I listened to a little of St. John McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention until my blood started boiling. After watching his and other speeches from Minnesota, I came to a conclusion. My dad is a better man than St. John. So is my brother.
The convention ramped up the party's recent tradition of canonizing soldiers... provided that they are or support Republicans. Democratic candidates have always been exempt from this canonization, even if they were wounded in service. Just ask John Kerry or Max Cleland.
I heard Mike Huckabee do this. I heard 9/11 Giuliani do this. I heard former mayor Palin do this. It was non-stop.
I get sick and tired of this crap. I get sick and tired of watching a bunch of ambitious, self-interested political whores having the audacity to lecture Americans on selfless service.
IT'S NOT SELFLESS IF YOU REGULARLY EXPLOIT SOMETHING FOR PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN!
And that's why I'd never in a million years vote for St. John, even if he weren't the most militaristic major party candidate for president in decades.
My brother and father both served in the military. So did my late grandfather. My father and grandfather both chose to enlist during wartime. My brother tried to re-enlist during wartime.
One of the big differences between my family members and St. John is that my family members aren't constantly about their military service, nor did they ever get others to brag on their behalf. They are bringing it up all the time to show how much better and more patriotic they are than everyone else. They have more decency and honor than that.
The reason for this is that, whatever their various reasons for joining, they believe the point of any kind of service is to serve. A good deed is its own reward. My dad has run for public office twice and I don't recall him ever mentioning his veteran status. Maybe it might've helped him gain a few votes. But he was better than that.
St. John isn't. It doesn't bother me that he spoke of his military service and prisoner of war time. I'm sure it was a very important in shaping the person he became. But the amount of time that he and his minions in Minnesota spent shoving his 'selfless' service down our throats was repulsive. According to one analysis, St. John invoked his being a former prisoner of war in 43 sentences of his convention speech. He spoke of his quarter century-long record as a Washington politician in only 8 sentences.
That's whoring out your service for votes.
That's electoral pandering first, not country first.
That's not honor.
My family members occasionally tell stories about their time in the armed forces but it's always been in a reminiscent way and not in a superiority complex way. They never acted like they were better than me because they served in the military and I didn't. I remember my dad saying he envied me because I had the opportunity to serve in the Peace Corps.
Probably the most important difference, and this is what I loathe about the mentality that St. John panders to, is that my family has always valued ALL kinds of public service. They respected my service in the Peace Corps or my sister's service as a teacher and crisis counselor just as they respected my brother's service in the Marines. They respected my service in Big Brothers/Big Sisters just as they respected my brother's service in the Boy Scouts. My mom was a social worker. My dad taught church school. We've given back to our communities and country in many ways, none of which were trivialized.
And ultimately, this is what I resent most about this mentality. There are many ways to serve this country. That includes military service, but St. John and the militarism he represents prop up the idea being a soldier, sailor, airman or marine is the ONLY way to serve your country.
I know this is politically incorrect but soldiers do not have a monopoly on service nor on honor. It's very dangerous when we present soldiering as the only way to contribute to this country. It devalues other, equally crucial, kinds of service.
There are many other ways to make important contributions to this nation. Be a teacher. Be a volunteer firefighter or EMT. These people are the backbones of small towns across this country, both in self-sainted Middle America and the apparent fake Americas on the coasts.
Be a Big Brother or Sister. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Join a literacy program. If you belong to a church, they probably offer social service programs that you could help out with.
Laud those who serve.
Laud ALL those who serve. But don't leave the improvement of this country to other people. If it's so important, so noble, so worthy, be a part of it yourself.
And if you do so, have the decency and honor to not whore out your service to advance your political career. To do otherwise dishonors that very service.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
South Ossetians party like it's 1099!
Following their liberation by the magnanimous Russian imperial armed forces, South Ossetians have chosen to celebrate their newfound 'freedom' by engaging a series of ethnic cleansing parties.
Human Rights Watch (obviously a huge fan of the Bush administration's great respect for the rule of law) has reported that its researchers have personally observed South Ossetians burning ethnic Georgian villages, 'massive looting' by Ossetian militias in Russian occupied territory, to say nothing of liberating 'Russian tanks systematically firing into the homes.'
Additionally: "Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with several members of the Ossetian militias who openly admitted that the houses were being burned by their associates, explaining that the objective was to ensure that ethnic Georgians would not have the houses to return to."
My initial reaction is to deplore this ethnic cleansing. But rest that if the Bush administration condemns these actions, I will retract my criticism and give these freedom parties my seal of approval!
Human Rights Watch (obviously a huge fan of the Bush administration's great respect for the rule of law) has reported that its researchers have personally observed South Ossetians burning ethnic Georgian villages, 'massive looting' by Ossetian militias in Russian occupied territory, to say nothing of liberating 'Russian tanks systematically firing into the homes.'
Additionally: "Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with several members of the Ossetian militias who openly admitted that the houses were being burned by their associates, explaining that the objective was to ensure that ethnic Georgians would not have the houses to return to."
My initial reaction is to deplore this ethnic cleansing. But rest that if the Bush administration condemns these actions, I will retract my criticism and give these freedom parties my seal of approval!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The gaffes of St. John
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
I was amused to read somewhere that as soon as Sen. Barack Obama announced Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, the GOP unveiled a Biden 'gaffe-meter.' This is from the party whose own standard bearer has made a current reference to a country that dissolved 15 years ago, doesn't know who is the president of the world's largest and one of its most dangerous countries and is going to sell us an Iraq strategy (well, at least empty slogans portrayed as a strategy) without knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias.
But I guess you can't say anything about any of Saint John's gaffes on serious questions for fear of being accused of ageism and of smearing a former POW... (checks The Script) I mean, war hero... (remembers John Kerry) I mean, REPUBLICAN war hero.
I was amused to read somewhere that as soon as Sen. Barack Obama announced Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, the GOP unveiled a Biden 'gaffe-meter.' This is from the party whose own standard bearer has made a current reference to a country that dissolved 15 years ago, doesn't know who is the president of the world's largest and one of its most dangerous countries and is going to sell us an Iraq strategy (well, at least empty slogans portrayed as a strategy) without knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias.
But I guess you can't say anything about any of Saint John's gaffes on serious questions for fear of being accused of ageism and of smearing a former POW... (checks The Script) I mean, war hero... (remembers John Kerry) I mean, REPUBLICAN war hero.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Beijing bans blacks from bars
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Beijing bans blacks from bars
What three things do basketballer Kobe Bryant, tennis player James Blake and soccer player Ronaldinho have in common?
1) They're black.
2) They're each among the most talented Olympians in their sport.
3) They're not allowed into any bars while they're in Beijing.
The litany of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese dictatorship has been well documented, if not by the NBC/General Electric family of Olympic broadcasters. But for most abuses, the regime tries to hide or outright deny them. But while perhaps less severe than forced labor, arbitrary arrest and religious repression, the regime is more brazenly open about its racism. Beijing authorities have explicitly banned bar owners from serving blacks during the Olympics. Oh, and Mongolians can't down a pint either.
If the 2012 London Olympic authorities banned Asians from bars, somehow I think international criticism would be a little louder.
On a sporting note: Congratulations to Michael Phelps for his record breaking haul of eight gold medals and to Usain Bolt for being the first person to break the world records for both the 100 and 200 meters in the same Olympics. After the 100m, some criticized Bolt for slowing up toward the end. It's a mark of how amazing his performance was that he could visibly slow up in such a short race and still break the world record.
Beijing bans blacks from bars
What three things do basketballer Kobe Bryant, tennis player James Blake and soccer player Ronaldinho have in common?
1) They're black.
2) They're each among the most talented Olympians in their sport.
3) They're not allowed into any bars while they're in Beijing.
The litany of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese dictatorship has been well documented, if not by the NBC/General Electric family of Olympic broadcasters. But for most abuses, the regime tries to hide or outright deny them. But while perhaps less severe than forced labor, arbitrary arrest and religious repression, the regime is more brazenly open about its racism. Beijing authorities have explicitly banned bar owners from serving blacks during the Olympics. Oh, and Mongolians can't down a pint either.
If the 2012 London Olympic authorities banned Asians from bars, somehow I think international criticism would be a little louder.
On a sporting note: Congratulations to Michael Phelps for his record breaking haul of eight gold medals and to Usain Bolt for being the first person to break the world records for both the 100 and 200 meters in the same Olympics. After the 100m, some criticized Bolt for slowing up toward the end. It's a mark of how amazing his performance was that he could visibly slow up in such a short race and still break the world record.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
American culture at its finest
I was watching CNN International's Inside Africa a few mornings ago; it's quality programming, which is why it doesn't run on CNN domestic. They were airing a story about the risk of a 'green famine' in Ethiopia
I think God clearly likes jabbing us humans with irony... because later that day, I read an article in the local daily about a nearby hot dog eating contest. It was a shameless exercise in glorifying gluttony. Not just the competition, but glowing FRONT-PAGE article.
I enjoy food. I enjoy good food. I even enjoy hot dogs... though no more than a few at a sitting.
But enjoying food has nothing to do with this. In fact, enjoying food gets in the way of so-called 'competitive eating.'
We're not talking about comfort or pleasure or even extravagance, but downright gluttony. And the daily had the nerve to celebrate this as though the competitors were gunning for some sporting achievement greater than Michael Phelps'.
The 'winner' (the opposite label seems more appropriate) inhaled 23 1/4 hotdogs in 10 minutes. And then he had the nerve to brag about his gluttonous prowess.
"I'm not even full," he snorted. "I'll probably go and eat some ice cream now."
It made me sick and I didn't even have a bite.
Too bad the hundreds or thousands of dollars wasted on this orgy of excess weren't donated instead to the World Food Programme.
I think God clearly likes jabbing us humans with irony... because later that day, I read an article in the local daily about a nearby hot dog eating contest. It was a shameless exercise in glorifying gluttony. Not just the competition, but glowing FRONT-PAGE article.
I enjoy food. I enjoy good food. I even enjoy hot dogs... though no more than a few at a sitting.
But enjoying food has nothing to do with this. In fact, enjoying food gets in the way of so-called 'competitive eating.'
We're not talking about comfort or pleasure or even extravagance, but downright gluttony. And the daily had the nerve to celebrate this as though the competitors were gunning for some sporting achievement greater than Michael Phelps'.
The 'winner' (the opposite label seems more appropriate) inhaled 23 1/4 hotdogs in 10 minutes. And then he had the nerve to brag about his gluttonous prowess.
"I'm not even full," he snorted. "I'll probably go and eat some ice cream now."
It made me sick and I didn't even have a bite.
Too bad the hundreds or thousands of dollars wasted on this orgy of excess weren't donated instead to the World Food Programme.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
'Koran abuse' worse than ethnic cleansing?
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
I read an interesting article in The Chicago Tribune about the spin coming from the Russian and Georgian governments recently. A few interesting tidbits:
Regarding hysterical Russian claims of genocide:
"Genocide is what's happened," said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a longtime member of Putin's inner circle. "Widespread physical destruction—with artillery shells, tanks and guns—of thousands of Russian citizens. Basically, an ethnic cleansing operation was carried out."
But when Human Rights Watch researchers talked to doctors at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital, they were told that most of those killed in the capital were brought to the hospital, and the toll was 44, a count that included combatants and civilians. Bodies were not taken to the city morgue because the fighting had knocked out the city's electricity.
"That's 44 too many, and clearly unacceptable," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "But the Russian propaganda machine is clearly working very hard right now."
And regarding allegations that Georgia arbitrarily launched an unprovoked assault of South Ossetia for no particular reason, the Tribune piece reports:
Much of the information war has focused on who instigated the conflict. Russia has repeatedly insisted that Georgia waged its assault on South Ossetia unprovoked. "Who, after all, started military action in South Ossetia?" [Russian de jure president] Medvedev said at a news conference Friday. "Was it Russian peacekeepers, Russian forces or the Georgian army?"
Medvedev did not mention the barrage of shelling from South Ossetian separatists directed at Georgian villages that preceded the Georgian assault. While [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili has been widely criticized both in Georgia and in the international community for overreacting to the South Ossetian shelling, the beginnings of the conflict were not as black and white as the Kremlin has portrayed.
But while Georgia's shelling of a town drew loud condemnation from the much of the North American left, 'massive'* Russian bombardement of Georgian civilian areas merits barely a mention.
(*-Human Rights Watch's description)
A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report weighed in on the situation.
It notes that both armies have used 'indiscriminate' force at various times in the conflict. It criticized the Georgians for "indiscriminate force during their assault on Tskhinvali [the South Ossetian capital] and neighboring villages."
HRW has "confirmed the Russian military’s use of cluster bombs in two towns in Georgia."
It also reported that the Russian military has 'targeted' civilian convoys fleeing the conflict for aerial bombing. It also accuses the Russian military of "Ongoing looting, arson attacks, and abductions by militia are terrorizing the civilian population, forcing them to flee their homes and preventing displaced people from returning home."
In other words, Georgia's crime was recklessness. Russia's crimes were conscious and planned. Both are unacceptable, but they are not equal, neither in intent, nor in scale.
Another HRW report accuses South Ossetian militas, armed by Moscow, of burning and looting Georgian villages. Essentially, the same ethnic cleansing that Russia attributed to Georgia... except far more fitting of such a high charged phrase.
The North American left's response to all this? Silence. Or some half-hearted apologia that tosses in a little token criticism of Russia while implying that Georgia got what it deserved for befriending Bush.
The progressive left shouldn't stick their finger in the wind, find out what the neo-cons argue and base their principles on the opposite. If the progressive left is going to claim to stand against imperialism and for human rights, it must unequivocally condemn all war crimes and all militarism, including Russia's.
Certainly, ethnic cleansing and targeting fleeing civilians for bombing are at least as worthy of outrage as 'Koran abuse.'
I read an interesting article in The Chicago Tribune about the spin coming from the Russian and Georgian governments recently. A few interesting tidbits:
Regarding hysterical Russian claims of genocide:
"Genocide is what's happened," said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a longtime member of Putin's inner circle. "Widespread physical destruction—with artillery shells, tanks and guns—of thousands of Russian citizens. Basically, an ethnic cleansing operation was carried out."
But when Human Rights Watch researchers talked to doctors at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital, they were told that most of those killed in the capital were brought to the hospital, and the toll was 44, a count that included combatants and civilians. Bodies were not taken to the city morgue because the fighting had knocked out the city's electricity.
"That's 44 too many, and clearly unacceptable," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "But the Russian propaganda machine is clearly working very hard right now."
And regarding allegations that Georgia arbitrarily launched an unprovoked assault of South Ossetia for no particular reason, the Tribune piece reports:
Much of the information war has focused on who instigated the conflict. Russia has repeatedly insisted that Georgia waged its assault on South Ossetia unprovoked. "Who, after all, started military action in South Ossetia?" [Russian de jure president] Medvedev said at a news conference Friday. "Was it Russian peacekeepers, Russian forces or the Georgian army?"
Medvedev did not mention the barrage of shelling from South Ossetian separatists directed at Georgian villages that preceded the Georgian assault. While [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili has been widely criticized both in Georgia and in the international community for overreacting to the South Ossetian shelling, the beginnings of the conflict were not as black and white as the Kremlin has portrayed.
But while Georgia's shelling of a town drew loud condemnation from the much of the North American left, 'massive'* Russian bombardement of Georgian civilian areas merits barely a mention.
(*-Human Rights Watch's description)
A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report weighed in on the situation.
It notes that both armies have used 'indiscriminate' force at various times in the conflict. It criticized the Georgians for "indiscriminate force during their assault on Tskhinvali [the South Ossetian capital] and neighboring villages."
HRW has "confirmed the Russian military’s use of cluster bombs in two towns in Georgia."
It also reported that the Russian military has 'targeted' civilian convoys fleeing the conflict for aerial bombing. It also accuses the Russian military of "Ongoing looting, arson attacks, and abductions by militia are terrorizing the civilian population, forcing them to flee their homes and preventing displaced people from returning home."
In other words, Georgia's crime was recklessness. Russia's crimes were conscious and planned. Both are unacceptable, but they are not equal, neither in intent, nor in scale.
Another HRW report accuses South Ossetian militas, armed by Moscow, of burning and looting Georgian villages. Essentially, the same ethnic cleansing that Russia attributed to Georgia... except far more fitting of such a high charged phrase.
The North American left's response to all this? Silence. Or some half-hearted apologia that tosses in a little token criticism of Russia while implying that Georgia got what it deserved for befriending Bush.
The progressive left shouldn't stick their finger in the wind, find out what the neo-cons argue and base their principles on the opposite. If the progressive left is going to claim to stand against imperialism and for human rights, it must unequivocally condemn all war crimes and all militarism, including Russia's.
Certainly, ethnic cleansing and targeting fleeing civilians for bombing are at least as worthy of outrage as 'Koran abuse.'
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Blame Isaac Newton!
I was watching TV at the Y yesterday but someone else had the remote so I was forced to watch the Yankees game. Unfortunately, they were winning; fortunately, this doesn't happen as often as it used to.
But at least the announcers were tolerable this time (as opposed to the last time I'd watched a bit when they were going on and on and on about something Manny Ramirez had done several days prior... and they weren't even playing the Red Sox at the time).
Anyway, they somehow got onto the topic of instant replay. One of the announcers said something like, "I don't mind instant replay in baseball, if it doesn't take too long."
I snorted soda out of my nosing laughing. Because when you're suffering through a 4 hour, 9 inning baseball game, your top priority must be to avoid the horror of having to spend an extra 90 seconds for the umps to get a call right!
I don't care strongly about instant replay. It makes sense in baseball, if it's designed the right way. But the amount of time it would add to the game is miniscule compared to other things.
If you really care about shortening the interminably long MLB games, they should go to the high school rule where the batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a pitch if it's caught by the catcher. The at-bat routine of some players may be comical, but it makes baseball games last forever... and unwatchable on TV in their full form.
If a game's going to last an extra 90 seconds, I want it to be because the umps got a big call right, not because a jacked up hitter needed to spit tobacco juice, undo his batting glove and re-arrange his jock.
**
Sometimes you wonder how some people get jobs as sports announcers, a profession that you'd think would require a degree of coherence.
I was watching the US-Canada Olympic women's quarterfinal match a few days ago. At one point, announcer Brandi Chastain criticized the US team for 'playing too many negative passes.' She went on to explain that if the US couldn't break down Canada in the attacking half, they should bang the ball (forward) to the corners instead of playing it backwards.
The idea of turning a soccer match into a track meet is unfortunately the accepted 'conventional wisdom' in American soccer circles. Americans tend to believe that soccer should be first and foremost about athleticism instead of extravagancies like... foot skills.
That's not what good coaching focuses on but that's what American coaching tends to emphasize.
Ok, so be it.
But then only a few minutes later, Chastain complains about the US' inability to possess the ball and says they shouldn't be impatient. If they don't have anything, they should pass the ball back to the keeper and reset the play.
MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND!
I've heard her speak in person and she's very intelligent and well-spoken. Few people on Earth have won more major international soccer trophies. But if you don't know what position to take, at least pick a side and stick with it! Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.
**
Some people like sports announcers who are unabashedly biased in favor of the home squad. They're called 'homers.' Some of the most beloved announcers in US sports history have been homers. The most (in)famous of them being the late Cubs' voice Harry Caray.
I've never really understood the desire to listen to people who are nothing more than fans with microphones. If I wanted to listen to Joe Six Pack spout off ignorantly, I'd watch the game at a bar. The point of having TV announcers is to bring something that the ordinary fan can't get by watching on his own.
I loathe announcers who insult my intelligence. If Joe Homeboy takes a cheap shot at his opponent, I'm yelling at him for doing something stupid and costing my team. I don't want to listen to some a** kisser saying he got screwed by the officials or that he was 'unlucky.' Have the balls to say he took a cheap shot at the other guy. If I see something plain as day with my own two eyes, don't tell me I saw something else.
The Boston Bruins' old color guy Derek Sanderson was infamous for that. When an opponent took a cheap shot at a Boston player, he'd scream with outrage and demand the guy be expelled from the league and castrated to boot. When a Boston player did the exact same thing, he'd chuckle, "Boys will be boys."
I'm a Bruins' fan but I couldn't stand him. The only saving grace was that he was partnered with Hall of Fame announcer Fred Cusick, who was the epitome of class in broadcasting... except for the very end when he descended into homerism himself.
New England's soccer team has a similar odd couple: the best color guy in the league (Greg Lalas) combined with the most shameless, Kool-Aid drinking, propaganda spewing suckup in the league (Brad Feldman).
I was watching New England's match in San Jose on Saturday, though it was with San Jose's broadcasting crew. Every time a New England player went down, the SJ color man whined about it being a 'dive.' A SJ defender kicked the ankle of the NE forward who fell down. Not hard, but there was enough contact that the smaller NE player, going at full speed weaving through the defense, was knocked over. But the color guy didn't seem to notice the kick, so of course it was a 'dive.'
Get a clue!
Listen, I hate diving as much as anyone. I think it's an affront to the game. BUT... just because a player goes down doesn't mean it's a dive... even if the contact appears to be minimal.
Think about it. You're running as fast as you can, trying to stay balanced enough to closely control a soccer ball with your feet. This is hard enough to do when there's nobody around. Try it sometime if you think otherwise.
You're probably a little smaller because those players tend to be quicker. If you're going at top speed, it doesn't take much contact to knock you off balance, especially when you're trying to stay close enough to the ball and especially if you're smaller.
There certainly is real diving that occurs in soccer. But not every time a guy goes to ground is a dive. Sometimes is nothing more than the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
But at least the announcers were tolerable this time (as opposed to the last time I'd watched a bit when they were going on and on and on about something Manny Ramirez had done several days prior... and they weren't even playing the Red Sox at the time).
Anyway, they somehow got onto the topic of instant replay. One of the announcers said something like, "I don't mind instant replay in baseball, if it doesn't take too long."
I snorted soda out of my nosing laughing. Because when you're suffering through a 4 hour, 9 inning baseball game, your top priority must be to avoid the horror of having to spend an extra 90 seconds for the umps to get a call right!
I don't care strongly about instant replay. It makes sense in baseball, if it's designed the right way. But the amount of time it would add to the game is miniscule compared to other things.
If you really care about shortening the interminably long MLB games, they should go to the high school rule where the batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a pitch if it's caught by the catcher. The at-bat routine of some players may be comical, but it makes baseball games last forever... and unwatchable on TV in their full form.
If a game's going to last an extra 90 seconds, I want it to be because the umps got a big call right, not because a jacked up hitter needed to spit tobacco juice, undo his batting glove and re-arrange his jock.
**
Sometimes you wonder how some people get jobs as sports announcers, a profession that you'd think would require a degree of coherence.
I was watching the US-Canada Olympic women's quarterfinal match a few days ago. At one point, announcer Brandi Chastain criticized the US team for 'playing too many negative passes.' She went on to explain that if the US couldn't break down Canada in the attacking half, they should bang the ball (forward) to the corners instead of playing it backwards.
The idea of turning a soccer match into a track meet is unfortunately the accepted 'conventional wisdom' in American soccer circles. Americans tend to believe that soccer should be first and foremost about athleticism instead of extravagancies like... foot skills.
That's not what good coaching focuses on but that's what American coaching tends to emphasize.
Ok, so be it.
But then only a few minutes later, Chastain complains about the US' inability to possess the ball and says they shouldn't be impatient. If they don't have anything, they should pass the ball back to the keeper and reset the play.
MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND!
I've heard her speak in person and she's very intelligent and well-spoken. Few people on Earth have won more major international soccer trophies. But if you don't know what position to take, at least pick a side and stick with it! Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.
**
Some people like sports announcers who are unabashedly biased in favor of the home squad. They're called 'homers.' Some of the most beloved announcers in US sports history have been homers. The most (in)famous of them being the late Cubs' voice Harry Caray.
I've never really understood the desire to listen to people who are nothing more than fans with microphones. If I wanted to listen to Joe Six Pack spout off ignorantly, I'd watch the game at a bar. The point of having TV announcers is to bring something that the ordinary fan can't get by watching on his own.
I loathe announcers who insult my intelligence. If Joe Homeboy takes a cheap shot at his opponent, I'm yelling at him for doing something stupid and costing my team. I don't want to listen to some a** kisser saying he got screwed by the officials or that he was 'unlucky.' Have the balls to say he took a cheap shot at the other guy. If I see something plain as day with my own two eyes, don't tell me I saw something else.
The Boston Bruins' old color guy Derek Sanderson was infamous for that. When an opponent took a cheap shot at a Boston player, he'd scream with outrage and demand the guy be expelled from the league and castrated to boot. When a Boston player did the exact same thing, he'd chuckle, "Boys will be boys."
I'm a Bruins' fan but I couldn't stand him. The only saving grace was that he was partnered with Hall of Fame announcer Fred Cusick, who was the epitome of class in broadcasting... except for the very end when he descended into homerism himself.
New England's soccer team has a similar odd couple: the best color guy in the league (Greg Lalas) combined with the most shameless, Kool-Aid drinking, propaganda spewing suckup in the league (Brad Feldman).
I was watching New England's match in San Jose on Saturday, though it was with San Jose's broadcasting crew. Every time a New England player went down, the SJ color man whined about it being a 'dive.' A SJ defender kicked the ankle of the NE forward who fell down. Not hard, but there was enough contact that the smaller NE player, going at full speed weaving through the defense, was knocked over. But the color guy didn't seem to notice the kick, so of course it was a 'dive.'
Get a clue!
Listen, I hate diving as much as anyone. I think it's an affront to the game. BUT... just because a player goes down doesn't mean it's a dive... even if the contact appears to be minimal.
Think about it. You're running as fast as you can, trying to stay balanced enough to closely control a soccer ball with your feet. This is hard enough to do when there's nobody around. Try it sometime if you think otherwise.
You're probably a little smaller because those players tend to be quicker. If you're going at top speed, it doesn't take much contact to knock you off balance, especially when you're trying to stay close enough to the ball and especially if you're smaller.
There certainly is real diving that occurs in soccer. But not every time a guy goes to ground is a dive. Sometimes is nothing more than the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Satire is impossible with reality like this
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Launching an unprovoked aggression against a foreign country under the fake pretexts of protecting security and human rights with the real objectives of seizing the country's resources and imposing regime change on a defiant government.
According to the Bush administration, such behavior 'has no place in the 21st century.'
President Bush himself called such behavior “bullying and intimidation" and demanded the invaded country's sovereignty and territorial integrity 'be respected.' He also said that such actions damaged the invading country's credibility and international standing.
By all accounts, this was said with a straight face.
My guess is that the Bush administration uses the Ethiopian calendar.
Under that system, March 2003 was in the 20th century.
Launching an unprovoked aggression against a foreign country under the fake pretexts of protecting security and human rights with the real objectives of seizing the country's resources and imposing regime change on a defiant government.
According to the Bush administration, such behavior 'has no place in the 21st century.'
President Bush himself called such behavior “bullying and intimidation" and demanded the invaded country's sovereignty and territorial integrity 'be respected.' He also said that such actions damaged the invading country's credibility and international standing.
By all accounts, this was said with a straight face.
My guess is that the Bush administration uses the Ethiopian calendar.
Under that system, March 2003 was in the 20th century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)