Monday, December 09, 2002

I have to laugh, and yet at the same time, I feel compelled to vomit...so, given a choice, I hate. Eighty percent of the American populace (give or take) despises the Republican party. Only problem is, most people a) don't care enough to vote them out, b) are disenfranchised Floridians, or c) hate the Dems just as much. There is, however, one key difference between the two parties -- Democrats, though generally spineless in this dictatorial day and age, aren't flat-out racist. Several GOP friends cover their ass by claiming that "party of Lincoln" crap, when we all know their agenda has shifted big-time in the last 140 years...but when ass-spelunkers like North Carolina redneck senator Trent Lott decide to drop some verbal diarrhea, there's only so much spin you can manage. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday (and yes, he's apparently been a senator for over half of them...holy dumb southern voters), Lott decided it would be cool to don his white hoody...peep this... "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president (in 1948), we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Even conservative jaws dropped on that one -- although there were, of course, fellow Klansmen trying to spin it, because, well, that's the politically correct thing to do... "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life," said a Lott spokesman. "To read anything more into these comments is wrong." No, genius. What's wrong is MAKING the comments. Even if you believe that, do yourself a favor and shut up. And what, by the way, is remarkable about Strom Thurmond, other than the fact that voters were comatose enough to keep sending him back or the fact that he lived to 100? His segregationist presidential platform clearly wasn't remarkable. None of his policies were remarkable. The guy is a fossil that symbolizes everything wrong with the southern United States (Bush covers the rest of the nation). Why are we celebrating this, other than to let out a big sigh of relief that we got him to retire at age 99 rather than 146? Then, there's Gordon Baum, the large chunk of leukorrhea who heads up the Council of Conservative Citizens, who added, "God bless Trent Lott." People like Lott and Thurmond, to me, are proof that God does not exist. If he did, he certainly wouldn't let a man who believed what Thurmond believed live to see triple digits. He wouldn't let people like Lott and Bush run this country -- unless he hates us all, that is. Shit, we've denied his son's blackness for a good many centuries. He'd be cool with that? Doubtful. There's a lot I could say about these shit-packets, but it's already implied on sight. I just thought that racists at least had tact nowadays and SAID the right thing while thinking backward. But no...Trent Lott doesn't care. After all, how many black votes does he get anyway? I just hope this sends a message to black voters, and apathetic voters of all tones -- if you were casting ballots all this time, none of these ignorant fucks would be in office. Perhaps that's what Lott meant by all the "problems" we're having. Him and these other rednecks who run our shit. Now THAT'S a problem. Only question is, who's gonna grow balls and stop 'em? -- O 10:49:32 PM    comment []

So here's my list of things about Ann Coulter and the BCS and field hockey. Psyche. A whole lotta people have been going off about the NY Times' decision to 'spike' (which is media for "opt not to print") a few sports columns about the whole brouhaha over Tiger Woods and Augusta. People can be forgiven for not understanding what the big deal is. So allow me to elucidate: 1) Howell Raines, the new editor of the New York Times, has begun picking up certain pet issues, grabbing ahold of them and painting the front page with stories on the topics. Case in point, the NYTimes ran a lot of stories in July and August about the Bush administration potentially attacking Iraq unilaterally. And the stories were extremely critical of such a move. (Surprise, the Times' editorial page was constantly attacking the idea, too) They have recently splashed several Masters-related stories across the front page--the most painful to read (from a media standpoint) was one where they devoted A1 space to a story about how Augusta had not issued a statement on the ruckus. Since WHEN is the absence of a statement news? Who's editing the NYTimes, Sherlock Holmes in "Hound of the Baskervilles?" "Watson, did you hear the hounds last night?" "No, Holmes." "Ah yes, the dogs were silent. And that is was made it so interesting!" That's not journalism, it's activism. 2) Howell has gone on the record as saying he wants the NYT to become the newspaper "of dissent." Which is an admirable goal, given that the Bush administration is doing their best to stifle discussion and the mainstream media is, oddly enough, going along with the whole strategy (Ignoring story lines that the Bush administration declines to discuss). 3) Women's groups have started a huge publicity campaign against Augusta, the country club that hosts the legendary Masters tourney, for not allowing women to become members in their club. [Which makes me want to twist the eminent philosopher Groucho Marx's words a bit -- instead of "I would never join a club that would have me as a member" I suggest "I would never desire to join a club of small-minded twits that live in the past and refuse to have me as a member."] Unfortunately, I fall on the side of the country club as a private institution to choose their members. If I didn't, I would apply to Smith College to start working towards my doctorate. Or I would try to join "Healthworks: Fitness Solutions for Women." [Maybe they meant 'Womyn?'] Or other private groups that have gender-based limits on entry. It's the same reason VMI shouldn't have had to admit women, while the Citadel had to: If you take public money, you owe public access. 3a) This is not to say that Augusta will not fail in keeping women out. [Out of their membership rolls, that is. Augusta has let women play the course for years, which often gets overlooked] I agree with one thing that Martha Burk said: "It's not whether women will become members, but when." This is true, just as was the NYTimes op-ed page topic last week of interracial marriages in the south. I wanted that duly noted. Sorry to lapse into opinion, but what would a blog be without a little ranting? And, in this case, fact-based ranting to boot! The issue with the NY Times is not one of Augusta. It's the all-important firewall between editorial board and newspaper content. (There is another between advertisers and content -- equally intangible -- but that's another topic for another day.)  It is fully within the Times' rights to drive this issue forward. In a sense, it is noble. Especially when they use the ultimate soapbox of the Times' editorial page to do it. Eyebrows are justifiably raised when the editor decides to start giving it front-page treatment, lifting it from merely a sports story with cultural components to A Pressing Culture Story. Eyebrows raise and jaws drop when a NYTimes columnist goes on the record and says that his column didn't make it to the paper. Oh, and it just so happened that he disagreed with the editor's stance. The writer in question is not unaccomplished -- he's a Pulitzer winner. (Which also explains why he felt impunity in going on the record to describe the decision.) This cannot be justified from a journalistic point of view. Unfortunately, the conservatives on the talk shows have had an air-tight case in whether the column should have run. The liberals have tried to steer the discussion back to whether Augusta should have women (since that's a slam dunk for their cause). As a media story, the Times done wrong, pain and simple. And in characteristic fashion, the Times admitted no wrongdoing yet decided to run the column in yesterday's paper. The (don't call it 'irony' dammit) hypocrisy in the Times' decision is how, in trying to "Manufacture Dissent" (with apologies to Noam), they disallowed dissent among their own ranks. -- Rizz P.S. Another concern that this case study raises is, "What if the columnist in question wasn't a Pulitzer winner?" Or rather "How often does this happen at other papers?" The painful truth is that a) he wouldn't have felt free to go public, and b) we'll never know. 10:27:44 PM    comment []

Whoa. Just wanted to let fellow blog pimp Mark Hoback over at Fried Green al-Qaedas know that he may have started a shitstorm this weekend without even knowing it. Whatever do I mean? Well, in the latest Blog Tour o' Quality, something the Haters feel privileged to have been mentioned in from time to time, FGAQ mentions a new blizzog called Red Card, which "may be the first Salon blog dedicated primarily to sports," they allege. And while I like the soccer reference in the title, I have a bone or two to pick at this point (and no, I won't dignify this new site with a link...it's already gotten one prop too many this week). Any blog whose opening post disses the SuperHaters (without having the balls to call us out by name, incidentally) is asking for an ass-whooping. That goes without saying, I would think. But some people never learn. Observe: "I have been a faithful reader of Salon.com for some time, and have realized there is a serious lack of sports opinion. While Salon's sports writers bring some to the site (Kaufman is very good, Barra is barely coherent) I haven't found any sports-related blogs ... If you want articles about why the BCS is stupid or why Mike Vick is wonderful, you can get them anywhere.  If you want Boston inside jokes or the latest news from the world of 14 year old girls' field hockey, I'm sure you know where to find that too. This will be different." Different indeed. In his next two entries, the Boy Wonder goes on to drop such ground-breaking commentary as "Warren Sapp Is Good" and "Ken Dorsey Isn't The Best Player On His Team." Today's expected entry: "Sun Likely To Rise Today." As in, "No Shit." Two things to remember. First, different isn't always better. Second, "different" isn't always different. Hating on Sapp-haters and giving props to Willis McGahee isn't exactly against-the-grain type shit. Neither is hating on us. The SuperHaters don't limit ourselves to sports because the world is filled with way too much other shit to hate on. Besides, we're not stupid -- the National folt for a reason. But when we do hit the playing field, no one does it better than we do. As far as I know, there are two good sports-related blogs on Salon. Red Card can battle itself for third. Nothing I love more than instigating on a Monday...haha... -- O 9:11:25 AM    comment []

*yawn* Another week of hate begins...with me doling out some much-deserved love. Though slept on (as usual) in the preseason, the ND men's hoop team will likely join its female counterparts in the top 10 today after one of the more pimpalicious weeks in the history of college basketball. The unranked Irish got the ball rolling last Tuesday, beating the ever-loving shit out of No. 10 Marquette. Harmless enough, the experts said. It was at the JACC, and upsets happen -- particularly in traditional rivalries such as this. One win was easy to write off as a fluke. Then, a funny thing happened. On Saturday, the Irish pulled it off again, castrating No. 8 Maryland in the lion's surrogate den of Washington, DC. This one was a little harder to ignore -- ND was playing what amounted to a road game against the defending national champ, and they won convincingly. Surely this would be enough to gain Mike Brey and his boys a little attention. But most people slept until yesterday, when the Irish beat their third top 10 team in six days, knocking off No. 2 Texas on a neutral court. ND blew a 13-point lead, only to rally in the closing minutes and shut down the 'Horns when it mattered most. Chris Thomas won his battle with fellow point-guard pimp TJ Ford, and the Irish finally received some love from the Dome-hating press. It'll be interesting to see where the normally retarded pollsters stick us today -- and equally interesting to see what the RPI looks like this week. The Irish were one of only a couple of teams to reach the second round of the NCAAs in each of the last two years, but we were nowhere to be found in the preseason rankings. Plenty of Pitt, lots of UConn -- even some Villanova -- but no Irish. Surely the point has been made by now. The best thing about this weekend was the boys-to-men transition of our two top freshmen, Torin Francis and Chris Quinn. These guys proved they're ready for the big time this weekend -- Francis with his 8-for-8 Saturday and 21-point, 10-rebound, 8-block Sunday, and Quinn with his 55 minutes of turnover-free play off the bench. The Irish have a backcourt group that rivals any in the nation, and Francis gives us a legit low-post threat to boot. I liked this team at the beginning of the season, and figured a third straight tourney berth was pretty safe. Now, I love this team. We've grown up faster than anyone could have realistically expected, and we're obviously on the brink of rejoining the nation's elite if we haven't already. We're not the new Duke yet, but that's where Brey has us headed -- and this weekend was a case of us fast-forwarding the tape a bit. The last time the Irish had this many top-10 wins, we reached the Final Four. That was 1978, when the likes of Laimbeer and Woolridge and Tripucka were in the house. Now, the pimps carry different names, but the mission should be the same -- a national title. Five years ago, I didn't think that was a realistic goal. Now, I find myself repeating the Patriots' words of a year ago...why not? Irish WHAT. -- O 8:16:43 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Ryan O'Leary. Last update: 1/3/2003; 6:57:29 AM.