In case you haven't heard Michael Sam is homosexual. Who is Michael Sam? Michael Sam is a football player for the University of Missouri. He's really good - reeeeeeaaaaaally good. He's 6 foot 3, and weighs 260 lbs. He won 2013 SEC Defensive player of the year along with C.J. Mosely of Alabama.
Most of the draft experts had him projected to go in rounds 3 - 5. He's one of those "tweeners' as a defensive end in college. Questions like "Can he get to be big enough to play DE in the NF?" or "Is he fast enough to convert to LB?" You know - GM type questions. Such is it is, he could be a guy that goes in the middle rounds, or a guy some team reaches for, or a guy who doesn't get drafted.
Based on that alone, his coming out was a display of HUUUUUGE balls. A 1st round talent is probably going in the 1st round/early 2nd, whether he come out pre draft or not. Projected late round selections are going late, or pinning hopes on free agency. Mr. Sam is risking a lot of money on this, and that's really brave.
He's going to be drafted lower than he would have been. That's not a bold prediction, and it's not an indictment on NFL GMs. Football guys want football players, and they typically don't want to answer questions that have nothing to do with football. There will be no shortage of them in the time that passes between now and the NFL draft. One, it only takes one, will bet on him, and the door will be kicked down.
That's not a reflection on the NFL. That's a reflection on all of us. It used to be "Oh my god - that dude's gay." Now it's "Oh my god - that dude's gay, AND doesn't care who knows it." We're the problem, not the "manly" culture of professional sports.
Michael Sam is a brave man - far braver than most. He's the 1st openly
gay football player at his level. Things will be harder for him for that
reason. They're always harder on the one's who are first. They were
harder for Jackie Robinson than they were for the African American
players who came after him in the Major Leagues. Jackie Robinson not
only had to put up with the bullshit, he had to be good. Michael Sam has
to be good. He also has to be bigger than the small minds in some other players, front office people, and fans.
Here's hoping his talent is as big as his balls are.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Could we keep things in perspective? Please???
Enough already. Enough!
If I hear one more "So and so are like the Nazis" I'm gonna ....... engage in my own hyperbole.
Seriously, do you know how stupid, and uniformed you sound when you say healthcare, or gun control laws are like the Nazis? You sound ignorant. To be fair I will tell you what are acceptable things to say are "like the Nazis.:
1) The Nazis
That's the list. All of it. The whole enchilada. The kit and kaboodle. Unless your store windows are being broken, and your business shuttered because of your faith, or descendants you can't compare current affairs to the Nazis. Unless you have to produce identification papers to ride the goddamned bus, what's happening isn't remotely close to what happened under the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s. Unless there's a suspicious new camp erected near your town by the railroad, and you don't recall there being much activity related to hiring people to work there - what's happening isn't anywhere near what happened in eastern Germany, and Poland in the 1940s. Nobody. Let me repeat, nobody, no group, no party is like the Nazis. Not even remotely so.
So stop. Stop it. Stop being historically illiterate, and ignorant.
While we're at it let's address another bit of historical hyperbole that has become in vogue lately when it comes to debate, ahem "debate." Comparisons to Stalin and Mao. Again, to be fair, there are acceptable comparisons to Stalin and Mao,
1) Stalin
2) Mao
I know, it's a list that's twice as long. Still, it's short enough to quickly commit to memory. When the political parties in your country take political opponents, put them on trains to work camps you can say they're just like Stalin or Mao. When their writings are made illegal, burned, and printers penalized for producing them, you can compare them to Stalin and Mao. Till then you need to find a more apt comparison. Political bullies are not in short supply, and they come in varieties across the political spectrum.
Please, apply some sense of perspective.
If I hear one more "So and so are like the Nazis" I'm gonna ....... engage in my own hyperbole.
Seriously, do you know how stupid, and uniformed you sound when you say healthcare, or gun control laws are like the Nazis? You sound ignorant. To be fair I will tell you what are acceptable things to say are "like the Nazis.:
1) The Nazis
That's the list. All of it. The whole enchilada. The kit and kaboodle. Unless your store windows are being broken, and your business shuttered because of your faith, or descendants you can't compare current affairs to the Nazis. Unless you have to produce identification papers to ride the goddamned bus, what's happening isn't remotely close to what happened under the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s. Unless there's a suspicious new camp erected near your town by the railroad, and you don't recall there being much activity related to hiring people to work there - what's happening isn't anywhere near what happened in eastern Germany, and Poland in the 1940s. Nobody. Let me repeat, nobody, no group, no party is like the Nazis. Not even remotely so.
So stop. Stop it. Stop being historically illiterate, and ignorant.
While we're at it let's address another bit of historical hyperbole that has become in vogue lately when it comes to debate, ahem "debate." Comparisons to Stalin and Mao. Again, to be fair, there are acceptable comparisons to Stalin and Mao,
1) Stalin
2) Mao
I know, it's a list that's twice as long. Still, it's short enough to quickly commit to memory. When the political parties in your country take political opponents, put them on trains to work camps you can say they're just like Stalin or Mao. When their writings are made illegal, burned, and printers penalized for producing them, you can compare them to Stalin and Mao. Till then you need to find a more apt comparison. Political bullies are not in short supply, and they come in varieties across the political spectrum.
Please, apply some sense of perspective.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Creationism - not science
Much was made this week of the debate between Bill Nye (of "The Science Guy" fame), and Ken Ham who runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
I did not watch the debate, but I did follow the reactions to it online. It did not seem to change anybody's mind. Those on either side of this ideological fence appeared to stay on their respective sides, and each side advanced the notion that "their guy" carried the day. Whatever.
I don't know if these questions are typical of the "Creationism as science" movements, but I do feel confident saying most of them are philosophical in nature. And therein lies the point. Creationism is not science because "God did it" is, regardless of your personal faith, an unobservable, untestable, and experimentally unrepeatable hypothesis. That is the one thing that is common is all varieties of sciences.
As to the questions posed by creationists in the link above, I found some pretty cool questions in reply. I also have my own to some. This would be needlessly long I did all 22.
As to the origins of man, you are free to believe what you choose. You may even cull that from religious dogma and call it truth. What you can't do is call it science, and insist it belongs in school science curriculum.
I did not watch the debate, but I did follow the reactions to it online. It did not seem to change anybody's mind. Those on either side of this ideological fence appeared to stay on their respective sides, and each side advanced the notion that "their guy" carried the day. Whatever.
I don't know if these questions are typical of the "Creationism as science" movements, but I do feel confident saying most of them are philosophical in nature. And therein lies the point. Creationism is not science because "God did it" is, regardless of your personal faith, an unobservable, untestable, and experimentally unrepeatable hypothesis. That is the one thing that is common is all varieties of sciences.
As to the questions posed by creationists in the link above, I found some pretty cool questions in reply. I also have my own to some. This would be needlessly long I did all 22.
1) “Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?”
Learning to use the scientific method helped us cure disease, fly, go to the moon. Teaching that is astoundingly positive.
2) “Are you scared of a Divine Creator?”
If I were an atheist I would say "No. There's nothing to be afraid of." If I were a Christian I would say "No. God has unconditional love for me."
3) “Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings … Adam created as an adult ....”
It's not illogical at all. It does have a low degree of probability. Probability is a pretty important part of scientific method. Statistical analysis of experimental data helps us predict outcomes in future experiments, or real world application. It's philosophically logical that the universe was created as it is now yesterday by a divinity with endless power, and all memories we have were planted there by said divinity. It is also highly unlikely.
5) “How do you explain a sunset if their [sic] is no God?”
Really? The Earth orbits the Sun, and therefore the Sun is in a fixed position relative to Earth. Earth rotates on its axis. When the part of Earth you are on approaches the position where the Sun will become no longer visible - sunset.
8) “Where do you derive objective meaning in life?”
Meaning in life is completely subjective. This is a decidedly un-scientific question. Meaning? Try art, literature, music, science. Meaning is everywhere, and different to each of us.
20) “How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It’s amazing!!!”
It is amazing. Understanding things outside of religious dogma doesn't make them less amazing. I find the fact that the molecules in my body are more empty space than actual matter, and that those molecules are made of the same sub-atomic matter as stars, is utterly amazing.
22) “If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?”
Evolutionary theory holds that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from monkeys.
Learning to use the scientific method helped us cure disease, fly, go to the moon. Teaching that is astoundingly positive.
2) “Are you scared of a Divine Creator?”
If I were an atheist I would say "No. There's nothing to be afraid of." If I were a Christian I would say "No. God has unconditional love for me."
3) “Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings … Adam created as an adult ....”
It's not illogical at all. It does have a low degree of probability. Probability is a pretty important part of scientific method. Statistical analysis of experimental data helps us predict outcomes in future experiments, or real world application. It's philosophically logical that the universe was created as it is now yesterday by a divinity with endless power, and all memories we have were planted there by said divinity. It is also highly unlikely.
5) “How do you explain a sunset if their [sic] is no God?”
Really? The Earth orbits the Sun, and therefore the Sun is in a fixed position relative to Earth. Earth rotates on its axis. When the part of Earth you are on approaches the position where the Sun will become no longer visible - sunset.
8) “Where do you derive objective meaning in life?”
Meaning in life is completely subjective. This is a decidedly un-scientific question. Meaning? Try art, literature, music, science. Meaning is everywhere, and different to each of us.
20) “How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It’s amazing!!!”
It is amazing. Understanding things outside of religious dogma doesn't make them less amazing. I find the fact that the molecules in my body are more empty space than actual matter, and that those molecules are made of the same sub-atomic matter as stars, is utterly amazing.
22) “If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?”
Evolutionary theory holds that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from monkeys.
As to the origins of man, you are free to believe what you choose. You may even cull that from religious dogma and call it truth. What you can't do is call it science, and insist it belongs in school science curriculum.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Welcome back Kevin!!!
Kevin Costner is in five movies this year. Five! I was wondering what happened to him until he was in Hatfields and McCoys on History Channel last year.
I've been a Kevin Costner fan since The Untouchables. I've silently endured friendly, or pretentious, barbs from friends about his work. In truth his body of work stands out. He's made what I consider 2 great films: Bull Durham, and Dances with Wolves. No Way Out, The Untouchables, Field Of Dreams, Open Range, Tin Cup, For Love Of The Game, JFK were all really good movies. Waterworld was underrated (but still overpriced). Sure, Robin Hood was kinda lame, and Wyatt Earp was just too dense and too long to be an interesting bio. Still, it's nice to see him back on the screen in multiple features because I really think he's talented. He's made some really compelling cinema over the decades.
His great films are Bull Durham and Dance With Wolves. Bull Durham is the iconic baseball movie. It's better than Pride Of The Yankees; better than Eight Men Out; better than A League Of Their Own; and yes, better than Major League. Making it to the Show is a pervasive dream in America. So many players don't make it, but that doesn't diminish them. Funny things, dreams. They're full of hope, and impossible to kill almost. Crash Davis' dream doesn't end in Bull Durham, it just takes a different form. Dances With Wolves is unfairly (in my opinion) maligned as being the wrong film to win the Best Picture Oscar in 1991. Many critics now say Goodfellas should have won the Oscar. I disagree. Goodfellas is great, and an iconic mobster movie, but Dances is better. Goodfellas had an amazing performances from Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta, and DeNiro, but it was pretty much Godfather II. Dances was unlike any story before (A Man Called Horse was similar). Dances also had 4 outstanding performances from Costner, Graham Greene (Kicking Bird), Mary McDonnell (Stands With A Fist), and Rodney Grant (Wind In His Hair). It's scope it epic, and it holds you for 3 hours.
His merely "good" films are; No Way Out, The Untouchables (which Sean Connery steals), Field Of Dreams, Tin Cup, For Love Of The Game, Open Range, JFK. I don't know about you, but that's a pretty good list. Some actors would give up a nut for a list of credits like that on a resume. No Way Out is a first rate political/spy action thriller with a great twist. The Untouchables, stolen by Connery who was awesome, is a recounting of the hunt for Capone (played by DeNiro - who also kicks ass) by Elliot Ness during Prohibition. Field Of Dreams captures the romance of baseball as the game that unites generations across time. Open Range is a great revisionist western starring Robert Duvall and Costner. Costner's character has edge, and undergoes a transformation. As Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone's JFK he's everyone's hero as America's greatest conspiracy theorist, and again for the duration he draws you in to Garrison's humanity alongside the conspiracy stuff. For Love Of The Game, and Tin Cup he brings back the everyman that lies within every athlete, and when competition begins the everyman persona goes beneath the athlete's zen. Jake in Kasdan's traditional western Silverado was fun to watch. Garrett in the girlie/chick flick Message In A Bottle is compelling. Sure, some stinkers like Robin Hood, or The Bodyguard, or Revenge. Who doesn't make one of those here and there. (Ask Clooney about Dusk Till Dawn). Even his biggest flop Waterworld, which was an incredible waste of money, is actually a fun adventure to watch.
All that said it's good to see Kevin Costner make a comeback of sorts. That's a good thing in the industry dominated by self importance to see a reasonably grounded actor like Kevin Costner. It feels good to say I'm a Kevin Costner fan, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
I've been a Kevin Costner fan since The Untouchables. I've silently endured friendly, or pretentious, barbs from friends about his work. In truth his body of work stands out. He's made what I consider 2 great films: Bull Durham, and Dances with Wolves. No Way Out, The Untouchables, Field Of Dreams, Open Range, Tin Cup, For Love Of The Game, JFK were all really good movies. Waterworld was underrated (but still overpriced). Sure, Robin Hood was kinda lame, and Wyatt Earp was just too dense and too long to be an interesting bio. Still, it's nice to see him back on the screen in multiple features because I really think he's talented. He's made some really compelling cinema over the decades.
His great films are Bull Durham and Dance With Wolves. Bull Durham is the iconic baseball movie. It's better than Pride Of The Yankees; better than Eight Men Out; better than A League Of Their Own; and yes, better than Major League. Making it to the Show is a pervasive dream in America. So many players don't make it, but that doesn't diminish them. Funny things, dreams. They're full of hope, and impossible to kill almost. Crash Davis' dream doesn't end in Bull Durham, it just takes a different form. Dances With Wolves is unfairly (in my opinion) maligned as being the wrong film to win the Best Picture Oscar in 1991. Many critics now say Goodfellas should have won the Oscar. I disagree. Goodfellas is great, and an iconic mobster movie, but Dances is better. Goodfellas had an amazing performances from Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta, and DeNiro, but it was pretty much Godfather II. Dances was unlike any story before (A Man Called Horse was similar). Dances also had 4 outstanding performances from Costner, Graham Greene (Kicking Bird), Mary McDonnell (Stands With A Fist), and Rodney Grant (Wind In His Hair). It's scope it epic, and it holds you for 3 hours.
His merely "good" films are; No Way Out, The Untouchables (which Sean Connery steals), Field Of Dreams, Tin Cup, For Love Of The Game, Open Range, JFK. I don't know about you, but that's a pretty good list. Some actors would give up a nut for a list of credits like that on a resume. No Way Out is a first rate political/spy action thriller with a great twist. The Untouchables, stolen by Connery who was awesome, is a recounting of the hunt for Capone (played by DeNiro - who also kicks ass) by Elliot Ness during Prohibition. Field Of Dreams captures the romance of baseball as the game that unites generations across time. Open Range is a great revisionist western starring Robert Duvall and Costner. Costner's character has edge, and undergoes a transformation. As Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone's JFK he's everyone's hero as America's greatest conspiracy theorist, and again for the duration he draws you in to Garrison's humanity alongside the conspiracy stuff. For Love Of The Game, and Tin Cup he brings back the everyman that lies within every athlete, and when competition begins the everyman persona goes beneath the athlete's zen. Jake in Kasdan's traditional western Silverado was fun to watch. Garrett in the girlie/chick flick Message In A Bottle is compelling. Sure, some stinkers like Robin Hood, or The Bodyguard, or Revenge. Who doesn't make one of those here and there. (Ask Clooney about Dusk Till Dawn). Even his biggest flop Waterworld, which was an incredible waste of money, is actually a fun adventure to watch.
All that said it's good to see Kevin Costner make a comeback of sorts. That's a good thing in the industry dominated by self importance to see a reasonably grounded actor like Kevin Costner. It feels good to say I'm a Kevin Costner fan, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Why am I even surprised.........
Did you see this?
Deadspin covered it pretty good - here - here - aaaaand here. The whos and whats are established. But why?!?!?!
I'll tell you why, The Tide lost. She lost her shit because the Tide lost, AND she has to go back to Alabama. You'd lose it too if you lived in Alabama, got out, and had to go back. Have you been to Alabama? Alabama is called the "Heart of Dixie." Do you know why? Because the brain isn't there. Deliverance is a documentary. There's nothing else in Alabama. It sucks. Don't be all "Gulf Shores is nice" either, because they're a teeny part of the state. Hell, they were almost part of Florida. The only reason that little toe of land extending down from Cletus-ville is even part of Alabama is a 17th century political land sale scandal. Mississippi, and Arkansas talk shit about Alabama. The biggest deal in Alabama is when Auburn and Alabama play football. This year Auburn won on a freak play - already threatening Tide fans' over inflated sense of self. Getting rolled (see what I did there?) by Oklahoma just cinched the meltdown.
'Bama fans are the biggest bunch of asspipes in the totality of fandom. Worse than Cowboy fans. Worse than Notre Dame fans. Worse than Yankee fans. They're the worst. For some reason they think the U of Alabama football team holds some rarefied air in sport, and that its rightful spot is at the top of football mountain. It doesn't, and isn't. Bear Bryant has been worm food for decades, and Nick Saban will leave when he gets bored. Get over yourselves.
Here's an idea; make Alabama less sucky. That way the next time the Tide gets its ass kicked you all won't lose it because you have to go back.
Deadspin covered it pretty good - here - here - aaaaand here. The whos and whats are established. But why?!?!?!
I'll tell you why, The Tide lost. She lost her shit because the Tide lost, AND she has to go back to Alabama. You'd lose it too if you lived in Alabama, got out, and had to go back. Have you been to Alabama? Alabama is called the "Heart of Dixie." Do you know why? Because the brain isn't there. Deliverance is a documentary. There's nothing else in Alabama. It sucks. Don't be all "Gulf Shores is nice" either, because they're a teeny part of the state. Hell, they were almost part of Florida. The only reason that little toe of land extending down from Cletus-ville is even part of Alabama is a 17th century political land sale scandal. Mississippi, and Arkansas talk shit about Alabama. The biggest deal in Alabama is when Auburn and Alabama play football. This year Auburn won on a freak play - already threatening Tide fans' over inflated sense of self. Getting rolled (see what I did there?) by Oklahoma just cinched the meltdown.
'Bama fans are the biggest bunch of asspipes in the totality of fandom. Worse than Cowboy fans. Worse than Notre Dame fans. Worse than Yankee fans. They're the worst. For some reason they think the U of Alabama football team holds some rarefied air in sport, and that its rightful spot is at the top of football mountain. It doesn't, and isn't. Bear Bryant has been worm food for decades, and Nick Saban will leave when he gets bored. Get over yourselves.
Here's an idea; make Alabama less sucky. That way the next time the Tide gets its ass kicked you all won't lose it because you have to go back.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Nelson Mandela - there will be another
"We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again." said President Obama at the funeral for the recently passed South African leader.
A great many things have been said about Nelson Mandela since his death. Understand that Mandela was an early advocate of Gandhian non violence in his opposition to apartheid in South Africa. When he saw those tactics led to more restrictions, and harsher actions against the black South Africans, he decided to embark on sabotage (rejecting terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and outright revolution). For this he was convicted of treason against South Africa, and sentenced to life in prison. That's the short story. Here's a little more detail.
Many say he was a communist, and that's the end of that. When he became President of South Africa in 1994, he did not seek to make South Africa a communist nation. He was, along with the African National Congress, linked to communist nations like Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Maybe he was, and changed. Maybe since the western democracies, like the United States, and Great Britain, called him a terrorist and did not support the cause to end apartheid, he sought support for his movement wherever he could find it. Revolutions it seems are not free in a practical sense. Communist? I don't know how dedicated he was to the movement.
Some are critical of things done by the African National Congress like "necklacing" (google it) and by the transitive property they reflect on him. Well, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington owned slaves while leading a movement that has in its founding document "...all men are created equal." Additionally, loyalists were not treated nicely in the War for Independence. Bad things happen in struggles for freedom. That's not an excuse, but it is what it is.
So while dignitaries exalt Mandela for his accomplishments at his funeral, and Obama tells us we'll never see another, I can tell you he's wrong, at least I hope he's wrong. As long as people are repressed, and denied freedom in places around the world, people like Nelson Mandela are needed. The next Mandela may be among the demonstrators in Egypt. They could be fighting in the Syrian civil war. The next one may be in a prison in China.
The next Mandela is likely on a no fly list, or on a watch list, or suspected terrorist list. The worlds' intelligence structure has terabytes of data on the next Mandela. Most of Mandela's life was watched by the spy networks of the world. He was labeled a terrorist by the white South African regime that put him in prison for having the audacity to fight for freedom. He was called a terrorist by the Reagan Administration, and the Thatcher government in England (to name only two). That's what revolutionary leaders are before the movement they lead becomes successful. They're the bad guy.
In the end they're the revered hero. A lifetime of courageous dedication to a single cause - freedom. That's what it takes. Courage to be a bad guy, and the outlaw. Because you see, what may be seem the obvious moral cause is seldom seen that way by those whose advantage is protected by the injustice. So hope for the next Nelson Mandela. The world needs them.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. - Frederick Douglass
A great many things have been said about Nelson Mandela since his death. Understand that Mandela was an early advocate of Gandhian non violence in his opposition to apartheid in South Africa. When he saw those tactics led to more restrictions, and harsher actions against the black South Africans, he decided to embark on sabotage (rejecting terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and outright revolution). For this he was convicted of treason against South Africa, and sentenced to life in prison. That's the short story. Here's a little more detail.
Many say he was a communist, and that's the end of that. When he became President of South Africa in 1994, he did not seek to make South Africa a communist nation. He was, along with the African National Congress, linked to communist nations like Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Maybe he was, and changed. Maybe since the western democracies, like the United States, and Great Britain, called him a terrorist and did not support the cause to end apartheid, he sought support for his movement wherever he could find it. Revolutions it seems are not free in a practical sense. Communist? I don't know how dedicated he was to the movement.
Some are critical of things done by the African National Congress like "necklacing" (google it) and by the transitive property they reflect on him. Well, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington owned slaves while leading a movement that has in its founding document "...all men are created equal." Additionally, loyalists were not treated nicely in the War for Independence. Bad things happen in struggles for freedom. That's not an excuse, but it is what it is.
So while dignitaries exalt Mandela for his accomplishments at his funeral, and Obama tells us we'll never see another, I can tell you he's wrong, at least I hope he's wrong. As long as people are repressed, and denied freedom in places around the world, people like Nelson Mandela are needed. The next Mandela may be among the demonstrators in Egypt. They could be fighting in the Syrian civil war. The next one may be in a prison in China.
The next Mandela is likely on a no fly list, or on a watch list, or suspected terrorist list. The worlds' intelligence structure has terabytes of data on the next Mandela. Most of Mandela's life was watched by the spy networks of the world. He was labeled a terrorist by the white South African regime that put him in prison for having the audacity to fight for freedom. He was called a terrorist by the Reagan Administration, and the Thatcher government in England (to name only two). That's what revolutionary leaders are before the movement they lead becomes successful. They're the bad guy.
In the end they're the revered hero. A lifetime of courageous dedication to a single cause - freedom. That's what it takes. Courage to be a bad guy, and the outlaw. Because you see, what may be seem the obvious moral cause is seldom seen that way by those whose advantage is protected by the injustice. So hope for the next Nelson Mandela. The world needs them.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. - Frederick Douglass
Friday, November 1, 2013
America's pastime
Really???
If you clicked the link you saw a story about a ND woman who decided it would be responsible on her part to pass out notes on Halloween to kids that are, in her judgement, "moderately obese." These notes called the kids who received them "moderately obese," admonished the parents regarding "consuming sugar and treats," and that she was "disappointed" in the village, and she was taking action since "it takes a village to raise a child."
Really???? Fat kids shouldn't eat too much candy? No shit!? Thanks for the wisdom. Do you really think the parents DON'T know their child has some extra chubb? Expecting parents to read these and say "Holy shit honey! Little Ashley got this note, and wouldn't you know it, she's 'moderately obese.' I had no idea. We're better people now! This is JUST THE THING that will get us to clear the pantry of unhealthy snacks, fatty lunch meats, and high fructose soft drinks. THANK GOD FOR THIS NOTE! IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD. God bless this woman!!!"
I must sheepishly admit that the woman is a liberal apparently. Citation of the "takes a village" tipped me off. And while it does take a village to raise a child, what that means is when you're being a little dickhead as a kid your parents will find out from parents in the neighborhood (village).
Everybody's got an opinion, and that's cool. This is America. And we've been told that's what's so great from the time we're kids is that we're free to express them. But seriously, with the advent of social media sharing your opinion, telling your friends how full of shit they really are, and how fat the kids are in the neighborhood has replaced baseball as the national pastime.
If you clicked the link you saw a story about a ND woman who decided it would be responsible on her part to pass out notes on Halloween to kids that are, in her judgement, "moderately obese." These notes called the kids who received them "moderately obese," admonished the parents regarding "consuming sugar and treats," and that she was "disappointed" in the village, and she was taking action since "it takes a village to raise a child."
Really???? Fat kids shouldn't eat too much candy? No shit!? Thanks for the wisdom. Do you really think the parents DON'T know their child has some extra chubb? Expecting parents to read these and say "Holy shit honey! Little Ashley got this note, and wouldn't you know it, she's 'moderately obese.' I had no idea. We're better people now! This is JUST THE THING that will get us to clear the pantry of unhealthy snacks, fatty lunch meats, and high fructose soft drinks. THANK GOD FOR THIS NOTE! IT DOES TAKE A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD. God bless this woman!!!"
I must sheepishly admit that the woman is a liberal apparently. Citation of the "takes a village" tipped me off. And while it does take a village to raise a child, what that means is when you're being a little dickhead as a kid your parents will find out from parents in the neighborhood (village).
Everybody's got an opinion, and that's cool. This is America. And we've been told that's what's so great from the time we're kids is that we're free to express them. But seriously, with the advent of social media sharing your opinion, telling your friends how full of shit they really are, and how fat the kids are in the neighborhood has replaced baseball as the national pastime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)