Monday, April 26, 2010

et tu ncaa?

no more bible verses beneath eyes of ncaa football players (click on the post title to read the article)

i have tried to see the validity in this ruling. even i, the separtation of church and state psycho nut, cannot find it. how can this be legal? when will someone fight it? do you notice that they waited until tebow left to make this rule? maybe because he would have fought it. i will be interested to see who does. what about tatoos? a message is a message, right? maybe if they try and outlaw tatoos the players will revolt and we will see some justice.

you guys might not know this, but i am by no means a tim tebow fan. i think he is a show boat, a ball hog, a media hog and that one day he will beat his wife and possibly children. why you ask? he has a nasty temper, a NASTY, NASTY temper and he is an old school chirstian (so much so that he might take the "wives submit to your husbands" thing a little too far). he might not, but i think time will prove i am right. also, why were there always cameras on him during his "missionary work?" could the money used to hire those cameramen not have been put to better use buying food for the IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE he was there to "help?" How about the now "immortalized" speech he gave after Ole Miss handed florida a much deserved loss? HE was sorry, HE would do better next time, HE won't lose another game, HE knows that HE let everyone down? do you think maybe HE has a big ego? If HE felt HE single handedly lost that game, who does HE think won the others? obviously not his center maurkice pouncey who was picked BEFORE tebow in the draft. i feel he is a "pseudo" chirstian and an adequate quarterback at best. i included my tebow rant so all would know this rule does not offend me because of any misdirected tebow worship. but, i digress.

this rule infringes on their right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and takes away power from the school and coaches.

bad rule.


i just learned that they are in fact doing this in the NFL as well. i'm very interested to see how this all pans out.

Friday, April 23, 2010

paradise lost.

john mccain has broken my spirit.

i feel dejected.

no hope remains, no innocence.

i believed in peace.

i believed it was possible.

all that is left is fear and despair.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

me and my libertarian ways

i had a random thought this morning. libertarian is not really a political party, not by it's current definition anyway. you see, being libertarian is not necessarily an idicator of my place on the political spectrum. i don't really think i have one place on the spectrum, but rather a collection of hangouts that I visit regularly. i'll explain. some stops are to get milkshakes, some are to buy clothes, some are places of worship, some are educational institutions (e.g., walmart is not the only place i go in a day. all of my needs cannot be met at one location. likewise, all of my political needs cannot be met at one spot on the spectrum).

in my humble opinion, being libertarian basically means i feel i have the right, as do you, to vote on issues at a state or even a smaller community level. by saying i think the citizens of my state should hold a vote on the issue of prohibition (legalization of marijuana), it should not be immediately clear to you how i would vote. it simply means i recognize that mine is not the only opinion that matters in this community. it bears no more or less weight than any of my neighbors. this law only effects this community, does it not? so why would washington make the decision for us?

this principle holds true for many issues. abortion, the definition of marriage, prayer in public schools, the curriculum of public schools, driving age, voting age, drinking age, tax amounts and the appropriation of thoses dollars, and the list continues.

in short, i would argue that if you are not libertarian, you think your opinions and/or beliefs should bear more weight than those of others. surely you don't think that... do you?


Wednesday, April 21, 2010

where have you gone joe dimaggio?

i apologize for the fury in this post and the inarticulate delivery of my message. i am way too angry to try and be witty. ben roethlisberger is getting away with rape! rape!!! no jail time. sitting out of 6 games next year.

the rights of animals hold more weight in this nation than the rights of women. just ask michael vick. this is vulgar and a gross example of social injustice.

this just in: the nfl considers this a major suspension? 6 days. i will say this very clear so that even the maladrit apes at the nfl can understand. HE SHOULD BE IN PRISON NOT A LOCKER ROOM! he is a threat to women and an afront to women's suffrage. this entire issue disgusts me.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

stopping short

this could be the new catch phrase of the administration. since apparently "yes we can" got lost in translation along the way. let's make a list of issues where obama has "stopped short," of his initial promises shall we?

1. civil rights (most notably, gay rights)
2. the war
3. the environment
4. gun control
5. health care
6. alternative energy
7. tax cuts for seniors

i really could go on, but indubitably, i would cramp.

the latest opprobrium to equality on the obama front? he is issuing an order which will grant "partners of federal employees access to financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves." this comes a day after he was publicly taunted for his refusal to uphold campaign promises relating to gay rights such as the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law. instead of making legislation that protects and/or clarifies equality, he is choosing to "stop! short" of repealing this archaic discriminatory rule.

i would like to point out that the punctuation in that last sentence was intentional, for i feel he is choosing to simply stop. he has stopped in his commitment to the american people to pursue equality in washington, equality for our environment, equality for our children's education, equality for our health care, in marriage, for our seniors, and for our soldiers.

all i will ever ask of our leaders is egalitarity. everything else falls into place with fair and equal practices. all of the social issues that separate our society can be solved by fairness.

i try to keep my religious convictions out of my political views and expect no less of anyone who enjoys the freedoms allocated to them from our democracy. i will, however point out just this once that as a christian, i feel the problems in our entire universe would be no more if people felt compelled to live by the ten commandments. police would be out of a job if these mitzvahs were treated with the respect God's word deserves. no murder, lieing, stealing, cheating, jealousy? i think i just described an utopian society (or at least a john lennon song).

while i am no liberal, i was looking forward to this liberal president fixing some of our social issues while he suppressed our economy. a black guy, i thought. YES! now we will all have equal treatment under the law!

make no mistake fiends, i am a libertarian. i don't want you, my apocryphal readers, to misunderstand. i am for a very limited federal government. but more than that, i am for honesty. this is my country and these are my people. if you make them a promise, you better follow through on that promise. if you intentionally break those promises, you have lost any esteem i may have extended you in respect to your office.

where is the transparency i long for in washington? come back to me ben and tj! john adams, where have you gone? i am left in this mockery of america praying for electoral sagacity.

shame on you again mr. president.

Same sex couples have new rights?

maybe not. we all read the news. we felt blissful to learn he had made an order that a veritable liberal president might make. extending health care rights to same sex partners? nice.

just the idea that an american president might actually believe we are all created equal makes my heart skip a beat. egalitarians unite!

not so fast my forward marching brothers and sisters.

we have been finessed. if you read this article you will see the only person who truly has an opportunity to furtherance is, you guessed it, obama. it is another push by the oval office to extend their control over the health care industry (ie, our lives).

notice this line, "to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments." also that, "patients' designees be able to "make informed decisions regarding patients' care."

to elucidate. i am in the hospital juiced on God knows what and some random guy walks into my hospital room while my family is away. he tells me i should let him decide what is best for me because i am in pain and suffering and he can help. in my drug dazed reality, i say yes and sign a piece of paper. he tells the hospital to pull the plug and harvest my organs. guess who gets some of my organs? his daughter.

an extreme example? maybe. is this out of the realm of possibility from such an extremist government? absolutely not.

no thank you, mr. obama. we are NOT too stupid to make our own decisions. we DO have rights and freedoms and we would like to keep them.

his order doesn't make same sex couples have the same medical rights as "traditional" couples. it lets ANYONE IN THE WORLD have the same rights to our health care decisions that our family has. it recognizes that NO ONE is important, not that everyone is.

this is just another slap in our face. another, "you are all idiots and i am the smartest" move by this administration.

does no one else see this? why are we letting this continue? the worst part about this is he is doing it in the name of emancipation.

shame on you, mr. president.

the vilification of ole miss

people were upset.
people were offended.
recruiting suffered as a result of vicious slander spread by the opposition.
the colonel was retired.

in the aftermath of this intrepid ordeal, lies the humiliation of defeat by a proud school and the aloofness of their adversaries who feel as though they have been righted in their hatred of this prestigious university.

but who, i ask, are the true victors?

if, as the administration suggests, changing the mascot will help the university of mississippi gain higher quality students and student athletes, have the rebel's defamers actually accomplished their goal? sure at the moment there is turbulence on the campus and disdain in the grove, but what in the end? a stronger football program? basketball program? more rhodes scholars than the 25 this premier educational institution already boasts? will they get more faulkners, more grishams, more mannings, more prestige? if this is the end result, who will have suffered the greatest loss?

could it be that the colonel, in true ole miss form, has simply "taken one for the team?" i think yes. and may he rest in peace.