College football fans are small time when it come to the potential for being obnoxious. When it comes to that dimension, you can't beat the pros at it. Here's a comprehensive list fans' rated obnoxiousness by teams. Still, the Philadelphia Eagles fans are also known for this dubious honor. You can read an account of them by a Vikings fan that is Minnesota nice.
The Patriots
The Raiders
The Seahawks
The Eagles
seem to have shitty fans. The Cowboys fans are in the running too.
So this year's Super Bowl is a meeting of shitty fans.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Monday, January 22, 2018
Comic Strips
When I compare the New York Times against the Washington Post, the NYT is overwhelmingly better and not as nakedly partisan; but the Post has comic strips! Now THAT'S the way to go!
That pleases the philistine soul within me. Lordy, lordy . . . . give me the funnies!
Alas, some of the old standbys like Calvin and Hobbes and The Far Side are no more; but Dilbert and Zits soldier on. And there's the occasional impactful humor of Beetle Bailey despite its setting in an army familiar to no one.
No, the funnies give a moment's lightness, after the nonstop dreariness that mostly serves as news. No, don't lay that at Trump's doorstep; when has there been good news? Next, you might as well expect unicorns to crap rainbows! (The sports page also serves in this fashion, and sports fandom.)
.
I found it surprising that several articles have appeared on-line or in blogs about that need to stop being produced. (This was written in 2008; and strips such as Cathy, Marmaduke, The Born Loser, Snuffy Smith, The Family Circus, B.C., and others are mentioned. Bullshit!
This is nothing more than intolerance of other points of view. In fact, this is something of the same notions that transformed late-night television into didactics in support of certain political opinions. [Sorry, guys: but Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee just don't ring my bell. And Jay Leno got grumpy in his last years of television.] Different strokes for different folks. Some do groove on For Better or Worse.
In my opinion, the comic strip offerings in newspapers should have the potential to appeal to a broad range of readers; people of different ages and sensibilities, liberals and conservatives both, football fans or not . . . . While Doonesbury is not to my taste, it apparently resonates with others; so Garry Trudeau, write on!
Humor is too precious a national resource to leave it to the common scolds, preachers, or schoolteachers. Give us reasons to laugh, and to see life as being funny!
Here's Mutts, one I like:
That pleases the philistine soul within me. Lordy, lordy . . . . give me the funnies!
Alas, some of the old standbys like Calvin and Hobbes and The Far Side are no more; but Dilbert and Zits soldier on. And there's the occasional impactful humor of Beetle Bailey despite its setting in an army familiar to no one.
No, the funnies give a moment's lightness, after the nonstop dreariness that mostly serves as news. No, don't lay that at Trump's doorstep; when has there been good news? Next, you might as well expect unicorns to crap rainbows! (The sports page also serves in this fashion, and sports fandom.)
.
I found it surprising that several articles have appeared on-line or in blogs about that need to stop being produced. (This was written in 2008; and strips such as Cathy, Marmaduke, The Born Loser, Snuffy Smith, The Family Circus, B.C., and others are mentioned. Bullshit!
This is nothing more than intolerance of other points of view. In fact, this is something of the same notions that transformed late-night television into didactics in support of certain political opinions. [Sorry, guys: but Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee just don't ring my bell. And Jay Leno got grumpy in his last years of television.] Different strokes for different folks. Some do groove on For Better or Worse.
In my opinion, the comic strip offerings in newspapers should have the potential to appeal to a broad range of readers; people of different ages and sensibilities, liberals and conservatives both, football fans or not . . . . While Doonesbury is not to my taste, it apparently resonates with others; so Garry Trudeau, write on!
Humor is too precious a national resource to leave it to the common scolds, preachers, or schoolteachers. Give us reasons to laugh, and to see life as being funny!
Here's Mutts, one I like:
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
The Opponent-Process Theory of Politics
I wonder if we in Alabama have stumbled over a major political truth: both major political parties need periodic corrections to re-engage them toward the middle. Neither seeks a middle ground by itself; both are in response to whatever the other one lays out.
And third parties historically have been a crap shoot. They don't have the numbers or resources to make any headway.
Both parties have a tendency to go too far if left on their own; the other party provides something of a corrective against either's extreme. At least, that's the theory. However, it failed in 1972 (before Elvis's Era), and 2004, when both parties managed to come up with doofuses. On the other hand, 2008 was a good year. Halleluia!
I call this the opponent-process theory of politics, because the two parties, when they lay out their stances, do so as a countermeasure to the other party's position in an attempt to seem rational by comparison.
On the other hand, we could wind up with Donald the Trumpster and Nancy Fucking Pelosi running for president! If that's the case, then I'll spend Election Day hiding in a dumpster.
No, we'll just bag it and head down to Gulf Shores! There's just something about the drive downstate that makes things right.
And third parties historically have been a crap shoot. They don't have the numbers or resources to make any headway.
Both parties have a tendency to go too far if left on their own; the other party provides something of a corrective against either's extreme. At least, that's the theory. However, it failed in 1972 (before Elvis's Era), and 2004, when both parties managed to come up with doofuses. On the other hand, 2008 was a good year. Halleluia!
I call this the opponent-process theory of politics, because the two parties, when they lay out their stances, do so as a countermeasure to the other party's position in an attempt to seem rational by comparison.
On the other hand, we could wind up with Donald the Trumpster and Nancy Fucking Pelosi running for president! If that's the case, then I'll spend Election Day hiding in a dumpster.
No, we'll just bag it and head down to Gulf Shores! There's just something about the drive downstate that makes things right.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
A Jerk as a President?
There's a certain amount of speculation as to the qualifications the current and past Presidential officeholders for their position. Usually, this centers around questions of ability or sanity. For example, undoubtedly Andrew Johnson was not the sharpest knife in the drawer; and Richard Nixon must have been a mean s.o.b. Insanity: I don't readily know an example.
But there have been a profusion of jerks that have held that office.
Yes! No psychiatric diagnosis needed. Just the sense that the officeholder in question is an asshole. L.B.J., take a bow!
Look to examples among the governors of the various states. Yep, there were jerks aplenty among them. To use one close to home: Wallace. Or that clown from Illinois.
I may not know much about psychiatry; but I know a jerk when I see one. A jerk that doesn't know enough to control his tongue. Referring to several countries as 'shitholes' is not a way to make friends or conduct diplomacy, even with countries like Dorkistan.
But there have been a profusion of jerks that have held that office.
Yes! No psychiatric diagnosis needed. Just the sense that the officeholder in question is an asshole. L.B.J., take a bow!
Look to examples among the governors of the various states. Yep, there were jerks aplenty among them. To use one close to home: Wallace. Or that clown from Illinois.
I may not know much about psychiatry; but I know a jerk when I see one. A jerk that doesn't know enough to control his tongue. Referring to several countries as 'shitholes' is not a way to make friends or conduct diplomacy, even with countries like Dorkistan.
Monday, January 8, 2018
Postmortem on the 2016 Presidential Election
It's been over a year sine the 2016 election; and a lot of polluted water has passed under the bridge since. Frankly, I was surprised at Donald Trump winning it; but I should not have been.
Retrospectively, it almost seems that both major political parties were striving mightily to lose that election! Let's face it: the Republicans had too many candidates! And some of them were highly dubious; like Ted Cruz. Others were boring, like Jeb Bush. Still others did not fit onto the national stage well, like Bobby Jindal. The Republicans, in a strong effort to lose, managed to come up with a candidate with no elected experience at all! And one who claimed to grope women, at that! This candidate
Surely, the Democrats should have walked away with it . . . .
Well, they nominated Hillary Clinton, not the most inspiring candidate; but one with a few negatives, like Benghazi and her association with her husband Bill. And there was the issue of the superdelegates. This led to an in-party revolt by the Bernie Sanders fans.
The fact that so many got behind Bernie should have told them something or other.
But the Democrats were just as much a slave to their party's history and liabilities as the Republicans were. They're in a bind: they want to go as liberal as can be; but in doing so they may put off some people.
But maybe using Tim Kaine as a base candidate, and advocating a middle-of-the-road approach, they may get it all.
Sorry. Nancy Pelosi should go. She's a liability. As a matter of fact, no one from California or the rest of the left coast. Someone from the South . . . . maybe Doug Jones even as V.P. Or Elizabeth Warren. The big deal is o pick up a few extra electoral votes while keeping the sure bet states in the fold.
And downplay any connections with Wall Street.
As for the Republicans? Well, they got a lot of possibilities. But none of them very good or interesting. Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio need to sit the next one out. And Bobby Jindal is a joke.
Here's a name that could go somewhere: Nikki Haley. She would definitely give the Republicans a new look.
But keep the Wall Street support under wraps. For both parties, that's toxic and will continue to be.
Retrospectively, it almost seems that both major political parties were striving mightily to lose that election! Let's face it: the Republicans had too many candidates! And some of them were highly dubious; like Ted Cruz. Others were boring, like Jeb Bush. Still others did not fit onto the national stage well, like Bobby Jindal. The Republicans, in a strong effort to lose, managed to come up with a candidate with no elected experience at all! And one who claimed to grope women, at that! This candidate
Surely, the Democrats should have walked away with it . . . .
Well, they nominated Hillary Clinton, not the most inspiring candidate; but one with a few negatives, like Benghazi and her association with her husband Bill. And there was the issue of the superdelegates. This led to an in-party revolt by the Bernie Sanders fans.
The fact that so many got behind Bernie should have told them something or other.
But the Democrats were just as much a slave to their party's history and liabilities as the Republicans were. They're in a bind: they want to go as liberal as can be; but in doing so they may put off some people.
But maybe using Tim Kaine as a base candidate, and advocating a middle-of-the-road approach, they may get it all.
Sorry. Nancy Pelosi should go. She's a liability. As a matter of fact, no one from California or the rest of the left coast. Someone from the South . . . . maybe Doug Jones even as V.P. Or Elizabeth Warren. The big deal is o pick up a few extra electoral votes while keeping the sure bet states in the fold.
And downplay any connections with Wall Street.
As for the Republicans? Well, they got a lot of possibilities. But none of them very good or interesting. Ted Cruz and Mario Rubio need to sit the next one out. And Bobby Jindal is a joke.
Here's a name that could go somewhere: Nikki Haley. She would definitely give the Republicans a new look.
But keep the Wall Street support under wraps. For both parties, that's toxic and will continue to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)