topix poster's personal name but, it's Crystal Clear that Trump is a racist, alleged-billionaire, conman who does not care a lick about average American people because he only cares about himself. Conversely, Hillary Clinton is an extremely qualified woman who can and should be president. She can do the job. Trump can't.
If anyone can't see Trump for the asshole he is, they're beyond hope. However, if anyone thinks that might be okay for a president to be an asshole because (I'm guessing here) "he can get things done", then those people are beyond being just assholes. They are idiots. There is just no sense backing up any of the alleged pluses of Trump.
This goes beyond the usual partisan politics and you know that is true when famous conservatives like George Will completely and willfully denounce Trump. How stupid can anyone be to not see the magnitude of that? No living president endorses him and that includes two guys named George Bush. Spin it any way you want about Jeb but it speaks volumes that two men who had the job know that Trump cannot do it and, most important, should not do it. They could have easily and honestly endorsed any of the other candidates that Jeb lost with- even Cruz- for party unity and no one would be surprised. And Carter, Clinton and Obama I believe would come to the same conclusion if their party were running a Trump too.
I understand republicans not liking Hillary. It's stupid but, politics is stupid. It's sports for people who can't play sports- or worse- think they can. You pick a team in politics and you hate the rival team. It's as deep as the Bears/Packers rivalry. It's that simple. If there is anything worse than political coverage on cable, it's sports commentary anywhere in the media. It's hard to tell The NFL Today from any CNN panel. Same spin. Same nonsense. They sorta stop just short though on The NFL Today of saying: "The (losing team) really won according to the polling..." because, though they do poll a lot, the bottom line in sports still is wins and losses. Ultimately that's the bottom line in politics too but, it takes soooo fucking long to get there. It's painful to watch.
It's also painful to see that so many people are so fucking stupid as to believe Trump has their interests in his heart. Love your team but don't tell me the Bears will beat the Packers this season. Yes, it could happen but you are mistaking hope and dreams for practicality if you believe that. Leave the fantasy to football and masturbation where it belongs.
If you think that an (alleged) billionaire jagoff should be president, fuck you. If you don't think that is a flaw of any sort that should preclude him from the presidency, fuck you. If you think Hillary Clinton would be worse than Trump "because of the emails or BENGHAZI! or pantsuits, fuck you. And, if you're just supporting your team because that's what a good fan does, bless your heart, you stupid fucking idiot.
It's going to be close. Fucking asshole Trump could win. We all have to face that possibility. Worse, we will all have to deal with the carnage if he does prevail. The idiots do not realize that. Because of them though, we all may deserve the horror. At least in sports we survive the winners and upsets.
Long Suffering Fools
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Hammers Seeking Nails Need Not Apply
It's hard to keep at these killings by police straight. Which was the one where the black guy had a book but the cops say he had a gun? What was the one where the helicopter cops- who sounded like a morning-zoo radio team- could tell from way up in the air that the black guy was "a bad dude"? Was that Tulsa? Or Charlotte? The cops found a gun somewhere! And, what about the one from 2011 where now they have video of the cop planting a weapon on the black guy he killed? Sunday- somewhere- the cops pepper-sprayed a 15 year old black girl who had been hit by a car on her bicycle because she refused to wait for paramedics. They did that for her own good, I guess? The ungrateful little justice obstructor...
It's hard to keep them straight but there is one common denominator. Black victims.
It is also hard not to think it's a racial denominator, even when black cops are the perpetrators. Does seem to be a pattern, especially when there are dozens of these cases every year.
There undoubtedly are racist cops in America but, I contend again that what we have first and foremost is a bad cop problem. It's easier to become a cop than to become a cosmetologist. Easier by several hundred hours of training. I'm not sure why so much training is involved in cosmetology. They have no powers of arrest and they rarely (if ever) kill anyone. Why though, does a cop (on average) receive only 622 hours of training with no required apprenticeship, while a hairdresser trains for 1570 hours and then (on average) performs 1080 more hours of mandated apprenticeship? Hair is important but, not 4 times more important that serving and protecting. This varies from state to state and that means it's easier for cops in some states than described above.
Since I last worked with guys who were set on becoming cops, they've upped the ante for the job quite a bit. I had a coworker that I tended bar with, kinda proudly admit that he failed the psych exam to become a cop. I could have told him he'd fail long before he took it. The kid was the son of a suburban cop and a bit judgmental as a result. He'd often figure stuff out about people "...because my dad's a cop..." There you go. It's genetic! Another fella lamented that he was always competing with guys who had military time (not just Military Police service) that he didn't have. It used to work that way- and I think it still helps- but, I've heard there is less emphasis on that these days. Maybe. There might be more given the militarization of many Police Departments these days? Anyway, in the 90's many PD's started looking favorably at college being a prerequisite, preferably a bachelors in Criminal Justice. But, those are preferences. They vary by departments and by state.
Anybody who knows a family member of a cop on Facebook knows that those family members all want their loved one to come home each night. True that but, cops don't even make the Top 10 of dangerous occupations. Time magazine has them at #15 in 2014. Loggers are #1 and cops come in right after "general maintenance and repair workers". They all want to come home at night too.
Cop killings are actually down of late, during the Obama regime. It's rhetoric about a "WAR ON COPS!" that has risen during this time. Several hundred Americans are killed by cops each year. It's very popular for white people to note that cops kill more whites and Hispanics than African-Americans but that's usually to highlight that "white people don't riot when one of us is killed..." We tend to save our rioting for more productive reasons such as winning or losing a championship in one's city. Ain't that 'murica? Whites are a far larger percentage of the population than blacks, by the way. We've got the numbers! For now...
Simply, we need better training for all cops. A better screening process too, to weed out potential trouble makers. The people getting killed aren't always the desperadoes in our society and I doubt the cops doing the killing are our best and brightest. The woman officer in Tulsa "feared for (her) life" despite being with three other cops immediately by her side, two in the air and more nearby. She panicked and a man died. That is preventable with training. It's avoidable. Life will never be fool-proof. Neither will death. We can try to do better though. All we have to do is try, and to try to give it the attention that we think our hair deserves.
It's hard to keep them straight but there is one common denominator. Black victims.
It is also hard not to think it's a racial denominator, even when black cops are the perpetrators. Does seem to be a pattern, especially when there are dozens of these cases every year.
There undoubtedly are racist cops in America but, I contend again that what we have first and foremost is a bad cop problem. It's easier to become a cop than to become a cosmetologist. Easier by several hundred hours of training. I'm not sure why so much training is involved in cosmetology. They have no powers of arrest and they rarely (if ever) kill anyone. Why though, does a cop (on average) receive only 622 hours of training with no required apprenticeship, while a hairdresser trains for 1570 hours and then (on average) performs 1080 more hours of mandated apprenticeship? Hair is important but, not 4 times more important that serving and protecting. This varies from state to state and that means it's easier for cops in some states than described above.
Since I last worked with guys who were set on becoming cops, they've upped the ante for the job quite a bit. I had a coworker that I tended bar with, kinda proudly admit that he failed the psych exam to become a cop. I could have told him he'd fail long before he took it. The kid was the son of a suburban cop and a bit judgmental as a result. He'd often figure stuff out about people "...because my dad's a cop..." There you go. It's genetic! Another fella lamented that he was always competing with guys who had military time (not just Military Police service) that he didn't have. It used to work that way- and I think it still helps- but, I've heard there is less emphasis on that these days. Maybe. There might be more given the militarization of many Police Departments these days? Anyway, in the 90's many PD's started looking favorably at college being a prerequisite, preferably a bachelors in Criminal Justice. But, those are preferences. They vary by departments and by state.
Anybody who knows a family member of a cop on Facebook knows that those family members all want their loved one to come home each night. True that but, cops don't even make the Top 10 of dangerous occupations. Time magazine has them at #15 in 2014. Loggers are #1 and cops come in right after "general maintenance and repair workers". They all want to come home at night too.
Cop killings are actually down of late, during the Obama regime. It's rhetoric about a "WAR ON COPS!" that has risen during this time. Several hundred Americans are killed by cops each year. It's very popular for white people to note that cops kill more whites and Hispanics than African-Americans but that's usually to highlight that "white people don't riot when one of us is killed..." We tend to save our rioting for more productive reasons such as winning or losing a championship in one's city. Ain't that 'murica? Whites are a far larger percentage of the population than blacks, by the way. We've got the numbers! For now...
Simply, we need better training for all cops. A better screening process too, to weed out potential trouble makers. The people getting killed aren't always the desperadoes in our society and I doubt the cops doing the killing are our best and brightest. The woman officer in Tulsa "feared for (her) life" despite being with three other cops immediately by her side, two in the air and more nearby. She panicked and a man died. That is preventable with training. It's avoidable. Life will never be fool-proof. Neither will death. We can try to do better though. All we have to do is try, and to try to give it the attention that we think our hair deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)