Imagine this: You are a woman and you are living in Virginia. The very thought is painful!
Of course, there is the very real possibility you will be unable to imagine the concept at all. Oh, the idea of living in Virginia midst all the natural beauty, that's no problem. But being a woman? 1.) If you are a male, you simply cannot imagine being female. Go ahead. Try it. My guess is, you won't get within five percent of understanding the actual condition of femaleness. 2.) If you are a female, you are possibly an elderly lady. You perhaps have forgotten already what it means to be susceptible to much of the downside of femaleness. Your own menopause relieved you of a good deal of that worrisome state of being. 3.) If you are that older female and you have no daughters, grand daughters or any other more youthful females you really care about, you may be willing to be as cruel (or at least non-feeling) as most males. 4.) If you are a female still of fertility age but are also hyper-religious and cock-sure (pardon the crude aspersion) of your own righteousness and your absolute inability to make a mistake or even be forced by a male into sexual contact, then you also may be capable of male-sized disrespect for other females.
Virginia's legislature has just passed a bill that amounts to legalized state rape! [check here for a Chicago Tribune unbiased article - or here if your mind is open enough to read something from Progressives] And the heartless governor (who has an eye toward national political office) is looking forward to signing it into law. The law would force any woman desiring an abortion to be vaginally penetrated by a doctor (using an ultra-sound scope) - even if against the medical professional's own will - before the procedure can be legally completed. Virginia is said to be still one of these United States, yet it has taken a step that not only scoffs at the national constitution, but disrespects its own citizens and tramples any concept of human rights.
We of the U.S. - ...land of the free, etc., - we united, as a caring people, have used our vaunted national platitudes of human rights, women's rights, common decency etc., to help us wave our Stars and Stripes in the eyes of the world. At what point will Virgina stop its vile treatment of its own female citizens? Might the all-wise, all-powerful (in his completely Republican-run state) governor take yet further steps? Could he not at some point make the case for simply ending rights for females entirely? How about ending sexual interest for females? Perhaps he could meet with middle-Eastern or African leaders (governors) to learn how to use the techniques of clitoral mutilation and remove the temptation from these practically sub-human creatures called women to engage in the depraved act of sexual intercourse.
But consider this: what other control-freak governors and legislators out there (almost entirely males) will decide that Virginia has set a good example of returning those uppity women to their rightful place? Maybe all male legislators in all states should follow the example and take control back from the weaker sex who have managed to gain some few rights to decide what is best for their own bodies. After all, men always know best, right? And voters today are beginning to rally 'round a Republican presidential contender who seems to be as far to the right of sanity as is the humanity-challenged governor of Virginia. (This candidate's puppet-master thinks women just need to keep their knees together!) For these men, and millions of other men, there must be a real nostalgia for the good old days of the nineteenth century! Things were so much simpler before the shrill cry of feminine self-interest was heard in our great land. That must be because men are fundamentally so much better at running things and they should never have allowed those pesky women to vote and get organized.
In my humble opinion, the women of Virginia should vote with their vaginas this November. Perhaps there is already a grass-roots group called The Virginia Vaginas. Or there should be! Every member of the state legislature who voted to legalize doctor-required rape of women seeking abortion should be voted out of office. Pure and simple. Why mess with that kind of idiocy coming from your own elected representatives? You don't have to, ladies! Call a halt to it all. When I say vote with your vaginas, I literally mean to use the amazing power you possess over men. I once witnessed a bold woman on a public street (interestingly, in Washington D.C.) wearing a tee-shirt with these words emblazoned on the back: I have the pussy so I make the rules! Just wake up to your strengths, women! It's quite obvious that each vagina has two votes! A woman not only can cast her own vote for legislators who promise to stay out of the vagina politic, but each lady can also make it clear to the male who expects to visit her personal vagina that he had better follow suit on this issue.
If women were to respond in unison, using their heads to protect their vaginas, there is no possible way Virginia or any other state could ramrod (again, sorry ...) such cruel legislation through the halls of state governments, policies that are damaging and immoral. Ladies, you need never let stupid rule! [For those of you who fight valiantly on behalf of zygotes, I won't actually brand you as stupid, but I would ask that you apply science and logic to this matter of the difference between fertilization and life.]
And for those of you who think of yourselves as ultimately moral while also buying into the idea that right-to-life means right to destroy rights of others, I have one simple criticism. Rather than making a great impression on the world with your religious ethic, you are turning religion into a state-rape drug!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Reception
Yesterday I attended a wedding reception. This was my first in probably a dozen years, since my younger son's wedding. So much different; so much the same.
Mind you, I didn't merely attend this reception. I was asked to be there as the security officer for the establishment. Okay, those of you who know me personally, go ahead and laugh heartily now. It has been twenty years since I was part of the security company contracted to handle crowd-control for rock concerts at the Universal Amphitheatre in Hollywood. And my job then was hiring and managing capable younger people to be on the theater floor. Some of you are aware that my physique is non-threatening. Although I'm not the proverbial 90-lb weakling, I'm still your basic weakling. The something over 200 pound frame today makes me less laughable as a possible security type, but then there's that little thing of the bad back. Twice in the last week I have had to cancel golf outings due to a temporary inability to walk well or stand up straight. A cane was needed to assist in walking just last Tuesday. Yesterday morning the cane was a strong consideration once again, but through enough moving around to handle the duties of holding an open house, the body began to respond favorably. By 2:00 in the afternoon when the reception began, I was at least able to fake looking strong and agile.
Currently I am sporting a substantial white beard as well. That gives me a little more presence or air of gruffness when seen in the general crowd of young people attending a party. Plus, I knew I could call upon my acting experience to pull off the cold stare of unemotional authority and possible hidden powers - something like the Australian lizard that can make itself bigger and more menacing in the eyes of potential enemies. So I wasn't afraid to accept the request of a local lady who asked me to fill in. She was running short of friends to call upon when the man who agreed to do the job had bailed. Then there was the fact that the assignment was nominal in responsibility, merely a requirement on paper for insurance purposes as stated by the management of our HOA. The party was in the clubhouse of our senior community.
Fortunately, as expected, no one got too seriously out of line. Especially was I pleased that all of the larger females were well-behaved. Wow! Is it my imagination or have more of today's youth become heavy-weights? Perhaps there were always that many large ladies around and I simply avoided noticing, but it's tough to see how I could have missed the obvious. Yesterday's bride, a lovely girl with a most pleasant disposition and fetching smile, was probably within twenty pounds of my own weight, while standing quite a lot shorter. One female member of the crowd appeared to be about my height (not quite six feet) and probably out-weighed me by a few. All-in-all, I would guess that around 20% of the ladies present would have presented a real challenge for me (with the help of two other men of my size) to physically restrain or to assist to a waiting van if too much alcohol or party attitude were to take over. But then, I wasn't there really to be a bouncer or even crowd-control; my stated position was that of a general eye on the premises, inside and out, and having enough sense to call for help if anything really crazy happened.
Nothing did, other than one small altercation in the parking lot that ended when I was able to assist his girlfriend (or at least, a friend who was a girl) to convince the inebriated fellow to come back inside and dance.
Speaking of dancing - have you watched that activity of today? As one fellow who showed up late to assist in clean-up, another of my contemporaries in the senior group, said to me, "We really danced back in our day! I don't know what they call this stuff they do nowadays." Can't say I agreed with that criticism; I typically enjoy the modern gyrations when my back will allow it. This fellow and I observed there together for a while as the party wound down. Nothing left but the die-hards and by this time, fairly sloshed partiers trying to wish the bride and groom well by strange movements and maudlin shows of affection when they had the chance to drape themselves over one or the other. What amazed me most though was this and that variation on the dirty dancing theme. One couple appeared to be joined, albeit still clothed, in some kind of sexual embrace. And they seemed to stay in the same position through at least two long music numbers, always locked in the same languid swaying, expressing a far-away look of ecstatic pleasure each time I glanced back at them. Her bottom was firmly pressed against his crotch and he held her tightly against himself with his hands in a location I never touched on a female body until sometime after my own wedding. Trying to recall my own youthful days, I was sure that had I been so fortunate and so bold as to engage in that sort of dancing, my underwear would have certainly been quite warm and sticky after the first few seconds. Perhaps this young man's were as well, and he simply had the audacity to go on reveling in the clothed coitus for many long and satisfying minutes.
As my fellow senior friend pointed out, and I had been aware for two hours or more, one of the smaller ladies in the group was extremely fond of grinding her body against others. And all those others were female, insofar as I had noticed. This girl, in a little black dress, often moved in such ways, sliding down the thigh and over the knee of one of the several taller girls she seemed to attack with gusto, that the form of her entire pubic area and pantyhose clad ass cheeks came into view of any who cared to notice. I noticed a good bit. Sure I'm now in my late sixties but my eyes still enjoy and memory still serves very well. Combine that with an almost universal desire shared by males to watch females together in actual or perceived sexual situations, and I wouldn't have been completely surprised to find my underwear a bit sticky last night. Just observing. Good party!
Bride and groom seemed to have a great send-off for their new marriage, and I was glad to see such open expressions of happiness. This part of the traditional wedding reception was pretty much the same as these events have always been. Friends show up, laugh, shout, applaud, drink, dance and make all kinds of almost inarticulate overtures of toasts and good wishes - and then two people feel married more completely. I'm sure the party continued long into the night following the formal party at this venue where the DJ was paid for a five-hour stint and stayed on another half hour for free to be good to the newlyweds and to their host, my friend the grandmother of the bride.
It would be nice to see more of this kind of happy partying here in our community. Sure beats memorials and the other less festive uses of our community clubhouse. I'll probably accept requests in the future to be on security detail, even if it means walking in with a cane. As long as my heart, my back and my underwear can take it.
Mind you, I didn't merely attend this reception. I was asked to be there as the security officer for the establishment. Okay, those of you who know me personally, go ahead and laugh heartily now. It has been twenty years since I was part of the security company contracted to handle crowd-control for rock concerts at the Universal Amphitheatre in Hollywood. And my job then was hiring and managing capable younger people to be on the theater floor. Some of you are aware that my physique is non-threatening. Although I'm not the proverbial 90-lb weakling, I'm still your basic weakling. The something over 200 pound frame today makes me less laughable as a possible security type, but then there's that little thing of the bad back. Twice in the last week I have had to cancel golf outings due to a temporary inability to walk well or stand up straight. A cane was needed to assist in walking just last Tuesday. Yesterday morning the cane was a strong consideration once again, but through enough moving around to handle the duties of holding an open house, the body began to respond favorably. By 2:00 in the afternoon when the reception began, I was at least able to fake looking strong and agile.
Currently I am sporting a substantial white beard as well. That gives me a little more presence or air of gruffness when seen in the general crowd of young people attending a party. Plus, I knew I could call upon my acting experience to pull off the cold stare of unemotional authority and possible hidden powers - something like the Australian lizard that can make itself bigger and more menacing in the eyes of potential enemies. So I wasn't afraid to accept the request of a local lady who asked me to fill in. She was running short of friends to call upon when the man who agreed to do the job had bailed. Then there was the fact that the assignment was nominal in responsibility, merely a requirement on paper for insurance purposes as stated by the management of our HOA. The party was in the clubhouse of our senior community.
Fortunately, as expected, no one got too seriously out of line. Especially was I pleased that all of the larger females were well-behaved. Wow! Is it my imagination or have more of today's youth become heavy-weights? Perhaps there were always that many large ladies around and I simply avoided noticing, but it's tough to see how I could have missed the obvious. Yesterday's bride, a lovely girl with a most pleasant disposition and fetching smile, was probably within twenty pounds of my own weight, while standing quite a lot shorter. One female member of the crowd appeared to be about my height (not quite six feet) and probably out-weighed me by a few. All-in-all, I would guess that around 20% of the ladies present would have presented a real challenge for me (with the help of two other men of my size) to physically restrain or to assist to a waiting van if too much alcohol or party attitude were to take over. But then, I wasn't there really to be a bouncer or even crowd-control; my stated position was that of a general eye on the premises, inside and out, and having enough sense to call for help if anything really crazy happened.
Nothing did, other than one small altercation in the parking lot that ended when I was able to assist his girlfriend (or at least, a friend who was a girl) to convince the inebriated fellow to come back inside and dance.
Speaking of dancing - have you watched that activity of today? As one fellow who showed up late to assist in clean-up, another of my contemporaries in the senior group, said to me, "We really danced back in our day! I don't know what they call this stuff they do nowadays." Can't say I agreed with that criticism; I typically enjoy the modern gyrations when my back will allow it. This fellow and I observed there together for a while as the party wound down. Nothing left but the die-hards and by this time, fairly sloshed partiers trying to wish the bride and groom well by strange movements and maudlin shows of affection when they had the chance to drape themselves over one or the other. What amazed me most though was this and that variation on the dirty dancing theme. One couple appeared to be joined, albeit still clothed, in some kind of sexual embrace. And they seemed to stay in the same position through at least two long music numbers, always locked in the same languid swaying, expressing a far-away look of ecstatic pleasure each time I glanced back at them. Her bottom was firmly pressed against his crotch and he held her tightly against himself with his hands in a location I never touched on a female body until sometime after my own wedding. Trying to recall my own youthful days, I was sure that had I been so fortunate and so bold as to engage in that sort of dancing, my underwear would have certainly been quite warm and sticky after the first few seconds. Perhaps this young man's were as well, and he simply had the audacity to go on reveling in the clothed coitus for many long and satisfying minutes.
As my fellow senior friend pointed out, and I had been aware for two hours or more, one of the smaller ladies in the group was extremely fond of grinding her body against others. And all those others were female, insofar as I had noticed. This girl, in a little black dress, often moved in such ways, sliding down the thigh and over the knee of one of the several taller girls she seemed to attack with gusto, that the form of her entire pubic area and pantyhose clad ass cheeks came into view of any who cared to notice. I noticed a good bit. Sure I'm now in my late sixties but my eyes still enjoy and memory still serves very well. Combine that with an almost universal desire shared by males to watch females together in actual or perceived sexual situations, and I wouldn't have been completely surprised to find my underwear a bit sticky last night. Just observing. Good party!
Bride and groom seemed to have a great send-off for their new marriage, and I was glad to see such open expressions of happiness. This part of the traditional wedding reception was pretty much the same as these events have always been. Friends show up, laugh, shout, applaud, drink, dance and make all kinds of almost inarticulate overtures of toasts and good wishes - and then two people feel married more completely. I'm sure the party continued long into the night following the formal party at this venue where the DJ was paid for a five-hour stint and stayed on another half hour for free to be good to the newlyweds and to their host, my friend the grandmother of the bride.
It would be nice to see more of this kind of happy partying here in our community. Sure beats memorials and the other less festive uses of our community clubhouse. I'll probably accept requests in the future to be on security detail, even if it means walking in with a cane. As long as my heart, my back and my underwear can take it.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Gimme Some 'o that Nashnul Anthemum
Hey, hey! A Super Bowl that was actually super! Pretty rare to have the big game end with the potential winning play unfolding after time has expired. This one was excellent sport all the way.
However the pre-game goings-on got me thinking once again. Would the typical football fan recognize Josh Groban? Probably not, but would fans have anything against hearing the Star Spangled Banner sung in its original form? Sure they would - they'd probably be bored.
And here I am, a devout progressive, spouting off in favor of doing something in the same old way! But don't assume I do so without a major twisting of my knickers and my psyche. In my real inner self, there is nothing that deserves being set apart as sacred or beyond the realm of progress and improvement. The National Anthem is not really an exception to that open-to-improvement attitude; the Anthem is merely something that rarely gets improved upon by any of those who attempt to do so.
At the beginning of the Super Bowl, I was again hopeful of hearing the anthem done with respect and simply a good sound. A slight bit of stylizing and a singer's personal decision as to how long to hold out a special note or whether to go for a high, harmonic extension note an octave above the line on the word free - these are all rather benign and add a touch of artistic flair without man-handling the music dramatically. But in the last few years, I rarely have heard a straight-forward singing of the song when it's performed at public events. I suppose most singers feel it is beneath their talent to simply sing the written notes. Perhaps they feel no one will remember their having performed if they don't somehow personalize the song.
Groban comes to mind as a fellow who probably would do a commendable job of producing great and even beautiful sounds in a stadium while actually hitting the original - and only the original - notes of the Star Spangled Banner. He has the total confidence in his own sound that allows him to just play it straight. No doubt he has performed this hard to sing anthem (I'm sure the song isn't difficult for reasonably talented singers) quite a few times, but these times were not at events I happened to catch. He might even have done it a Super Bowl in the past; as I admit, I am only a spotty spectator at these major national sports events.
Once again, the stylizing of a country singer was called upon for the big game on Sunday.
It is something of an unexplained phenomenon that American football, on the professional level, has seemingly become a basic property of the good-ol' boy in our country. And I emphasize here, country! The great fame of the American game called football clearly got its start on our nation's campuses, and for many decades it was played by men who worked hard on their academic pursuits and by-the-way, played some ball. I'm guessing that after the game grew to the point of becoming a main source of income for colleges and universities, those institutions that capitalized on the opportunity and grew large by scouting out high school players and strongly recruiting the best, took over the scene. And why did some campuses grow profoundly while others remained smaller and more committed to higher learning? Perhaps it's an over-simplification, but do we not all notice that the most highly respected colleges and universities (academically) are those that don't compete well at all on the gridiron? Even with the NCAA trying mightily to limit the influence of unethical recruiters and their unethical cohorts in athletic departments, there seems to always be a lot of questionable activity in the area of recruiting. It follows then that standards on the academic side over time became strongly influenced (down-graded, I suggest) as the institutions placed more of their financial futures in the hands of athletic department recruiters.
What does all this have to do with today's pro football dominance on our populace, the typical fan base and the choosing of anthem singers? Seems obvious. The bigger the campus that turns out great players ready for the professional ranks, the bigger influence money has been at that campus. The bigger the influence, the bigger the pressure on instructors to let some less-than-acceptable classroom work become acceptable for eligibility purposes. The better the player emerging from college, the better the pro team that drafts him. The better the team, the bigger the fan base. Again, follow the money!
Then predictably, the common folks on the street of this great nation rally 'round winners and elevate these teams to great status but feel no great need to respect the individual athletes themselves, many of whom cannot speak as though they ever attended a school. And since I'm already riding this horse of over-simplification, it appears to me that the common man in our country today is far less than well-off financially, so there's that odd compulsion to spend hard-earned money on something completely over the top with hoopla and without real meaning. The compulsion takes charge. (And I use the word charge advisedly!) He will buy tickets, almost going into debt to do so. He will make bets on "his" team. He will over-indulge in beer and other party essentials - anything to lose himself in the momentary thrill of the football game. He may spend a ridiculous percentage of his meager income to indulge in this form of escapism.
Guess what the wealthy are doing meanwhile. Many are enjoying the comfortable pastime of watching some football, but it costs them only pocket change. Many of these wealthier folks are those grads of Yale, Harvard, Princeton and other respected institutions, guys who may have played some ball there, while their minds were on succeeding in life outside of sports. Also many thousands of graduates of Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin, Alabama - and of other large schools, those former athletes who had placed their emphasis on learning over playing football, can enjoy watching sports in a casual way, spending a pittance of their income to do so. But what type of American makes up the typical fan base for the NFL? Your basic fellow just making a living, who eats meat and potatoes, manages to make car payments and cover the necessities of life, and enjoys his country music!
Don't get me wrong - I'm as entertained as the next hormonal male watching Faith Hill strut her stuff in a black rubber-like jumpsuit and singing before football games. That's just another form of the sex sells advertising method which we all enjoy even while being manipulated. But the predominance of country music linked to football gives me the impression - and again, this is my personal opinion here - that the game speaks to the common man who is more and more common and less sophisticated. The fanatical attention paid to the game speaks to the desperation that seems to plague the populace, the type of desperation which needs to break out from the quiet type so many endure. The occasional death-threat hurled at a professional player who seemingly blew the game speaks to a rank fanaticism that should be frightening to us all.
Bottom line is, I enjoyed the playing of this year's Super Bowl game tremendously. Well done, I say. It would have been more enjoyable the next day too if I hadn't had to hear of the hot anger by fans against Wes Welker for dropping a pass. The same Wes Welker who made some amazing plays earlier that kept his team within reach of a potential win. Similar troubles followed the games two weeks earlier when fans (fanatics, remember) wanted to do harm to players from other teams that lost play-off games. You know, it's a lot like Christianity and Islam! Things would go along peaceably if it weren't for the lunatic fringe. It seems there always has to be someone who gets pissed off and wants to kill somebody.
Oh - well - I guess it's a lot like families too! Excuse me!
I wonder if anthem singers ever get death-threats. They might if John Stafford Smith were still around.
However the pre-game goings-on got me thinking once again. Would the typical football fan recognize Josh Groban? Probably not, but would fans have anything against hearing the Star Spangled Banner sung in its original form? Sure they would - they'd probably be bored.
And here I am, a devout progressive, spouting off in favor of doing something in the same old way! But don't assume I do so without a major twisting of my knickers and my psyche. In my real inner self, there is nothing that deserves being set apart as sacred or beyond the realm of progress and improvement. The National Anthem is not really an exception to that open-to-improvement attitude; the Anthem is merely something that rarely gets improved upon by any of those who attempt to do so.
At the beginning of the Super Bowl, I was again hopeful of hearing the anthem done with respect and simply a good sound. A slight bit of stylizing and a singer's personal decision as to how long to hold out a special note or whether to go for a high, harmonic extension note an octave above the line on the word free - these are all rather benign and add a touch of artistic flair without man-handling the music dramatically. But in the last few years, I rarely have heard a straight-forward singing of the song when it's performed at public events. I suppose most singers feel it is beneath their talent to simply sing the written notes. Perhaps they feel no one will remember their having performed if they don't somehow personalize the song.
Groban comes to mind as a fellow who probably would do a commendable job of producing great and even beautiful sounds in a stadium while actually hitting the original - and only the original - notes of the Star Spangled Banner. He has the total confidence in his own sound that allows him to just play it straight. No doubt he has performed this hard to sing anthem (I'm sure the song isn't difficult for reasonably talented singers) quite a few times, but these times were not at events I happened to catch. He might even have done it a Super Bowl in the past; as I admit, I am only a spotty spectator at these major national sports events.
Once again, the stylizing of a country singer was called upon for the big game on Sunday.
It is something of an unexplained phenomenon that American football, on the professional level, has seemingly become a basic property of the good-ol' boy in our country. And I emphasize here, country! The great fame of the American game called football clearly got its start on our nation's campuses, and for many decades it was played by men who worked hard on their academic pursuits and by-the-way, played some ball. I'm guessing that after the game grew to the point of becoming a main source of income for colleges and universities, those institutions that capitalized on the opportunity and grew large by scouting out high school players and strongly recruiting the best, took over the scene. And why did some campuses grow profoundly while others remained smaller and more committed to higher learning? Perhaps it's an over-simplification, but do we not all notice that the most highly respected colleges and universities (academically) are those that don't compete well at all on the gridiron? Even with the NCAA trying mightily to limit the influence of unethical recruiters and their unethical cohorts in athletic departments, there seems to always be a lot of questionable activity in the area of recruiting. It follows then that standards on the academic side over time became strongly influenced (down-graded, I suggest) as the institutions placed more of their financial futures in the hands of athletic department recruiters.
What does all this have to do with today's pro football dominance on our populace, the typical fan base and the choosing of anthem singers? Seems obvious. The bigger the campus that turns out great players ready for the professional ranks, the bigger influence money has been at that campus. The bigger the influence, the bigger the pressure on instructors to let some less-than-acceptable classroom work become acceptable for eligibility purposes. The better the player emerging from college, the better the pro team that drafts him. The better the team, the bigger the fan base. Again, follow the money!
Then predictably, the common folks on the street of this great nation rally 'round winners and elevate these teams to great status but feel no great need to respect the individual athletes themselves, many of whom cannot speak as though they ever attended a school. And since I'm already riding this horse of over-simplification, it appears to me that the common man in our country today is far less than well-off financially, so there's that odd compulsion to spend hard-earned money on something completely over the top with hoopla and without real meaning. The compulsion takes charge. (And I use the word charge advisedly!) He will buy tickets, almost going into debt to do so. He will make bets on "his" team. He will over-indulge in beer and other party essentials - anything to lose himself in the momentary thrill of the football game. He may spend a ridiculous percentage of his meager income to indulge in this form of escapism.
Guess what the wealthy are doing meanwhile. Many are enjoying the comfortable pastime of watching some football, but it costs them only pocket change. Many of these wealthier folks are those grads of Yale, Harvard, Princeton and other respected institutions, guys who may have played some ball there, while their minds were on succeeding in life outside of sports. Also many thousands of graduates of Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin, Alabama - and of other large schools, those former athletes who had placed their emphasis on learning over playing football, can enjoy watching sports in a casual way, spending a pittance of their income to do so. But what type of American makes up the typical fan base for the NFL? Your basic fellow just making a living, who eats meat and potatoes, manages to make car payments and cover the necessities of life, and enjoys his country music!
Don't get me wrong - I'm as entertained as the next hormonal male watching Faith Hill strut her stuff in a black rubber-like jumpsuit and singing before football games. That's just another form of the sex sells advertising method which we all enjoy even while being manipulated. But the predominance of country music linked to football gives me the impression - and again, this is my personal opinion here - that the game speaks to the common man who is more and more common and less sophisticated. The fanatical attention paid to the game speaks to the desperation that seems to plague the populace, the type of desperation which needs to break out from the quiet type so many endure. The occasional death-threat hurled at a professional player who seemingly blew the game speaks to a rank fanaticism that should be frightening to us all.
Bottom line is, I enjoyed the playing of this year's Super Bowl game tremendously. Well done, I say. It would have been more enjoyable the next day too if I hadn't had to hear of the hot anger by fans against Wes Welker for dropping a pass. The same Wes Welker who made some amazing plays earlier that kept his team within reach of a potential win. Similar troubles followed the games two weeks earlier when fans (fanatics, remember) wanted to do harm to players from other teams that lost play-off games. You know, it's a lot like Christianity and Islam! Things would go along peaceably if it weren't for the lunatic fringe. It seems there always has to be someone who gets pissed off and wants to kill somebody.
Oh - well - I guess it's a lot like families too! Excuse me!
I wonder if anthem singers ever get death-threats. They might if John Stafford Smith were still around.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
"Right On!"
Time to talk politics again - at least a little.
NOTE: Following last night's surprise information that CBS News conducted a poll that shows an unheard-of 91% (!) of the polling sample approved of the proposals outlined by President Obama in Tuesday night's address, it appears I may be in large part preaching to the choir. Still, I had already written the sermon over the past few days, so I'm going to post it anyway!
On Saturday, January 21, I joined another protest group for a midday rally. No marching this time, which actually would have been much better for my aching joints. It's harder to stand than to walk, and sitting was out of the question.
The day was the second anniversary of the "Citizens United" decision by the Supreme Court. My sign, on one side read, $ IS NOT SPEECH, and on the other side, AMEND. It would be to better effect if I could actually show you the sign the way it was hand-printed, with the word "SPEECH" running large in the lower half of the total space, below the "$ IS NOT" line. Then on the reverse side, with more space for my one-word message, I made the appeal to "AMEND" in much bolder print. It turned out to be a great sign for the spot where I placed myself, at a busy intersection and on a divider median, where I could hold the smaller print side toward traffic as drivers slowed for the light, while the back side of the sign with much larger print was visible to traffic coming faster from the opposite direction.
Interesting to observe people! Hundreds of passers-by honked horns and shouted approval to the thirty or more members of our little protest group. Many thumbs-up gestures were held aloft and a few used the "V" sign with two fingers, I suppose for either victory or peace. Now and then someone energetically thrust upward the single middle digit instead. All-in-all, I estimated about 99% of the public were positive toward our effort and 1% were not happy to see us. That must have been what the single digit was signifying - the 1% definitely do not like anyone pointing out the huge unfairness in our current atmosphere of big money controlling the political races. And Citizens United fosters that unfairness.
But bizarre attitudes of many confused folks demonstrate the difficulty we all have in getting a focus on our frustrating governmental sphere.
We protesters were out there specifically to call attention to what is surely the most destructive decision ever handed down by our Supreme Court - the grand opening for corporations to buy elections. [If there had been a larger poster board handy when I was making my signs, one would have read, CORPORATE CORRUPTION Has a SUPREME COHORT. I may still do that one some day.] Now what group, as a very general class, gets the greatest advantage from that deplorable court decision? The rich and powerful, obviously, and along with them those mainstream Republicans who typically support big money interests. Who will likely have a major battle this year to win re-election, even though not a single Republican pretender to the highest office is at all competent? Our embattled President. And what will actually be his largest barrier to re-election? Big money and powerful corporations - the Wall Street agglomeration that hates Obama and all his efforts on behalf of the 99% of U.S. citizens. While FAIR SHOT/FAIR SHARE should be the slogan of all who believe in democracy, about half of our populace apparently cannot believe in this concept. It seems to me that millions of people in this country believe whole-heartedly that they deserve a fair shot at becoming successful, but they would not agree at all to paying their fair share if they were to become wealthy. Shame!
And many people simply do not have a grasp on the facts or the big picture. Check out this odd exchange I will attempt to recite from memory.
Lady At Traffic Light: "Thanks for being out here; we need to get things changed!"
Yours Truly: "Agreed! We need an amendment to stop the madness the Supreme Court unleashed!"
LATL: "We have to get him out of there. Washington's a mess!"
YT[a bit nonplussed]: "Nothing can get done with a Congress that is stuck in reverse gear and uncooperative."
LATL: "I know someone in Washington and she says that every piece of liberal policy that comes across his desk, he just signs without looking at it!"
YT [Stunned - seeking a calm but solid retort]: "Well, in my book, we can never be too progressive."
LATL [as traffic light changes and she pulls away): "RIGHT ON!!" - while flashing a "V" sign.
Is it possible that the art of plain communication has been lost? Has some Supreme Being (not Justice Roberts but some other supreme being) confused the tongues so we can no longer understand each other? Or has the 1% establishment released a secret concoction - maybe Agent Green - into the air and water so that all of us without the antidote have become dull of wit and unable to fight the stupidity hovering all around us? Is the average person on the street really unable to see what is being done to us?
Allow me to insert a comment here - mostly as self-protection. Some of you may be gunning for me! If any of this writing sounds too personal, as though I am talking straight to you in my criticisms, it is completely unintentional. I try to always keep it impersonal and general when I criticize "the electorate" etc. But please also, if it feels like a slap in the face, perhaps a wake-up is in order. I do so hope all thinking people will actually THINK before the elections approach. We have all made mistakes in our voting decisions over the years. This year's vote seems somehow vital to our national survival.
Again I reveal my very UN-neutral opinion toward this coming election. Because of the utter disbelief I suffered in 2004 when a dim-witted electorate returned to office the most destructive president in our history, even after seeing what he was capable of doing, I am now fearful. While today's inept and floundering candidates propose their idiotic ideas of what America needs, sounding very much like clones of the former despicable politician who ravaged our land and our stature in the world, it seems logical that a landslide win for the incumbent should perhaps surpass that experienced by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But our people have been so badly bruised in spirit and in pocketbook that the voting booth has become a theater of war. Witness 2010 elections! People walk in there prepared to do battle with something they don't understand but something that has hurt them, so the only thing they know how to do is pull the lever to oust incumbents. Actually, if there were even ONE potentially capable candidate at the top of the ticket for the Republicans, I as an Independent would welcome the ouster mentality. At least that might mean that the horde of right-wing and Tea Party do-nothings who waltzed into the House in 2010 could also be dumped this time around. And isn't the king of the do-nothings up for re-election this year? If so, maybe his fellow Ohioans will give him something to cry about - while looking for work back at home!
Please remember the Lady At the Traffic Light who is possibly a symbol of the typical citizen today. She knows her life could be better; she knows she has been hurt by governmental policies of the past; she assumes she is being hurt by recently adopted policies, by this current administration; she sees people in streets carrying signs, so she assumes they are helping her country reach for the change she feels is needed. Yet in her mind, getting "him" out of there is the logical move. HOLD ON there, LATL! The "him" to whom you refer is at least an intelligent and apparently a very dedicated servant of the people. This him is also the one carrying the heavy weight for three years, trying desperately to dig us out of the mess that was handed him by incompetent and even proud destroyers of our nation. This him is the one we need to continue carrying the weight for another term. This him is capable.
The rotten eggs who need to be gotten out of there are those who stand in the way of progress when they should be building on good ideas. If Congress had passed the jobs bill that "he" proposed last year, we could be well on the road to full recovery of what we lost in the Bush years. No, I do not feel our President today is perfect; I merely feel he is dedicated. His only glaring fault has been in trying too long to promote bi-partisanship when it was obvious early on that no such cooperation from the other side was forth-coming. His biggest weakness is his desire to be what any great leader should be - in it for the people.
Very likely, the Lady At Traffic Light did not even deign to watch the State of The Union address on television because she already had her mind set against anything our President might say. Or if she did watch, she may have sat as stone-faced as Mitch McConnell or looked as smug and disrespectful as did John McCain and some other people in the chamber. Perhaps they, and she, were nostalgic for the good ol' days of GWB's scintillating orations and his clear vision for a strong America(!). No, I think it's more likely that people whose minds are dead set against Mr. Obama for whatever reason (and I've elsewhere indicated what I firmly believe is a major but subliminal reason), were stunned by the sheer reality of how much better he is in the Presidency than was his predecessor. They also must surely see how much better it would be for the nation if he were to continue in office than would be our plight if any one of the opposition's weak and massively flawed choices were to manage to get in. Once again, Mr. Obama and his proposals for our country were overwhelmingly positive. And as a candidate for the top office in our nation, the man stood (as usual) in stark contrast against all the less capable who would try to unseat him. We have the right person at the helm, and if we let him work, my prediction is that our nation will be back to a high point of respect and progress after four more years. And you, Dear Reader, will have a better chance at personal success while I keep my tiny social security income and get to sell a few more homes as the economy strengthens.
So when you are faced with voting this year, I hope you will ask yourself the simple question of What does this (or that) candidate seem to want most? Position? Power? Money? or to genuinely help the people of this country? As of today, January 26, I know of no candidate other than President Obama who can honestly be seen as being in the political business for any motives other than selfish ones.
And as a corollary to re-electing the capable leader, it's time for people to wake up and realize, for the good of all of us, that EVERY MEMBER of CONGRESS who voted AGAINST the JOBS BILL should be REPLACED!
If we plummet to the depths of former failed policies; if Republicans maintain control of the House and we are subjected to another imbecile-elect in November, I will sincerely need to consider finding a new country! This one is becoming ever more like that of Steven Tyler's "...land of the free - FRIGHTENING SCREAM!"
NOTE: Following last night's surprise information that CBS News conducted a poll that shows an unheard-of 91% (!) of the polling sample approved of the proposals outlined by President Obama in Tuesday night's address, it appears I may be in large part preaching to the choir. Still, I had already written the sermon over the past few days, so I'm going to post it anyway!
On Saturday, January 21, I joined another protest group for a midday rally. No marching this time, which actually would have been much better for my aching joints. It's harder to stand than to walk, and sitting was out of the question.
The day was the second anniversary of the "Citizens United" decision by the Supreme Court. My sign, on one side read, $ IS NOT SPEECH, and on the other side, AMEND. It would be to better effect if I could actually show you the sign the way it was hand-printed, with the word "SPEECH" running large in the lower half of the total space, below the "$ IS NOT" line. Then on the reverse side, with more space for my one-word message, I made the appeal to "AMEND" in much bolder print. It turned out to be a great sign for the spot where I placed myself, at a busy intersection and on a divider median, where I could hold the smaller print side toward traffic as drivers slowed for the light, while the back side of the sign with much larger print was visible to traffic coming faster from the opposite direction.
Interesting to observe people! Hundreds of passers-by honked horns and shouted approval to the thirty or more members of our little protest group. Many thumbs-up gestures were held aloft and a few used the "V" sign with two fingers, I suppose for either victory or peace. Now and then someone energetically thrust upward the single middle digit instead. All-in-all, I estimated about 99% of the public were positive toward our effort and 1% were not happy to see us. That must have been what the single digit was signifying - the 1% definitely do not like anyone pointing out the huge unfairness in our current atmosphere of big money controlling the political races. And Citizens United fosters that unfairness.
But bizarre attitudes of many confused folks demonstrate the difficulty we all have in getting a focus on our frustrating governmental sphere.
We protesters were out there specifically to call attention to what is surely the most destructive decision ever handed down by our Supreme Court - the grand opening for corporations to buy elections. [If there had been a larger poster board handy when I was making my signs, one would have read, CORPORATE CORRUPTION Has a SUPREME COHORT. I may still do that one some day.] Now what group, as a very general class, gets the greatest advantage from that deplorable court decision? The rich and powerful, obviously, and along with them those mainstream Republicans who typically support big money interests. Who will likely have a major battle this year to win re-election, even though not a single Republican pretender to the highest office is at all competent? Our embattled President. And what will actually be his largest barrier to re-election? Big money and powerful corporations - the Wall Street agglomeration that hates Obama and all his efforts on behalf of the 99% of U.S. citizens. While FAIR SHOT/FAIR SHARE should be the slogan of all who believe in democracy, about half of our populace apparently cannot believe in this concept. It seems to me that millions of people in this country believe whole-heartedly that they deserve a fair shot at becoming successful, but they would not agree at all to paying their fair share if they were to become wealthy. Shame!
And many people simply do not have a grasp on the facts or the big picture. Check out this odd exchange I will attempt to recite from memory.
Lady At Traffic Light: "Thanks for being out here; we need to get things changed!"
Yours Truly: "Agreed! We need an amendment to stop the madness the Supreme Court unleashed!"
LATL: "We have to get him out of there. Washington's a mess!"
YT[a bit nonplussed]: "Nothing can get done with a Congress that is stuck in reverse gear and uncooperative."
LATL: "I know someone in Washington and she says that every piece of liberal policy that comes across his desk, he just signs without looking at it!"
YT [Stunned - seeking a calm but solid retort]: "Well, in my book, we can never be too progressive."
LATL [as traffic light changes and she pulls away): "RIGHT ON!!" - while flashing a "V" sign.
Is it possible that the art of plain communication has been lost? Has some Supreme Being (not Justice Roberts but some other supreme being) confused the tongues so we can no longer understand each other? Or has the 1% establishment released a secret concoction - maybe Agent Green - into the air and water so that all of us without the antidote have become dull of wit and unable to fight the stupidity hovering all around us? Is the average person on the street really unable to see what is being done to us?
Allow me to insert a comment here - mostly as self-protection. Some of you may be gunning for me! If any of this writing sounds too personal, as though I am talking straight to you in my criticisms, it is completely unintentional. I try to always keep it impersonal and general when I criticize "the electorate" etc. But please also, if it feels like a slap in the face, perhaps a wake-up is in order. I do so hope all thinking people will actually THINK before the elections approach. We have all made mistakes in our voting decisions over the years. This year's vote seems somehow vital to our national survival.
Again I reveal my very UN-neutral opinion toward this coming election. Because of the utter disbelief I suffered in 2004 when a dim-witted electorate returned to office the most destructive president in our history, even after seeing what he was capable of doing, I am now fearful. While today's inept and floundering candidates propose their idiotic ideas of what America needs, sounding very much like clones of the former despicable politician who ravaged our land and our stature in the world, it seems logical that a landslide win for the incumbent should perhaps surpass that experienced by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But our people have been so badly bruised in spirit and in pocketbook that the voting booth has become a theater of war. Witness 2010 elections! People walk in there prepared to do battle with something they don't understand but something that has hurt them, so the only thing they know how to do is pull the lever to oust incumbents. Actually, if there were even ONE potentially capable candidate at the top of the ticket for the Republicans, I as an Independent would welcome the ouster mentality. At least that might mean that the horde of right-wing and Tea Party do-nothings who waltzed into the House in 2010 could also be dumped this time around. And isn't the king of the do-nothings up for re-election this year? If so, maybe his fellow Ohioans will give him something to cry about - while looking for work back at home!
Please remember the Lady At the Traffic Light who is possibly a symbol of the typical citizen today. She knows her life could be better; she knows she has been hurt by governmental policies of the past; she assumes she is being hurt by recently adopted policies, by this current administration; she sees people in streets carrying signs, so she assumes they are helping her country reach for the change she feels is needed. Yet in her mind, getting "him" out of there is the logical move. HOLD ON there, LATL! The "him" to whom you refer is at least an intelligent and apparently a very dedicated servant of the people. This him is also the one carrying the heavy weight for three years, trying desperately to dig us out of the mess that was handed him by incompetent and even proud destroyers of our nation. This him is the one we need to continue carrying the weight for another term. This him is capable.
The rotten eggs who need to be gotten out of there are those who stand in the way of progress when they should be building on good ideas. If Congress had passed the jobs bill that "he" proposed last year, we could be well on the road to full recovery of what we lost in the Bush years. No, I do not feel our President today is perfect; I merely feel he is dedicated. His only glaring fault has been in trying too long to promote bi-partisanship when it was obvious early on that no such cooperation from the other side was forth-coming. His biggest weakness is his desire to be what any great leader should be - in it for the people.
Very likely, the Lady At Traffic Light did not even deign to watch the State of The Union address on television because she already had her mind set against anything our President might say. Or if she did watch, she may have sat as stone-faced as Mitch McConnell or looked as smug and disrespectful as did John McCain and some other people in the chamber. Perhaps they, and she, were nostalgic for the good ol' days of GWB's scintillating orations and his clear vision for a strong America(!). No, I think it's more likely that people whose minds are dead set against Mr. Obama for whatever reason (and I've elsewhere indicated what I firmly believe is a major but subliminal reason), were stunned by the sheer reality of how much better he is in the Presidency than was his predecessor. They also must surely see how much better it would be for the nation if he were to continue in office than would be our plight if any one of the opposition's weak and massively flawed choices were to manage to get in. Once again, Mr. Obama and his proposals for our country were overwhelmingly positive. And as a candidate for the top office in our nation, the man stood (as usual) in stark contrast against all the less capable who would try to unseat him. We have the right person at the helm, and if we let him work, my prediction is that our nation will be back to a high point of respect and progress after four more years. And you, Dear Reader, will have a better chance at personal success while I keep my tiny social security income and get to sell a few more homes as the economy strengthens.
So when you are faced with voting this year, I hope you will ask yourself the simple question of What does this (or that) candidate seem to want most? Position? Power? Money? or to genuinely help the people of this country? As of today, January 26, I know of no candidate other than President Obama who can honestly be seen as being in the political business for any motives other than selfish ones.
And as a corollary to re-electing the capable leader, it's time for people to wake up and realize, for the good of all of us, that EVERY MEMBER of CONGRESS who voted AGAINST the JOBS BILL should be REPLACED!
If we plummet to the depths of former failed policies; if Republicans maintain control of the House and we are subjected to another imbecile-elect in November, I will sincerely need to consider finding a new country! This one is becoming ever more like that of Steven Tyler's "...land of the free - FRIGHTENING SCREAM!"
Monday, January 23, 2012
Super Sunday, Coming Right Up!
So now, as it is the duty of all Monday morning quarterbacks, I must accept as history the way things turned out in yesterday's NFL championship games. Naturally I had many thoughts while watching the games, using my vast experience (never played a football game in my life!), my laser focus (catching parts of many plays while visiting with friends over a relaxing beverage), my sports announcer's insight (I have the voice for it, and possibly the razor wit and sterling vocabulary, but never ventured into that world at all), yet somehow this morning, I don't have the urge to pompously bore you with my summary of the games nor proclaim my pick for the ultimate winner of next month's Super Bowl.
Were I a true football fan (short for fanatic) I might be hustling to still try to procure a ticket for the game, which I understand was settling in at a price of about $650 and will go for twice that by scalpers at the gate. But I'm not really a true fan. Years ago I discovered that no matter which team won any event, my personal life did not change remarkably in either a positive or negative direction. In this area of life, our amazingly hyped world of sports enthusiasm, I have long been extremely neutral. (How's that for oxymoron?) Having been a quasi athlete in a few types of participation sports, I naturally notice and enjoy the great plays as they unfold in a game. I simply don't become too glandularly involved with the various games or the teams themselves.
And the use of the word glandularly here is purposeful and meaningful due to a still vivid memory of severely swollen tonsils and a week of laryngitis I suffered back in high school after too much vocal support for my team. That true physical suffering directly resulting from too strong a show of support cured me of fanaticism for sports. In much the same fashion, about two years following that event, I had my bout with too much show of drinking support for a familial celebration, and the resulting days of nausea and revulsion toward food or drink cured me of the desire to over-indulge. Fifty years of ability to enjoy moderate alcohol intake has made that one misstep an advantage to living my life of neutrality.
What all this is telling you is that for many Super Bowl parties, I would be a drip - an uninteresting unemotional observer of the game, not a rabid fan of my chosen team, shouting and throwing high fives with others who happen to choose the same team. An occasional vocal burst will erupt from me when an amazing catch or some other impressive play is accomplished in the upcoming game, but as a reveler, I will be less than raucous. And probably will consume less alcohol than will the average guest at the party. Oh, I will certainly enjoy some good scotch and/or brandy during the day, but more likely I will fill up substantially on some great chili.
And as to the game, yes, I have already revealed a slight tendency to favor the Giants over the Patriots because of the Manning name connection (though no family connection). Still, truly good play will get my attention and deserve my approval in the end. I do hope that the winning of the big game will be decided by good plays rather than those fumbles and misses that seemed to determine the outcomes of both championship games yesterday.
Enjoy the Super Bowl in whatever way best suits your true nature, and drive carefully if you choose to leave home. Remember, many others on the road will NOT be terribly responsible as drivers on the big day for American sports fans. And I am no fan of driving at all on that day, but I will dutifully drive an hour to visit with family and friends who use the game as a linchpin for a gathering. The chili will make it all worth while!
Were I a true football fan (short for fanatic) I might be hustling to still try to procure a ticket for the game, which I understand was settling in at a price of about $650 and will go for twice that by scalpers at the gate. But I'm not really a true fan. Years ago I discovered that no matter which team won any event, my personal life did not change remarkably in either a positive or negative direction. In this area of life, our amazingly hyped world of sports enthusiasm, I have long been extremely neutral. (How's that for oxymoron?) Having been a quasi athlete in a few types of participation sports, I naturally notice and enjoy the great plays as they unfold in a game. I simply don't become too glandularly involved with the various games or the teams themselves.
And the use of the word glandularly here is purposeful and meaningful due to a still vivid memory of severely swollen tonsils and a week of laryngitis I suffered back in high school after too much vocal support for my team. That true physical suffering directly resulting from too strong a show of support cured me of fanaticism for sports. In much the same fashion, about two years following that event, I had my bout with too much show of drinking support for a familial celebration, and the resulting days of nausea and revulsion toward food or drink cured me of the desire to over-indulge. Fifty years of ability to enjoy moderate alcohol intake has made that one misstep an advantage to living my life of neutrality.
What all this is telling you is that for many Super Bowl parties, I would be a drip - an uninteresting unemotional observer of the game, not a rabid fan of my chosen team, shouting and throwing high fives with others who happen to choose the same team. An occasional vocal burst will erupt from me when an amazing catch or some other impressive play is accomplished in the upcoming game, but as a reveler, I will be less than raucous. And probably will consume less alcohol than will the average guest at the party. Oh, I will certainly enjoy some good scotch and/or brandy during the day, but more likely I will fill up substantially on some great chili.
And as to the game, yes, I have already revealed a slight tendency to favor the Giants over the Patriots because of the Manning name connection (though no family connection). Still, truly good play will get my attention and deserve my approval in the end. I do hope that the winning of the big game will be decided by good plays rather than those fumbles and misses that seemed to determine the outcomes of both championship games yesterday.
Enjoy the Super Bowl in whatever way best suits your true nature, and drive carefully if you choose to leave home. Remember, many others on the road will NOT be terribly responsible as drivers on the big day for American sports fans. And I am no fan of driving at all on that day, but I will dutifully drive an hour to visit with family and friends who use the game as a linchpin for a gathering. The chili will make it all worth while!
Monday, January 9, 2012
W I G T -- Sunday Morning Satisfaction
January 15 UPDATE AT END OF POST
This post has been awaiting the results of the first round of the play-offs. It was to begin thus:
Now that the NFL regular season has ended, I feel I can no longer delay writing about one strange tangent regarding one player. (A player who will NOT be in the Super Bowl. Whew!) Then the unlikely happened and Denver beat Pittsburgh - and what's more, did so with a single impressive pass/run play to end the game. So I suppose I am wrong and there IS a God and He/She wants to show us all how to win football games.
For a couple of weeks last fall, a few impressionable sports commentators were about to get all dewy-eyed and angel-voiced to answer the question of Which Is God's Team by highlighting the seemingly Super-natural Ability of one quarterback who could win games because he had an apparent Super Connection. Tebowing became the term used for the showy act of praying on the field. (Shouldn't this get the same penalty as any other show-off move or dance?) Then announcers cooled off, as the team cooled, losing three in a row.
Finally! The Tebow spoof on Saturday Night Live at last encouraged me to think that maybe a few folks in TV land are aware of the utter foolishness of the athlete/god connection. You can be sure, lots of SNL fans were highly ticked-off because the big J.C. subject matter is not supposed to be used as comedy material. Bravo, Lorne Michaels! And now be prepared for the religious community to try to shut down the entire Internet because I'm going to be more critical here than Bill Maher was in a "Tweet" that has the holy nuts wanting to sue HBO and censor the comedian. No, I will be only a tiny squeak in the wilderness of the blogosphere, not catching the wrath aimed at the famous Maher. So the Internet is safe for the time being from the ever-ready-to-censor-free-speech critics in the right wing.
As the season draws to a close and the Broncos get knocked out somewhere during the play-offs (clearly, they don't belong at the final big game), some normalcy will return to the fan base of the NFL - if the word "normal" can be applied to any of that nutty world of professional sports and its fanatical followers. Of course, should the completely illogical thing happen and God's Team wins the Super Bowl, expect Tebow to be hoisted on the shoulders of angels and carried across the field, sweeping high above the goal posts and making a victory lap around the stadium above the crowd! Hell, he might be trumpeted as the Second Coming! After all, Tim took his God connection out onto the field to display for all the world, so it would be only fair to have his God return the favor - no? I mean, wouldn't it be sad to let everyone believe that a bunch of mere men could rally 'round a new young quarterback and pull off such a big upset, winning the Super Bowl? Just ask say, Eli Manning if such a thing would even be possible. Oh, wait, yeah, his team did do that didn't they? Well, no doubt Eli's God saw him praying in private and rewarded him openly. But then, according to that scriptural reference, it must have been a different God, one who prefers no public show of godliness. I'm so confused!
Back years ago, when I was a devoted sky-pilot myself, I was highly insulted by the idea that God would choose to reward a showy hot-shot and get involved in games in any way. It rather cheapened what I was so sure was my righteous connection to the great Supreme Being.
I have nothing against the Denver football team. In fact, when John Elway was there , throwing those long passes and taking the team all the way to Super Bowl stardom, I watched them a number of times. Today I simply tune them out specifically because I can't stomach all the foolishness of someone calling on his supreme being of choice to get help to win a game. My contention has long been that any god willing to fix a game for any person is not a being worthy of worship. Supreme Being and Super Bowl may seem like a natural combination, but I think it's a pretty unhealthy connection. For those who disagree, remember, Broadway Joe Namath won a Super Bowl too. I never noticed him once call on a power in the sky. In fact, religionists would have puked if he had done so because of his perceived bad boy image. But he wasn't in the NFL to worship. He simply played well and threw amazing passes. After all, isn't that what sports are supposed to be about - winning games by using your best performers who have a natural talent and who practice hard over long hours?
My sons and I are devoted Colts fans; after all, our name is Manning. Naturally we have loved watching the amazing quarterback skills of Peyton Manning (no relation, dog-gone-it) over the years. And I particularly enjoyed watching little brother Eli make those dazzling plays four years ago to win his Super Bowl ring. He might even manage that again this year; another Giants win would be fine with me. New England Patriots? Not so much. They are the main rivals of Indianapolis, so I just don't ever enjoy seeing them win. Until this next game! I want to see Tom Brady (who has plenty of votes in New England for Supreme Being of the Gridiron) - go up against that show-off God of the Broncos and blow Him/Her out of the stadium, along with praying Tim. If not Brady, then maybe Rodgers or Brees or Little Bro Manning - but somebody with at least as much talent as Tebow can show the world that football is a game, played by tough and sweaty humans, and that supreme beings need to mind their lofty perches and stay the hell out of football! And prayer, if one is prone to stoop to that arcane activity, should be left at home!
WOW! Sorry, Timmy. I know I mentioned being blown out of the stadium, but I would have settled for maybe a two or three touchdown loss. 45 to 10 was overkill! On the other hand, ...
The PATRIOTS? - God's Team??
When my wife and I returned home from a social event late last night, I just had to check the sports news to see how things turned out for the praying phenom. There happened to be highlights of the game underway when I first picked up the television feed, and I was flabbergasted at the score being shown. Some close-ups of faces were also shown. And did I notice a moment of clarity of some sort? Or just what might that moment have been for Mr. Tebow, when near the end of the game he was on the sidelines (where he had apparently spent a good bit of the game), and staring off into the mists of broken Super Bowl dreams? Could that look have been the silent question of, My God, my God; why hast thou forsaken me? It is too much for me to hope that maybe the big hype is a thing of the past and the young quarterback will settle down to continue to play ball, improving his skills in the game. He's obviously a talented athlete and should do big things for his team and for himself simply by playing good football, a physical - not a spiritual - game! I'm not giving odds of his dropping that foolish and offensive praying from his future playbook, but I can hope anyway.
It occurred to me only yesterday before the game - while again hearing so many of the comments about this fine young Christian example, upstanding (or half-kneeling, in this case) role model for youth, etc., etc. - that it may have been a tough week for some actual football fans in New England. Imagine the pressure felt by "good Christians" in the area who also love their Patriots! Their usual excitement over seeing the Brady-led team of their local region heading out to conquer another team, must have been dampened if not overcome by their obligatory desire to see good win over evil! Many stories were floated concerning some giant chasm between these two quarterback types. Little Timmy was wearing the Jesus tag, and with that, the badge of goodness itself, while Tom the Terrible was covered in the suddenly ugly cloak of man-of-the-world. Brady purportedly lives the good life, which is an interesting irony within our language usage, and naturally his known dalliance with (and finally, marriage to) a fashion model, his handsomeness itself, his lifestyle which smacks of money and fame, all virtually screamed sin and evil. This ignorant concept and the hype surrounding it caused millions of dollars more than the usual amounts to be wagered on the game's outcome. Bigger losses even than the 45 - 10 score were handed to big betters, and I for one, don't have a lot of compassion for them this morning.
It would be of great interest to me personally if it could be determined who the big losers and also big winners were following the game. Without any way of knowing the actual results of wagers on the game, I can wildly speculate that hundreds of thousands of people who were evil enough to bet against Saint Timmy came out of the day with sacks full of money. Oh, well, the Christians will bet that those evil-doers will get their justice in hell! Meanwhile, I have every hope that at least for this season, the holy crap will cease. At least in the football realm. Now, ON to the SUPER BOWL!
This post has been awaiting the results of the first round of the play-offs. It was to begin thus:
Now that the NFL regular season has ended, I feel I can no longer delay writing about one strange tangent regarding one player. (A player who will NOT be in the Super Bowl. Whew!) Then the unlikely happened and Denver beat Pittsburgh - and what's more, did so with a single impressive pass/run play to end the game. So I suppose I am wrong and there IS a God and He/She wants to show us all how to win football games.
For a couple of weeks last fall, a few impressionable sports commentators were about to get all dewy-eyed and angel-voiced to answer the question of Which Is God's Team by highlighting the seemingly Super-natural Ability of one quarterback who could win games because he had an apparent Super Connection. Tebowing became the term used for the showy act of praying on the field. (Shouldn't this get the same penalty as any other show-off move or dance?) Then announcers cooled off, as the team cooled, losing three in a row.
Finally! The Tebow spoof on Saturday Night Live at last encouraged me to think that maybe a few folks in TV land are aware of the utter foolishness of the athlete/god connection. You can be sure, lots of SNL fans were highly ticked-off because the big J.C. subject matter is not supposed to be used as comedy material. Bravo, Lorne Michaels! And now be prepared for the religious community to try to shut down the entire Internet because I'm going to be more critical here than Bill Maher was in a "Tweet" that has the holy nuts wanting to sue HBO and censor the comedian. No, I will be only a tiny squeak in the wilderness of the blogosphere, not catching the wrath aimed at the famous Maher. So the Internet is safe for the time being from the ever-ready-to-censor-free-speech critics in the right wing.
As the season draws to a close and the Broncos get knocked out somewhere during the play-offs (clearly, they don't belong at the final big game), some normalcy will return to the fan base of the NFL - if the word "normal" can be applied to any of that nutty world of professional sports and its fanatical followers. Of course, should the completely illogical thing happen and God's Team wins the Super Bowl, expect Tebow to be hoisted on the shoulders of angels and carried across the field, sweeping high above the goal posts and making a victory lap around the stadium above the crowd! Hell, he might be trumpeted as the Second Coming! After all, Tim took his God connection out onto the field to display for all the world, so it would be only fair to have his God return the favor - no? I mean, wouldn't it be sad to let everyone believe that a bunch of mere men could rally 'round a new young quarterback and pull off such a big upset, winning the Super Bowl? Just ask say, Eli Manning if such a thing would even be possible. Oh, wait, yeah, his team did do that didn't they? Well, no doubt Eli's God saw him praying in private and rewarded him openly. But then, according to that scriptural reference, it must have been a different God, one who prefers no public show of godliness. I'm so confused!
Back years ago, when I was a devoted sky-pilot myself, I was highly insulted by the idea that God would choose to reward a showy hot-shot and get involved in games in any way. It rather cheapened what I was so sure was my righteous connection to the great Supreme Being.
I have nothing against the Denver football team. In fact, when John Elway was there , throwing those long passes and taking the team all the way to Super Bowl stardom, I watched them a number of times. Today I simply tune them out specifically because I can't stomach all the foolishness of someone calling on his supreme being of choice to get help to win a game. My contention has long been that any god willing to fix a game for any person is not a being worthy of worship. Supreme Being and Super Bowl may seem like a natural combination, but I think it's a pretty unhealthy connection. For those who disagree, remember, Broadway Joe Namath won a Super Bowl too. I never noticed him once call on a power in the sky. In fact, religionists would have puked if he had done so because of his perceived bad boy image. But he wasn't in the NFL to worship. He simply played well and threw amazing passes. After all, isn't that what sports are supposed to be about - winning games by using your best performers who have a natural talent and who practice hard over long hours?
My sons and I are devoted Colts fans; after all, our name is Manning. Naturally we have loved watching the amazing quarterback skills of Peyton Manning (no relation, dog-gone-it) over the years. And I particularly enjoyed watching little brother Eli make those dazzling plays four years ago to win his Super Bowl ring. He might even manage that again this year; another Giants win would be fine with me. New England Patriots? Not so much. They are the main rivals of Indianapolis, so I just don't ever enjoy seeing them win. Until this next game! I want to see Tom Brady (who has plenty of votes in New England for Supreme Being of the Gridiron) - go up against that show-off God of the Broncos and blow Him/Her out of the stadium, along with praying Tim. If not Brady, then maybe Rodgers or Brees or Little Bro Manning - but somebody with at least as much talent as Tebow can show the world that football is a game, played by tough and sweaty humans, and that supreme beings need to mind their lofty perches and stay the hell out of football! And prayer, if one is prone to stoop to that arcane activity, should be left at home!
WOW! Sorry, Timmy. I know I mentioned being blown out of the stadium, but I would have settled for maybe a two or three touchdown loss. 45 to 10 was overkill! On the other hand, ...
The PATRIOTS? - God's Team??
When my wife and I returned home from a social event late last night, I just had to check the sports news to see how things turned out for the praying phenom. There happened to be highlights of the game underway when I first picked up the television feed, and I was flabbergasted at the score being shown. Some close-ups of faces were also shown. And did I notice a moment of clarity of some sort? Or just what might that moment have been for Mr. Tebow, when near the end of the game he was on the sidelines (where he had apparently spent a good bit of the game), and staring off into the mists of broken Super Bowl dreams? Could that look have been the silent question of, My God, my God; why hast thou forsaken me? It is too much for me to hope that maybe the big hype is a thing of the past and the young quarterback will settle down to continue to play ball, improving his skills in the game. He's obviously a talented athlete and should do big things for his team and for himself simply by playing good football, a physical - not a spiritual - game! I'm not giving odds of his dropping that foolish and offensive praying from his future playbook, but I can hope anyway.
It occurred to me only yesterday before the game - while again hearing so many of the comments about this fine young Christian example, upstanding (or half-kneeling, in this case) role model for youth, etc., etc. - that it may have been a tough week for some actual football fans in New England. Imagine the pressure felt by "good Christians" in the area who also love their Patriots! Their usual excitement over seeing the Brady-led team of their local region heading out to conquer another team, must have been dampened if not overcome by their obligatory desire to see good win over evil! Many stories were floated concerning some giant chasm between these two quarterback types. Little Timmy was wearing the Jesus tag, and with that, the badge of goodness itself, while Tom the Terrible was covered in the suddenly ugly cloak of man-of-the-world. Brady purportedly lives the good life, which is an interesting irony within our language usage, and naturally his known dalliance with (and finally, marriage to) a fashion model, his handsomeness itself, his lifestyle which smacks of money and fame, all virtually screamed sin and evil. This ignorant concept and the hype surrounding it caused millions of dollars more than the usual amounts to be wagered on the game's outcome. Bigger losses even than the 45 - 10 score were handed to big betters, and I for one, don't have a lot of compassion for them this morning.
It would be of great interest to me personally if it could be determined who the big losers and also big winners were following the game. Without any way of knowing the actual results of wagers on the game, I can wildly speculate that hundreds of thousands of people who were evil enough to bet against Saint Timmy came out of the day with sacks full of money. Oh, well, the Christians will bet that those evil-doers will get their justice in hell! Meanwhile, I have every hope that at least for this season, the holy crap will cease. At least in the football realm. Now, ON to the SUPER BOWL!
Sunday, January 1, 2012
CRAZOLUTIONS
It's that time again - the first day of a new calendar year; the time for crazy resolutions!
Sure, we typically try on one or two for size and many of us then reject the idea outright. "Why bother?" is the defeatist approach we may take due to a history of breaking resolutions within weeks, if not days.
So why not just toss out a few and wonder whether any of them will find purchase on the slick and unmovable granite of our minds that are set in their ways. Of course, none will probably manage to hold on, but we can't take anything for granite. (Sorry; I can never let the cheesy ones slide on by.)
Now hear this, 2012, you madly promising, wild & crazy year of beginnings and endings!
RESOLVED: I will try harder to actually accomplish all my resolutions.
RESOLVED: I will be more cautious in making them in the first place.
RESOLVED: During this year I will lose 20 pounds. (And try not to relocate them.)
RESOLVED: I will be nicer to my mate in the hope I may still have the same mate next year.
RESOLVED: I will try very diligently to stop sweating the petty things. (I've already stopped petting the sweaty things.)
RESOLVED: When ignorant and vile people spout off, I will be patient and calm - up to late in a count of ten, assuming I can get past three.
RESOLVED: My cell phone will be kept ON whenever I am not in a meeting; in a restaurant; on the GOLF course; playing with my grandson; playing with my wife; playing hookey; sleeping.
RESOLVED: Friends will be able to count on my undivided attention when they call on me - as soon as I've had time to get home, put on warm-ups, pour my Scotch and turn on the TV (muted, of course).
RESOLVED: No more laughing at insensitive jokes (unless they are really good ones!).
RESOLVED: All commentary I write will be "fair and balanced." (Or, as I understand that phrase to mean, my bias is the only one worth consideration.)
RESOLVED: Never to enter a line of people more than three deep. I can always find some fool thing to do until the line diminishes.
RESOLVED: To keep my friends close but my enemies closer. (Right! As though I have friends!)
RESOLVED: To watch less television. (Besides, everything I want is online.)
RESOLVED: To practice the golden rule of humor - blast you as I would expect you to blast me!
And I notice that number two above is already broken, so the whole thing's a bust anyway! Not to worry - the year is beginning on a positive footing and will bring what it brings.
To all of you Dear Readers, may 2012 be a year of joy, success and fulfillment, in whatever way these terms compute for you. I hope you will stay with me here and send me zingers every time I trample the borders of my self-constructed Neutral Zone. Even as I approach fossilization, I love to learn from others. And if you have any crazolutions of your own to share, please use the comments area to entertain us.
Cheers,
markman
P.S. Barring unforeseeable calamity, I plan to be posting here until Dec. 21st!
Sure, we typically try on one or two for size and many of us then reject the idea outright. "Why bother?" is the defeatist approach we may take due to a history of breaking resolutions within weeks, if not days.
So why not just toss out a few and wonder whether any of them will find purchase on the slick and unmovable granite of our minds that are set in their ways. Of course, none will probably manage to hold on, but we can't take anything for granite. (Sorry; I can never let the cheesy ones slide on by.)
Now hear this, 2012, you madly promising, wild & crazy year of beginnings and endings!
RESOLVED: I will try harder to actually accomplish all my resolutions.
RESOLVED: I will be more cautious in making them in the first place.
RESOLVED: During this year I will lose 20 pounds. (And try not to relocate them.)
RESOLVED: I will be nicer to my mate in the hope I may still have the same mate next year.
RESOLVED: I will try very diligently to stop sweating the petty things. (I've already stopped petting the sweaty things.)
RESOLVED: When ignorant and vile people spout off, I will be patient and calm - up to late in a count of ten, assuming I can get past three.
RESOLVED: My cell phone will be kept ON whenever I am not in a meeting; in a restaurant; on the GOLF course; playing with my grandson; playing with my wife; playing hookey; sleeping.
RESOLVED: Friends will be able to count on my undivided attention when they call on me - as soon as I've had time to get home, put on warm-ups, pour my Scotch and turn on the TV (muted, of course).
RESOLVED: No more laughing at insensitive jokes (unless they are really good ones!).
RESOLVED: All commentary I write will be "fair and balanced." (Or, as I understand that phrase to mean, my bias is the only one worth consideration.)
RESOLVED: Never to enter a line of people more than three deep. I can always find some fool thing to do until the line diminishes.
RESOLVED: To keep my friends close but my enemies closer. (Right! As though I have friends!)
RESOLVED: To watch less television. (Besides, everything I want is online.)
RESOLVED: To practice the golden rule of humor - blast you as I would expect you to blast me!
And I notice that number two above is already broken, so the whole thing's a bust anyway! Not to worry - the year is beginning on a positive footing and will bring what it brings.
To all of you Dear Readers, may 2012 be a year of joy, success and fulfillment, in whatever way these terms compute for you. I hope you will stay with me here and send me zingers every time I trample the borders of my self-constructed Neutral Zone. Even as I approach fossilization, I love to learn from others. And if you have any crazolutions of your own to share, please use the comments area to entertain us.
Cheers,
markman
P.S. Barring unforeseeable calamity, I plan to be posting here until Dec. 21st!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)