Not to sound bitter here, because life is quite good, and who am I to begrudge others their myths. But seriously, how is the idea of a soul mate still widespread? You know, soul mate; the one person on this world you are meant to be with. Of the entirety of humanity, they are the one person you are meant to be with.
My first question is what if my soul mate lives in the mountains of Nepal? Is part of the soul mate mythology that they also live in a certain radius, and speak the same language you do? What if your soul mate speaks Portuguese? Ever try to find Portuguese tutors? It's not easy. Spanish, German, Chinese - those tutors are everywhere. I guess it's a good thing there are a lot of Chinese tutors. There are a billion Chinese, and if they're each somebody's soul mate, a lot of people will need to learn Chinese.
Sometimes a soul mate is encountered that renders an existing relationship null, and facilitates a breakup. Seems contrary to romantic myths that a soul mate would reveal themselves only to bring pain to the non-soul mate. I guess romance can't be romantic all the time. It's a pretty cool coincidence when the soul mate is a co-worker of sombody's significant other, I guess. I mean, they speak the same language, and they're right there at work. No global jumping around. No message in a bottle for Robin Wright to trace. No syndicated radio shows with Tom Hanks calling in. Dammit! They're sitting right there by the elevator. Awesome!!
Of course we need soul mates, and assorted romantic myths. Otherwise card makers, florists, candy makers, makers of giant Lexus bows, Micheal Bolton's music, and Meg Ryan's movie career would be null. Do you know how many print jobs are supported by greeting cards? Holy shit, they're one of the last things, aside from junk mail still being printed what with books going digital. In the end silly romantic myths are fuel for the economy, and who am I to threaten the livelihood of people working in chocolate factories?
Ahhhh the hell with it. Believe in your stupid soul mate.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Why blog?
Why blog?
Many have asked, been asked, and have given or received any variation of answers.
It's not philosophical. "I blog. Therefore I am.
We blog for many reason. Among them are career. We blog to build follow-ship so we may show publishers that people like what we write when the time comes to show them why our book is worth printing. We blog to build traffic so that advertisers see up as a good spot to put cyber billboards on the information superhighway.
We blog for ego. We have an opinion, and it's really cool, and valuable. We came to it over much thought, or it incubated in our brains' subconscious till it burst out in an "Aha!!!!" It's so awesome we have to share our revelation to everyone.
We blog because we have a story to tell, and all the mental noise from randomness that our brains generate as we flutter to and from idea - to idea - to distraction - back to idea, and following the distraction must be reconciled, and put somewhere in the event we need to come back to it. Because while it seems silly on its own, it might be a part of a puzzle that will assemble into something really cool.
We blog for community because we know others like us are out there reading silly things in the ether, and the identification every person needs on some level. "Hey, I was thinking of that too!" or "Shit! I was thinking of that, and someone else wrote it first."
We blog for self-esteem. If we didn't blog, we'd keep a journal, or diary. Blogging is cooler on some level than journaling.
We blog because we see the worlds' events, and ego says we need to share our perspective so that minds may change, and we can advance the way we see things. And even though friends from time to time think we're full of shit we need to speak up.
We blog because we just discovered this really cool idea, and need to share this discovery.
Many have asked, been asked, and have given or received any variation of answers.
It's not philosophical. "I blog. Therefore I am.
We blog for many reason. Among them are career. We blog to build follow-ship so we may show publishers that people like what we write when the time comes to show them why our book is worth printing. We blog to build traffic so that advertisers see up as a good spot to put cyber billboards on the information superhighway.
We blog for ego. We have an opinion, and it's really cool, and valuable. We came to it over much thought, or it incubated in our brains' subconscious till it burst out in an "Aha!!!!" It's so awesome we have to share our revelation to everyone.
We blog because we have a story to tell, and all the mental noise from randomness that our brains generate as we flutter to and from idea - to idea - to distraction - back to idea, and following the distraction must be reconciled, and put somewhere in the event we need to come back to it. Because while it seems silly on its own, it might be a part of a puzzle that will assemble into something really cool.
We blog for community because we know others like us are out there reading silly things in the ether, and the identification every person needs on some level. "Hey, I was thinking of that too!" or "Shit! I was thinking of that, and someone else wrote it first."
We blog for self-esteem. If we didn't blog, we'd keep a journal, or diary. Blogging is cooler on some level than journaling.
We blog because we see the worlds' events, and ego says we need to share our perspective so that minds may change, and we can advance the way we see things. And even though friends from time to time think we're full of shit we need to speak up.
We blog because we just discovered this really cool idea, and need to share this discovery.
Monday, February 10, 2014
OH MY GOD!!! GAY FOOTBALL PLAYER!!!!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)