Tuned in to listen to Bill Cunningham briefly today in the car. For those of you who aren't from the Cincinnati area, Bill Cunningham is our local version of Rush Limbaugh. Anyway, he was whining today about something I've been hearing a lot about lately, the controversy over extending unemployment benefits, which has historically been done in times of financial difficulty. Our president is a proponent of extending these benefits, as are most in his party, which means the Republicans are throwing a fit. The argument against extending unemployment benefits seems to be primarily that paying people who aren't working encourages them to continue to not work.
Now, I can't honestly say that there aren't some people who fall into that category, but I don't know too many unemployed people who enjoy being unemployed, and I know a whole bunch of people who complain that they are severely underemployed (that is to say, they aren't working as many hours as they want to be working, because the hours aren't there to be worked). I fall into this latter group myself. Most people don't want a handout, they want to be paid, but they want to earn it. Don't get me wrong, I like my free time, but I want to work, damn it!
If you're in the camp of those who don't want to extend unemployment benefits, or even worse, want to end it altogether, what is your defense for this position? Probably, it's something like, It'll get these people off their butts and back into the work force again! Well, golly, that sure is a great argument. Oh, except for the part where there are five unemployed people for every available job right now. Math was never my strong suit, but that doesn't seem like a situation where there are just a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work. It seems a lot more like a situation where there just AREN'T ENOUGH GODDAMN JOBS.
Strangely enough, when our President wants to create new jobs (for instance, he just proposed adding 20,000 new IRS agents), people start screaming that we don't need that! Seriously? Let me explain, briefly, why that is exactly what we need. 20,000 new jobs for the government means 20,000 more people earning a living wage, something that will pay for their home, their food, their car, and all of that stuff for their family, with a little left over. That means 20,000 more people with DISPOSABLE INCOME, which is a crucial little thing that capitalism thoroughly depends upon. When people don't have disposable income, they stop buying things, and the economy crashes. Is this crystal-fucking-clear, people?
Once more: there are actually people out there who want people to get off of unemployment and get out there and get a job, yet they bitch and moan when somebody tries to create jobs for some of these people. Look, you can't have it both ways, folks. That's called a double standard, and I see so much of that, you'd think you can just drive down to McDonald's and order a Double Standard Value Meal for lunch! Hot molasses! That value meal should come with a side of Logic Fries and a nice tall glass of Shut the Hell Up!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
What Goes Around
A little miscellaneous business is in order today, I believe. Went down to the Reds game Friday night, and was thrilled to see a great game. A close, hard-fought contest that the Reds ultimately won, a packed house, and a playoff-like atmosphere made for one of the most exciting games I have ever attended. However, my enjoyment was somewhat negated by many of the other people in attendance, specifically those who chose to walk up and down the aisles during the innings, while the game was going on. Seriously? Why am I even having to talk about this? Isn't it common courtesy, if not common sense, that you should not obstruct anybody else's view of the game if at all possible? For that matter, shouldn't you be watching the game yourself? You probably laid down at least twenty bucks, if not more, for your seat, and maybe as much for your family or your friends to sit next to you, why don't you pay attention to the game? How much diversion do you really need? Can you not wait until the inning is over to go get your hot dogs and your beers? Should you arrive back to your section after procuring your food and the inning is still in progress, you should wait on the concourse until play has stopped, and you should then return to your seat as quickly as possible, so that you are not blocking the view of another person (exceptions, of course, if you have to use the restroom and cannot wait any longer). Also, you do not need to be texting and checking Twitter every two minutes, as the guy in front of me seemed to believe was necessary to his very existence. You're at a damn ballgame, an exciting one between two good teams! Watch the fucking game! Please, be aware that you are not the only damn person in the world, and that the world will not end if you are away from your phone and/or the internet for a few hours.
Elsewhere in the world of sports, there is basketball. I personally don't care for basketball, but it's out there. And you would have to be living outside of the uncharted waters in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy to be unaware of the LeBron James saga, which ended with James and two other top-of-the-line stars all signing with one team at the same time. The three players had essentially gotten together beforehand and come up with the idea to all play for the same team, and presumably win themselves a championship every year for the next decade or so. Doesn't that sound screwy to anybody else? I saw this morning where Michael Jordan said something to the effect of, he never called up Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and said, Hey, why don't we all play for the same team? He didn't want to play those guys, he wanted to beat them, because that's how you know you're the best. And he's right in his implication, that LeBron James isn't interested in any of that, he just wants his rings, even if it isn't strictly fair or right the way he gets them. You can be like the Yankees in baseball and stack the deck in your favor, and it may get you your championships, but it will also be sure to get you hated by everybody who doesn't root for your team.
For something completely unrelated, I'm now looking at some billboards that have gone up in a few states which are at least supporting the right of old and/or sick people to go ahead and kill themselves, if not outright encouraging it. And to this I say, great! The last thing we need is a bunch of elderly people who don't know where they are or who can't take care of themselves hanging around for way too long, being a drain on either the government or their family, whichever is paying to keep them alive. It's about time somebody started taking a common sense approach to this sort of thing. Hell, why would anybody want to stick around in that condition anyway? I mean, if you're old but you're still getting around okay, more or less on your own, then great, keep at it. Otherwise, we need to get some people outta here! I guess you could say that my theme for the day is pretty much, don't be an asshole, because there seems to be a lot of that going around right now. Somebody, please, break the cycle!
Elsewhere in the world of sports, there is basketball. I personally don't care for basketball, but it's out there. And you would have to be living outside of the uncharted waters in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy to be unaware of the LeBron James saga, which ended with James and two other top-of-the-line stars all signing with one team at the same time. The three players had essentially gotten together beforehand and come up with the idea to all play for the same team, and presumably win themselves a championship every year for the next decade or so. Doesn't that sound screwy to anybody else? I saw this morning where Michael Jordan said something to the effect of, he never called up Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and said, Hey, why don't we all play for the same team? He didn't want to play those guys, he wanted to beat them, because that's how you know you're the best. And he's right in his implication, that LeBron James isn't interested in any of that, he just wants his rings, even if it isn't strictly fair or right the way he gets them. You can be like the Yankees in baseball and stack the deck in your favor, and it may get you your championships, but it will also be sure to get you hated by everybody who doesn't root for your team.
For something completely unrelated, I'm now looking at some billboards that have gone up in a few states which are at least supporting the right of old and/or sick people to go ahead and kill themselves, if not outright encouraging it. And to this I say, great! The last thing we need is a bunch of elderly people who don't know where they are or who can't take care of themselves hanging around for way too long, being a drain on either the government or their family, whichever is paying to keep them alive. It's about time somebody started taking a common sense approach to this sort of thing. Hell, why would anybody want to stick around in that condition anyway? I mean, if you're old but you're still getting around okay, more or less on your own, then great, keep at it. Otherwise, we need to get some people outta here! I guess you could say that my theme for the day is pretty much, don't be an asshole, because there seems to be a lot of that going around right now. Somebody, please, break the cycle!
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Life in a Bubble
When did I last post something here? Couple weeks ago? Okay, that's not too bad. I've been trying to form some kind of concrete idea of what I wanted to say next time I pulled up this page, and I think I've settled on a rant about people who are afraid of everything.
We're all afraid of something. Maybe it's spiders, maybe it's clowns, maybe it's heights, dentists, enclosed spaces, the number thirteen, whatever. Maybe you're that very special guy who fears being stuck in an elevator at the thirteenth floor who is somehow falling from the ceiling while being attacked by an arachnid improbably wearing a big red nose and oversized floppy shoes and trying to give you a root canal. You know what scares me? It isn't that unlikely Dr. Spiderclown, DDS. No, rather it's the guy that's afraid of that. Well, not that specifically. I'm talking about the guy with dozens of unspecified fears who takes extreme measures to avoid coming into contact with any of them, the guy who wears a surgeon's mask at night because he heard that you swallow eight spiders in your sleep every year, or the guy who surrounds his bed with garlic and crosses because he's afraid that Robert Pattinson might come after him and get glitter all over him.
The worst, though, the absolute worst are the overprotective parents of the world. You probably know the type. Their kid can only eat the finest (overpriced) all-natural, organic food, they have to wear an entire football uniform to get to soccer practice in case of an automobile accident, they have to be home-schooled because at a public school, they might be exposed to all sorts of Satanic things like practical sex education, the theory of evolution, or possibly even actual human interaction (oh, the horror!)
As I am going to be a dad for the first time around February or so, I want to assure you, dear reader, that there will be none of that sort of bullshit from me. Look, I'm not saying that kids don't need some good old-fashioned parental support and guidance and all that, but they absolutely do not need to be fucking coddled. That shit isn't good for anyone, it just makes them dependent and ill-prepared for the real world, and I will not have any part in having one more goddamn whiny pussy kid running around out there. It's okay if your kid is exposed to some germs, it keeps their immune system sharp in case something really nasty comes along, so don't waste your money on gallons of hand sanitizer. Don't make them wear a helmet when they go bike-riding (unless they're just learning). It will just get them beat up. Take them to McDonald's every once in awhile, it won't fucking kill them. Now, real little kids, you gotta watch them, because they're stupid and they'll stick a key in an electrical outlet first chance they get, but they grow out of that. At some point, though, you gotta take off those kid gloves and let 'em go out and get sick and get hurt and get into trouble, because that's how they learn how to be a person. If you home school 'em, they're just gonna end up being like that guy you work with who not only collects dolls, but has convinced himself that they are endangered Vietnamese kids that he has to protect by blowing up his neighbor's house, and that guy isn't nearly as funny as the movies would have you believe. Damn people, I know the media feeds you all sorts of scary things that can happen out there in the world, but you gotta remember, their paycheck depends on being able to make you afraid of everything.
Anyway, quit being over-protective, and quit being afraid of everything. You've got this life, you might as well try to enjoy it rather than putting a big fucking plastic bubble around you and everyone you care about, because life in a bubble is just a pale imitation, kids. It's Diet Life, nonfat, low-calorie crap that you choke down and try to convince yourself that you like it, but you know deep down that it's not as good as the real thing. Haven't you had enough of that?
We're all afraid of something. Maybe it's spiders, maybe it's clowns, maybe it's heights, dentists, enclosed spaces, the number thirteen, whatever. Maybe you're that very special guy who fears being stuck in an elevator at the thirteenth floor who is somehow falling from the ceiling while being attacked by an arachnid improbably wearing a big red nose and oversized floppy shoes and trying to give you a root canal. You know what scares me? It isn't that unlikely Dr. Spiderclown, DDS. No, rather it's the guy that's afraid of that. Well, not that specifically. I'm talking about the guy with dozens of unspecified fears who takes extreme measures to avoid coming into contact with any of them, the guy who wears a surgeon's mask at night because he heard that you swallow eight spiders in your sleep every year, or the guy who surrounds his bed with garlic and crosses because he's afraid that Robert Pattinson might come after him and get glitter all over him.
The worst, though, the absolute worst are the overprotective parents of the world. You probably know the type. Their kid can only eat the finest (overpriced) all-natural, organic food, they have to wear an entire football uniform to get to soccer practice in case of an automobile accident, they have to be home-schooled because at a public school, they might be exposed to all sorts of Satanic things like practical sex education, the theory of evolution, or possibly even actual human interaction (oh, the horror!)
As I am going to be a dad for the first time around February or so, I want to assure you, dear reader, that there will be none of that sort of bullshit from me. Look, I'm not saying that kids don't need some good old-fashioned parental support and guidance and all that, but they absolutely do not need to be fucking coddled. That shit isn't good for anyone, it just makes them dependent and ill-prepared for the real world, and I will not have any part in having one more goddamn whiny pussy kid running around out there. It's okay if your kid is exposed to some germs, it keeps their immune system sharp in case something really nasty comes along, so don't waste your money on gallons of hand sanitizer. Don't make them wear a helmet when they go bike-riding (unless they're just learning). It will just get them beat up. Take them to McDonald's every once in awhile, it won't fucking kill them. Now, real little kids, you gotta watch them, because they're stupid and they'll stick a key in an electrical outlet first chance they get, but they grow out of that. At some point, though, you gotta take off those kid gloves and let 'em go out and get sick and get hurt and get into trouble, because that's how they learn how to be a person. If you home school 'em, they're just gonna end up being like that guy you work with who not only collects dolls, but has convinced himself that they are endangered Vietnamese kids that he has to protect by blowing up his neighbor's house, and that guy isn't nearly as funny as the movies would have you believe. Damn people, I know the media feeds you all sorts of scary things that can happen out there in the world, but you gotta remember, their paycheck depends on being able to make you afraid of everything.
Anyway, quit being over-protective, and quit being afraid of everything. You've got this life, you might as well try to enjoy it rather than putting a big fucking plastic bubble around you and everyone you care about, because life in a bubble is just a pale imitation, kids. It's Diet Life, nonfat, low-calorie crap that you choke down and try to convince yourself that you like it, but you know deep down that it's not as good as the real thing. Haven't you had enough of that?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
For Just A Few Dollars More
It is astonishing to me that a man as smart as President Obama continues to do stupid things. His recent proclamation that his administration will be cracking down on piracy is stunningly short-sighted and poorly thought-out, and it is entirely possible that his position will have detrimental political implications when he comes up for re-election in a couple years.
The President claims that a failure to put an end to piracy will result in nothing less than the demise of the global economy, which sounds disturbingly like the sort of fear-mongering we endured in the eight years prior to Mr. Obama's election. Even worse, it is completely unfounded, as the Government Accountability Office released a report to Congress earlier this year that found no evidence of the million dollar losses claimed by the entertainment industry, most notably the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. Indeed, the report suggested that piracy could actually be a boon to the economy.
When the American public overwhelmingly elected Mr. Obama to the presidency in 2008, it was in part because they dared hope that we would at last have a president immune to lobbyist dollars. Unfortunately, it has proven to be more of the same. For Mr. Obama, this decision comes at a time when the MPAA and RIAA (the latter in particular) have become increasingly archaic and unpopular with the American people, who see them as protectors of corporate interests, all too eager to gouge your average working stiff who just wants a night out at the movies with his family, but finds himself swindled for upwards of fifty bucks for a few tickets and a bucket of popcorn. Even worse, this appears to be just the next in a series of unwinnable wars against ideas, and this is certain to be a failure as complete as the wars on poverty, on drugs, and on terrorism, among other things. There are those among our populace who are becoming very aware that such battles are really nothing more than a distraction, the wave of a hand by a skilled magician to ensure that you won't notice the coin he has palmed in the other.
Despite this, I am less concerned with the political fate of Mr. Obama than I am with the rights of the people. Though I am not a judge or a lawyer, I have plenty of common sense that tells me that if somebody pays for something, they can do whatever they like with it. If you purchase a DVD or buy an album on iTunes, then the files contained therein belong to you, and if you choose to give them away on the internet, then you are well within your rights to do so. Downloading those files is not, as Vice President Biden suggests, equivalent to smashing a store window and taking something. Rather, it is accepting something that has been offered freely as a gift. And as for the alleged loss of millions of dollars, even if you don't accept that report from the Government Accountability Office, you should know that the record labels represented by the RIAA, for instance, make virtually nothing from album sales. Their profits derive almost wholly from live performances and merchandise. Likewise, film producers aren't making much from sales of hard copies of their movies; their big bucks come from box office receipts, and they aren't hurting for those. In case you hadn't noticed, numerous box office records have been set in multiple categories just in the last couple years. Of course, as much as it costs to go to the movies these days, it would be difficult to not be raking in the green.
At some point, we have to start applying common sense to real life, and our politicians have to be made to enact and enforce laws that protect the common man rather than corporate interests. Not everything has to make money for someone in this country, damn it! These people would have you believe that they are being robbed at gunpoint, but the truth is very much the opposite.
The President claims that a failure to put an end to piracy will result in nothing less than the demise of the global economy, which sounds disturbingly like the sort of fear-mongering we endured in the eight years prior to Mr. Obama's election. Even worse, it is completely unfounded, as the Government Accountability Office released a report to Congress earlier this year that found no evidence of the million dollar losses claimed by the entertainment industry, most notably the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. Indeed, the report suggested that piracy could actually be a boon to the economy.
When the American public overwhelmingly elected Mr. Obama to the presidency in 2008, it was in part because they dared hope that we would at last have a president immune to lobbyist dollars. Unfortunately, it has proven to be more of the same. For Mr. Obama, this decision comes at a time when the MPAA and RIAA (the latter in particular) have become increasingly archaic and unpopular with the American people, who see them as protectors of corporate interests, all too eager to gouge your average working stiff who just wants a night out at the movies with his family, but finds himself swindled for upwards of fifty bucks for a few tickets and a bucket of popcorn. Even worse, this appears to be just the next in a series of unwinnable wars against ideas, and this is certain to be a failure as complete as the wars on poverty, on drugs, and on terrorism, among other things. There are those among our populace who are becoming very aware that such battles are really nothing more than a distraction, the wave of a hand by a skilled magician to ensure that you won't notice the coin he has palmed in the other.
Despite this, I am less concerned with the political fate of Mr. Obama than I am with the rights of the people. Though I am not a judge or a lawyer, I have plenty of common sense that tells me that if somebody pays for something, they can do whatever they like with it. If you purchase a DVD or buy an album on iTunes, then the files contained therein belong to you, and if you choose to give them away on the internet, then you are well within your rights to do so. Downloading those files is not, as Vice President Biden suggests, equivalent to smashing a store window and taking something. Rather, it is accepting something that has been offered freely as a gift. And as for the alleged loss of millions of dollars, even if you don't accept that report from the Government Accountability Office, you should know that the record labels represented by the RIAA, for instance, make virtually nothing from album sales. Their profits derive almost wholly from live performances and merchandise. Likewise, film producers aren't making much from sales of hard copies of their movies; their big bucks come from box office receipts, and they aren't hurting for those. In case you hadn't noticed, numerous box office records have been set in multiple categories just in the last couple years. Of course, as much as it costs to go to the movies these days, it would be difficult to not be raking in the green.
At some point, we have to start applying common sense to real life, and our politicians have to be made to enact and enforce laws that protect the common man rather than corporate interests. Not everything has to make money for someone in this country, damn it! These people would have you believe that they are being robbed at gunpoint, but the truth is very much the opposite.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
In the Interest of Fairness
I've got a little more to throw at BP today, specifically their CEO, Tony Hayward. Facing Congress on Thursday to provide some answers about the Gulf oil spill, Hayward repeatedly offered such replies as, "I don't recall," "I can't answer that question," and "That's a decision I was not party to." Well, now I've got a question for Tony Hayward, one that Congress didn't ask: Mr. Hayward, what exactly are you doing to earn your nearly $6 million a year (American) salary? You say you're not stonewalling, you just weren't involved in the decision-making process. This is a pretty major thing your company was doing, and you didn't have anything to do with it? Are we supposed to believe that? Are we just going to accept whomever you send forth to be your fall-guy? I know I won't. Mr. Hayward, you are the CEO of your company, you are ultimately responsible for the policies and decisions of BP. One of two things must be true here, Mr. Hayward, and neither of them is good for you. Either you were involved in the decision-making process and are lying about it, or you weren't involved, which would seem to indicate that you aren't actually doing very much actual work there, and consequently you do not deserve to be earning two pennies to rub together, much less six million dollars a year in salary (plus bonuses for more alleged accomplishments).
In a greater sense, this speaks to the issue of the money "earned" by corporate executives, be they members of the board or CEOs or Vice Presidents or whatever. Almost without exception, these people are millionaires many times over, because they are in a position to essentially determine their own salary. I'm not necessarily saying that all of them abuse this privilege, and I'm not saying that some of them aren't working hard to earn every dollar they get. What I am saying, however, is that a person receiving a salary or other form of income that makes them a multi-millionaire (or more), they aren't doing anything to deserve that kind of money. If you're not saving lives or curing cancer or something like that, you just aren't worth that kind of cash. Just because you say you deserve it doesn't mean that you actually do. You don't need that much to live on comfortably. And most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to decide how much you make. If you're a corporate executive, your worth should be measured by how much you contributed to your company. Let your employees tell you how much they think you should make. If you worked hard and treated those in your employ well, then you will be adequately compensated.
Similarly, do you know that our members of Congress determine their own salaries? In what way is that fair? A United States Senator, for instance, earns somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000 a year right now. Now, many of them are hard workers who mostly mean well. Their job is a difficult one, in which they face constant public scrutiny, and for good reason. The ones who do a good job probably deserve even more than that princely sum. However, it should not be their decision to make. I don't get to write my own checks, and they shouldn't be allowed to either. Ask their constituents how much they deserve; that will be a little more representative of reality. This is not me railing against those in the socio-economic upper class in this country. Rather, this is me arguing in defense of fairness to the American people, most of whom rarely get what they deserve, for better or for worse.
In a greater sense, this speaks to the issue of the money "earned" by corporate executives, be they members of the board or CEOs or Vice Presidents or whatever. Almost without exception, these people are millionaires many times over, because they are in a position to essentially determine their own salary. I'm not necessarily saying that all of them abuse this privilege, and I'm not saying that some of them aren't working hard to earn every dollar they get. What I am saying, however, is that a person receiving a salary or other form of income that makes them a multi-millionaire (or more), they aren't doing anything to deserve that kind of money. If you're not saving lives or curing cancer or something like that, you just aren't worth that kind of cash. Just because you say you deserve it doesn't mean that you actually do. You don't need that much to live on comfortably. And most importantly, you shouldn't be allowed to decide how much you make. If you're a corporate executive, your worth should be measured by how much you contributed to your company. Let your employees tell you how much they think you should make. If you worked hard and treated those in your employ well, then you will be adequately compensated.
Similarly, do you know that our members of Congress determine their own salaries? In what way is that fair? A United States Senator, for instance, earns somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000 a year right now. Now, many of them are hard workers who mostly mean well. Their job is a difficult one, in which they face constant public scrutiny, and for good reason. The ones who do a good job probably deserve even more than that princely sum. However, it should not be their decision to make. I don't get to write my own checks, and they shouldn't be allowed to either. Ask their constituents how much they deserve; that will be a little more representative of reality. This is not me railing against those in the socio-economic upper class in this country. Rather, this is me arguing in defense of fairness to the American people, most of whom rarely get what they deserve, for better or for worse.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Win, Lose or Draw
This briefly, before I get to my actual blog topic for the day: I appreciate those who would come to the defense of both myself and common sense; I ask merely that you keep the discourse civilized here. If you cannot do this, then it had better be damn funny at the same time. Failing this, I will have to ask that such exchanges be kept private. Entertaining though they may be, this is not the place for them. I would hesitate to delete any comments, as there are few things I despise more than censorship, and there are few that I love more than the freedom that we, as Americans, enjoy to say or write whatever we like. However, I will vigorously leap to defend my friends as they have defended me should they come under any personal attack, so all who comment here should be wary of any such remarks. Similarly, comments which are in no way relevant to the blog (for instance, those which identify another commenter as my ex-girlfriend) are not welcome here. I will not have my blog reduced to an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. Again, thanks to those who realize that volleying insults back and forth is only a mere step above monkeys flinging crap at one another. Now, onward to the actual subject of the day.
I kicked around a few possibilities to write about today, and I have settled on one that came up in conversation today between Audrey and I, that being soccer. This is prompted, of course, by the World Cup, which I believe just got underway in the last day or two. I probably wouldn't even have noticed had updates on it (and the equally uninteresting NBA Finals) not been constantly interrupting the much more fascinating baseball highlights on ESPN. It is rare that I find myself in agreement with most Americans, but I think that we got it right on this occasion with our collective shrug towards soccer. I know that even ESPN pays soccer some lip service, but you can tell those guys are just trying to get through it as fast as possible to get back to the good stuff. Football and baseball are the most loved and most watched sports in the United States, and though I have not checked the ratings or attendance figures or merchandise sales, I believe that each of those things will support my conclusion (certainly, my experience as a retailer of sports cards and memorabilia bears it out). Soccer is, what, maybe sixth? Depends if you count NASCAR or golf as sports (I don't...my understanding of sports is that it is a requisite to be an athlete to play professionally, and while NASCAR drivers and golfers may be skilled in their abilities, they hardly have to be in optimal shape to perform at their peak). Soccer at least is a sport...it's just a very boring one.
I played soccer for a year (way back in third grade, admittedly), I have attempted to watch it...there's just no getting around it, it is composed of kicking a ball around. This will be enjoyable to your average person for maybe ten consecutive minutes. Hockey is essentially the same as soccer, just on skates and with sticks and a puck, and the fights occur between the players more often than in the stands. Basketball is the same essential idea, it just places less of a premium on its points. Football is a whole different animal. Political commentator George Will once described football as a combination of the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. Leave it to America to love a game such as this. Though I like football quite a lot, I suspect that I like it for entirely different reasons than your typical football fan.
I have opined at great length to anyone who will listen on the virtues of baseball, and it truly is the most unique sport that is widely watched and enjoyed in this country. Every other sport I have named is essentially one that sees each team take turns moving up the court/field, advancing on its opponent's goal. Baseball has no goal line, no net. It is the only sport in which the defense controls the ball and initiates each play. It requires, by far, the most skills to master to play at the professional level of any sport. Baseball players must be at least adequate at handling a bat in numerous situations, including the ability to hit-and-run and bunt as needed, they must be able to judge the strike zone, they must be intelligent baserunners, they must know how to read the positioning of the defensive players and know which ones have good or poor range and strong or weak throwing arms. Defensively, a player must be proficient at playing at least one position on the field, should know how to position himself according to the tendencies of every hitter who comes to the plate, should be able to make accurate throws to any base, and outfielders should know how to take the proper route to a ball in the air or on the ground, and should know where the cutoff man will be and be able to deliver the ball to him quickly and accurately. Catchers must also know how to handle a pitcher, be a good judge of his limitations and abilities, must be familiar with every hitter in the league, must be able to block pitches in the dirt and runners coming towards home plate, and must be able to throw to each base quickly and accurately. Pitchers must also have extensive knowledge of all hitters, must be able to throw at least two different pitches effectively, and must be able to field their position, cover first base, and back up throws to third and home. No other sport requires such a compendium of talent and skill, and that is only what is required to be an average baseball player. And let us not forget that baseball players are almost exclusively fine athletes. This is often overlooked because being a good athlete is not the lone requisite for being a good baseball player.
In a sport such as football or basketball, a player can often compensate for marginal skills by being extremely big and strong (see: Shaquille O'Neal) or very fast and elusive (see: Reggie Bush). Baseball players who attempt to compensate for mediocre ability with either of these things almost inevitably wash out of the pros in short order. Ask Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, the two most notable athletes to play both pro baseball and pro football, which sport is more difficult. Both will tell you in an instant that the answer is baseball. Jackson and Sanders are both freakish athletes who worked their tails off to have just ordinary baseball careers (though they were remarkably exciting to watch play), but were stars in the NFL. Keep in mind, an NFL regular season is a mere sixteen games long. An NBA regular season is just eighty-two games. An MLB regular season is twice as long as an NBA season and ten times longer than an NFL season in terms of games played, and off-days are infrequent. Baseball's position players are expected to play about 150 games every season, nearly every single day (less for catchers, understandably). I defy anyone to go out every summer, on the hottest days of the year, and play in 150 baseball games in 180 days. It ain't as easy as it sounds, folks.
I guess my point is, please ESPN, stop interrupting my exciting, tension-packed, talent-dripping, thought-provoking baseball games to bring me clips of some guys kicking a damn ball around and their fans rioting in the streets, which I might add happens whether they win, lose, or draw. Oh, and that's another thing: there are no ties in baseball (except that one All-Star Game, but that was just an exhibition, after all). Can we please all stop pretending to care about soccer? It's getting embarrassing.
I kicked around a few possibilities to write about today, and I have settled on one that came up in conversation today between Audrey and I, that being soccer. This is prompted, of course, by the World Cup, which I believe just got underway in the last day or two. I probably wouldn't even have noticed had updates on it (and the equally uninteresting NBA Finals) not been constantly interrupting the much more fascinating baseball highlights on ESPN. It is rare that I find myself in agreement with most Americans, but I think that we got it right on this occasion with our collective shrug towards soccer. I know that even ESPN pays soccer some lip service, but you can tell those guys are just trying to get through it as fast as possible to get back to the good stuff. Football and baseball are the most loved and most watched sports in the United States, and though I have not checked the ratings or attendance figures or merchandise sales, I believe that each of those things will support my conclusion (certainly, my experience as a retailer of sports cards and memorabilia bears it out). Soccer is, what, maybe sixth? Depends if you count NASCAR or golf as sports (I don't...my understanding of sports is that it is a requisite to be an athlete to play professionally, and while NASCAR drivers and golfers may be skilled in their abilities, they hardly have to be in optimal shape to perform at their peak). Soccer at least is a sport...it's just a very boring one.
I played soccer for a year (way back in third grade, admittedly), I have attempted to watch it...there's just no getting around it, it is composed of kicking a ball around. This will be enjoyable to your average person for maybe ten consecutive minutes. Hockey is essentially the same as soccer, just on skates and with sticks and a puck, and the fights occur between the players more often than in the stands. Basketball is the same essential idea, it just places less of a premium on its points. Football is a whole different animal. Political commentator George Will once described football as a combination of the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings. Leave it to America to love a game such as this. Though I like football quite a lot, I suspect that I like it for entirely different reasons than your typical football fan.
I have opined at great length to anyone who will listen on the virtues of baseball, and it truly is the most unique sport that is widely watched and enjoyed in this country. Every other sport I have named is essentially one that sees each team take turns moving up the court/field, advancing on its opponent's goal. Baseball has no goal line, no net. It is the only sport in which the defense controls the ball and initiates each play. It requires, by far, the most skills to master to play at the professional level of any sport. Baseball players must be at least adequate at handling a bat in numerous situations, including the ability to hit-and-run and bunt as needed, they must be able to judge the strike zone, they must be intelligent baserunners, they must know how to read the positioning of the defensive players and know which ones have good or poor range and strong or weak throwing arms. Defensively, a player must be proficient at playing at least one position on the field, should know how to position himself according to the tendencies of every hitter who comes to the plate, should be able to make accurate throws to any base, and outfielders should know how to take the proper route to a ball in the air or on the ground, and should know where the cutoff man will be and be able to deliver the ball to him quickly and accurately. Catchers must also know how to handle a pitcher, be a good judge of his limitations and abilities, must be familiar with every hitter in the league, must be able to block pitches in the dirt and runners coming towards home plate, and must be able to throw to each base quickly and accurately. Pitchers must also have extensive knowledge of all hitters, must be able to throw at least two different pitches effectively, and must be able to field their position, cover first base, and back up throws to third and home. No other sport requires such a compendium of talent and skill, and that is only what is required to be an average baseball player. And let us not forget that baseball players are almost exclusively fine athletes. This is often overlooked because being a good athlete is not the lone requisite for being a good baseball player.
In a sport such as football or basketball, a player can often compensate for marginal skills by being extremely big and strong (see: Shaquille O'Neal) or very fast and elusive (see: Reggie Bush). Baseball players who attempt to compensate for mediocre ability with either of these things almost inevitably wash out of the pros in short order. Ask Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders, the two most notable athletes to play both pro baseball and pro football, which sport is more difficult. Both will tell you in an instant that the answer is baseball. Jackson and Sanders are both freakish athletes who worked their tails off to have just ordinary baseball careers (though they were remarkably exciting to watch play), but were stars in the NFL. Keep in mind, an NFL regular season is a mere sixteen games long. An NBA regular season is just eighty-two games. An MLB regular season is twice as long as an NBA season and ten times longer than an NFL season in terms of games played, and off-days are infrequent. Baseball's position players are expected to play about 150 games every season, nearly every single day (less for catchers, understandably). I defy anyone to go out every summer, on the hottest days of the year, and play in 150 baseball games in 180 days. It ain't as easy as it sounds, folks.
I guess my point is, please ESPN, stop interrupting my exciting, tension-packed, talent-dripping, thought-provoking baseball games to bring me clips of some guys kicking a damn ball around and their fans rioting in the streets, which I might add happens whether they win, lose, or draw. Oh, and that's another thing: there are no ties in baseball (except that one All-Star Game, but that was just an exhibition, after all). Can we please all stop pretending to care about soccer? It's getting embarrassing.
Friday, June 11, 2010
For Your Entertainment
This may be brief, as I have just returned from vacation and am not as of yet fully recovered. Hopefully will be returning to a semi-regular schedule of better posts in the near future. However, this really couldn't wait.
Not sure if anybody else reads the comments I get on my entries here, but I do, and I seem to have acquired a Mystery Commenter who is pretty clearly opposed to at least most of the beliefs I hold. Most of these comments have been pretty benign and unobjectionable, but the most recent got my hackles up. I do not, as of this writing, know who this person is, I have only their tag, something about Blog-Eating-Waffles (what a concept!) and a sparse profile. That's fine, it's not particularly important (I don't even know what my own profile says, if it says anything). It's also fine if somebody disagrees with me; I have encouraged this in the past, and continue to do so now. I'll also readily admit that I'm not the most informed person on all things, nor do I pretend to be. I am, for what it's worth, more informed than your average guy on the street, but this blog hasn't got anything to do with that. It mostly serves as my take on whatever pops into my mind based on whatever I know of it, and should be taken as nothing more than that.
However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement, that is looking to start a flame war, which I am not interested in. If you want to read my blog, that's great, I appreciate it. If you want to comment, even better. If you disagree, that's okay too, we have our right to free speech. I embrace that, and you should too. I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy. If I was interested in that, I would do it myself; my sterling grades on written papers during my college years indicates that I am fully capable of doing so if I wish. Clearly, I am not here to give you your news, and if that's why you're here, I recommend going elsewhere for it. Primarily, I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher, though I am no match for them in terms of my comedy or my knowledge, but then again, it is their job to be unmatched, while it is my job to stock the shelves at Target. This is just something I do in my free time, when the mood strikes me; I am hardly a professional.
If you are not entertained by my blog, please feel no obligation to continue reading it. If you wish merely to fact-check someone, I recommend applying for such a job at a news company (don't waste your time applying at Fox News, however, as they do not employ one).
Finally, if you wish to attempt to wield logic against me, you should probably be aware of the ways in which logic works. I am not interested in "having it both ways" as Mystery Commenter has suggested. If I was accepting President Obama's statements that he is responsible, then you could possibly make this claim. However, I do not recognize his acceptance of the responsibility. If I just took everyone at his or her word, then I would believe that the crazy guy on the street corner is Jesus, that Tom Cruise is sane, and that Barack Obama both is and is not a socialist, since I hear both of these uttered so frequently, and then the world would cease to exist because two contradictory things would be true. So, there you have that, I am not trying to have it both ways. Of course, I have a basic understanding of logic and do not attempt to perform gymnastics with words. I call it as I see it, and all those other great cliches. If I suggest that some Americans are happy to blame the black guy for any disaster that befalls this country, it's because I've seen significant evidence of it, but I am not suggesting that any one particular person is doing this. So, Mystery Commenter, believe it when I say that neither the universe nor my blog revolves around you (and do not make the mistake of believing that even this entry is about you; it was merely prompted by your remarks). This suggestion about a portion of the American psyche in general was not directed at you, nor anyone else in particular. You don't care what color the President's skin is, neither do I. Some people do, though, and my statement was issued to that end. A person with common sense might have deduced that from my phrasing, and the add-on that you were "waiting for this" sort of remark only serves to further my belief that you are just looking for a fight to pick. Now, you have had your say on this matter, I have had mine, and I am considering this the end of the issue. Once again, if you (and by you, I mean anybody) wish to read my blog, great, if you wish to comment, better, if you wish to disagree, fine. If you wish to solicit unwanted editing, take my words out of context, and attempt to use faulty logic against me, I will rapidly lose patience with you, and your comments containing any of these things will be cheerfully disregarded.
Not sure if anybody else reads the comments I get on my entries here, but I do, and I seem to have acquired a Mystery Commenter who is pretty clearly opposed to at least most of the beliefs I hold. Most of these comments have been pretty benign and unobjectionable, but the most recent got my hackles up. I do not, as of this writing, know who this person is, I have only their tag, something about Blog-Eating-Waffles (what a concept!) and a sparse profile. That's fine, it's not particularly important (I don't even know what my own profile says, if it says anything). It's also fine if somebody disagrees with me; I have encouraged this in the past, and continue to do so now. I'll also readily admit that I'm not the most informed person on all things, nor do I pretend to be. I am, for what it's worth, more informed than your average guy on the street, but this blog hasn't got anything to do with that. It mostly serves as my take on whatever pops into my mind based on whatever I know of it, and should be taken as nothing more than that.
However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement, that is looking to start a flame war, which I am not interested in. If you want to read my blog, that's great, I appreciate it. If you want to comment, even better. If you disagree, that's okay too, we have our right to free speech. I embrace that, and you should too. I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy. If I was interested in that, I would do it myself; my sterling grades on written papers during my college years indicates that I am fully capable of doing so if I wish. Clearly, I am not here to give you your news, and if that's why you're here, I recommend going elsewhere for it. Primarily, I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher, though I am no match for them in terms of my comedy or my knowledge, but then again, it is their job to be unmatched, while it is my job to stock the shelves at Target. This is just something I do in my free time, when the mood strikes me; I am hardly a professional.
If you are not entertained by my blog, please feel no obligation to continue reading it. If you wish merely to fact-check someone, I recommend applying for such a job at a news company (don't waste your time applying at Fox News, however, as they do not employ one).
Finally, if you wish to attempt to wield logic against me, you should probably be aware of the ways in which logic works. I am not interested in "having it both ways" as Mystery Commenter has suggested. If I was accepting President Obama's statements that he is responsible, then you could possibly make this claim. However, I do not recognize his acceptance of the responsibility. If I just took everyone at his or her word, then I would believe that the crazy guy on the street corner is Jesus, that Tom Cruise is sane, and that Barack Obama both is and is not a socialist, since I hear both of these uttered so frequently, and then the world would cease to exist because two contradictory things would be true. So, there you have that, I am not trying to have it both ways. Of course, I have a basic understanding of logic and do not attempt to perform gymnastics with words. I call it as I see it, and all those other great cliches. If I suggest that some Americans are happy to blame the black guy for any disaster that befalls this country, it's because I've seen significant evidence of it, but I am not suggesting that any one particular person is doing this. So, Mystery Commenter, believe it when I say that neither the universe nor my blog revolves around you (and do not make the mistake of believing that even this entry is about you; it was merely prompted by your remarks). This suggestion about a portion of the American psyche in general was not directed at you, nor anyone else in particular. You don't care what color the President's skin is, neither do I. Some people do, though, and my statement was issued to that end. A person with common sense might have deduced that from my phrasing, and the add-on that you were "waiting for this" sort of remark only serves to further my belief that you are just looking for a fight to pick. Now, you have had your say on this matter, I have had mine, and I am considering this the end of the issue. Once again, if you (and by you, I mean anybody) wish to read my blog, great, if you wish to comment, better, if you wish to disagree, fine. If you wish to solicit unwanted editing, take my words out of context, and attempt to use faulty logic against me, I will rapidly lose patience with you, and your comments containing any of these things will be cheerfully disregarded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
