I was just thinking...
Alright, it's been a while since I've posted...I'm a bad blogger. At least when I over schedule myself for the semester.
Anywho.
I'm home in Springfield for Thanksgiving, and I'm sitting, eating lunch, reading the newspaper. I end up on the "Letters To The Editor" page. The first letter is by a Springfield woman, Carol Resnick, and is headlined "Illegal immigrants don't deserve break."
This letter was in regards to Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who was recently re-elected, for his second term in office. Almost immediately after the election, Governor Patrick proposed a plan that would allow Massachusetts residents, regardless of if they are here legally or not, to receive the in-state tuition break to state colleges (universities, technically, thanks to legislation from this past summer). MA residents pay something like $17,000/yr to attend UMass, while out of state students pay something around $21,000/yr. These numbers are estimates, but since my brother went to UMass, I've got a decent idea about the price.
The letter begins by stating "Illegal is ill." 'OH BOY' I sighed to myself upon reading this. The first paragraph ponders what Governor Patrick was thinking in this proposition while the second begins, "They shouldn't be entitled to any benefits." This ENTIRE paragraph is so ridiculous, I see it fit to include all of it, and will break apart everything that's wrong with it. And lemme tell you, it's all wrong.
Where do we go from here with our tax dollars?
Really? Ms. Resnick, you do not understand how these things work. No one's tax dollars are being paid towards an illegal immigrants' education! Tax dollars have literally NOTHING to do with receiving in-state tuition at UMass and other state schools. This rhetorical question obviously is hinting that tax dollars will next be used to do something EVEN WORSE than paying for an illegal immigrant to attend UMass (which is not what would be happening anyway!)
Allowing illegals to enter a university, taking the slot of some deserving citizen who was not accepted, is mind-boggling.
Carol, I'm sorry (actually, I'm not) but you've really got no concept of this system works. An illegal immigrant receiving in-state tuition does in no way, shape or form prevent a legal citizen from attending an institution. Also, if the citizen was deserving, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED! If they weren't accepted, they weren't deserving! If an illegal immigrant has been accepted to one of the fine public institutions Massachusetts offers, kudos to them. They've already accomplished a huge amount by succeeding academically in another country, which isn't the easiest thing to do. And Carol, "mind-boggling"? Really? It is mind-boggling how far you have misconstrued this system and situation.
In the final paragraph, Ms. Resnick goes on to say that citizenship is a privilege and honor etc. etc. Honestly, I don't care about citizenship. I don't believe that a student who may not be here legally should not be given the same right to in-state tuition as anyone who is here legally. If you've put in the work and been accepted to this school, there's no reason to say that you aren't "worthy" of in-state tuition, if you live in this state.
Resnick states that "when immigrants earn that right (citizenship) they are most welcome (to in-state tuition)." What? I don't understand how being a legal citizen makes you any more qualified to attend an institution that you've been accepted to. Yea, if you're a citizen, you pay taxes. But Republicans don't like taxes. They want tax cuts and would much prefer if there were no taxes, but still got the same services taxes provide for. So, really, they wish they could be like illegal immigrants! LIGHT BULB! The Republicans are jealous of illegal immigrants!
This issue has been somewhat under the radar, but I find it "mind-boggling" that these Republicans can be so ignorant about this subject, yet so fiery in their attacks on it.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
LeBron James and "The Summer Of Me"
I was just thinking...
Man, it's been a while since I've put up a new blog post. But today's the day! Lot's of things have happened in the last 3-4 weeks (obviously), but only one I have had thoughts enough to make a post on: LeBron James and his free agency.
While the summer of 2010 has been fittingly dubbed "The Summer of Me" by someone on bleacherreport.com, the beginning of this ridiculous amount of hype goes back much further than the end of the NBA Finals, further than when Lebron's Cavaliers were ousted by the Boston Celtics in conference semis, where there was a shot of Mr. James symbolically removing his Cleveland jersey in the tunnel leading to the locker room. Speculation began years ago, when teams like the New York Knicks began cutting payroll, drafting cheaper players, with the intent on signing Lebron or one of the many other big name free agents whose contracts would expire July 1, 2010.
From attending Yankee's games to hanging out with Jay-Z, it was thought for a while that LeBron would come to NY, or maybe even NJ, a team the Jay-Z is a partial owner of. Heck, he even came out with shoes that were blue and orange, the Knicks colors. But, this was seen as a possible coincidence, as many people can enjoy those colors without it predicting what team they will sign with in a year. The Cavs old jerseys used to feature those colors.
So, in years leading up to his impending free agency, there was already massive speculation as to LeBron's whereabouts in Fall 2010.
ESPN, who has some love for following the moves of the biggest names in sports as if we cared about when they took their dog for a walk (see: Brett Favre, Tiger Woods), continued their tradition of over analyzing and covering with this summer's free agency class, especially LeBron. Like Tiger and Favre, LeBron was given his own bar on the ESPN "BottomLine." There were hours upon hours of "analysts" digesting any possible scenario involving James.
But, obviously, it was not just ESPN that is at fault for making 2010 "The Summer Of Me." LeBron fanned his own flames. Prior to the July 1, he had made plans for a "free agent summit" with other big named free agents, including Dwayane Wade, A'mare Stoudamire and Chris Bosh. The meeting was planned so that they could figure out where each other were planning on going, so the others could make their plans based on that information. While I do not agree with such a meeting, it's fine. They can do what they want.
Fast forward to after July 1st. LeBron is officially a free agent. He has a few major teams vying for his services. The teams are the New York Knicks, the New Jersey Nets, the Chicago Bulls, the Miami Heat, and his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers.
I'll run down now why he should've signed with each team, and why he shouldn't have.
New York Knicks:
The Knicks had been preparing to sign LeBron for over two years. He was their Plan A to restart their once-storied franchise. He showed interest, and millions of people originally thought he'd be in New York by July 2. But, NY signed A'mare, who for some reason might not have worked ideally with LeBron. They're both personalities, what do you expect? The Knicks were poised to break the bank for the best player in the game to come to the biggest stage.
The problem with the Knicks was that besides location, they didn't really have anything LeBron wanted. He wanted to win, and if he couldn't do that in Cleveland, with a team built around him, how was he expecting to win in NY, with their best player, David Lee, expected to sign elsewhere. A'mare is a superstar, but just having two good players won't win you a championship.
It would have been nice to see LeBron as a Knick, reignite some rivalries, bring basketball back to New York, but in the end, it's not about that for LeBron. He wanted to win. Not in three years, not in five years, he wanted to win NOW.
New Jersey Nets:
New Jersey was a little different than NY, but not much. They have a good core of up and coming superstars in Devin Harris and Brook Lopez, but not much else. Yea, Jay-Z sorta owns the team, and him and LeBron are buddies, but, still, LeBron wants to win NOW.
Chicago Bulls:
This would've been the most interesting team to sign with. The Bulls have a great core group of guys, and really just needed an All-Star like LeBron to make them perennial conference leaders. They were already pretty much a playoff team, something that none of the other teams (minus the Cavs) could really say.
The issue with Chicago is MJ. LeBron, like anyone in the NBA today, grew up watching and respecting Michael Jordan. MJ will always be seen as a Bull, with all the championships he won with them in the 90's. LeBron supposedly has so much respect for Michael that LeBron has changed his number (which was 23, because of MJ) to 6. He encouraged other 23-wearers to do the same. Regardless how legit his respect is, if LeBron came to Chicago, he'd constantly be compared to Jordan, which is a hard DON'T agree that that should be a reason to not sign with someone, but hey, I'm not LeBron. I just don't understand it: If basically you're only concern is to win championships, why not sign with the team that during the early stages of the free agency period, had the absolute best chance out of all your suitors?
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Let me begin by saying I feel really bad for Cleveland. In general. Pre-LeBron, post-LeBron, whatever. The city's economy sucks, and it doesn't really have much going for it as far as tourism (The Rock 'n' Roll Hall Of Fame doesn't count!) Basically, their economy was based on LeBron James, and player the city had loved and respected for seven years. He had saved Cleveland, somewhat. But, time and time again, the Cavs were unable to win, LeBron's goal. But not without trying. They made it to Finals once, the conference finals in almost all of the last 4 seasons. They won the most games of any team during the 09-10 regular season. They were a great team. While I do not understand why they didn't win, and I do believe, had LeBron returned, they would have a good shot at winning, as they have the last 4 years. But, you can't ignore the facts: They DIDN'T win. LeBron had tried his luck with his hometown team, and it didn't work out.
I feel bad for the city of Cleveland because LeBron was too selfish to stay, but I can't say I really blame him for not wanting to be in Cleveland.
Check out these videos on Cleveland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmLA5TqbIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM
Miami Heat:
Before I get into the Heat, let me first off state that I AM a Celtics fan. We do have our own Big Three of superstars, so I don't really have a right to say that their Big Three is unfair. Yes, LeBron is better than Paul Pierce, Dwayane Wade is better all-around than Paul Pierce, and Chris Bosh has better knees than KG, but that's beyond the point. The point is that LeBron wanted to win, and joining a team with two other superstar free agents seems like a logical choice in order to do so. If I were in LeBron's situation, would I have done the same thing? Really, my answer is no (I would've gone with Chicago), but I do not disagree with his decision to go to South Beach. It's logical. If you want to win, you join the team with the best players (that is able to sign you).
The Magic's GM Otis Smith, who said that he thought LeBron was "more of a competitor" brings up an interesting point. But a wrong one. Yes, you'd expect someone with as much talent as LeBron to want a challenge, but, it was widely known that he wanted to win. He will be given such a chance with this Miami Heat team. They are by no means a complete team, right now, but they're getting there. They signed Haslem today. They'll have a good team, if not great, by the time the season starts. They'll be in the hunt for a conference championship. There's no question about that. And with LeBron, Wade, and Bosh's young age, they should be good for a very long time.
Does LeBron's decision upset me? It sure as hell does. That's just another team to compete with my Celtics! But it's business! Sports are now, more than ever, more business than anything else. It's sad, but that's the way it is.
I will not get too far into LeBron's television special, "The Decision," but I will say this to LeBron: It's sickening that you would buy an hour of television for yourself to have a press conference; I appreciate that the advertising money will be sent to charity; I think it's poor style that you told people they would know your decision by 9:10, and then proceeded to not say anything until 9:35; How egotistical must you be to call it "The Decision?"
And that is all I have to say about LeBron, until next summer when the C's take 'em down in the second round again.
And hey, check out my friend Max Benjamin's photography!
http://maxbenjamin.smugmug.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/murreasy/4778544942/
Man, it's been a while since I've put up a new blog post. But today's the day! Lot's of things have happened in the last 3-4 weeks (obviously), but only one I have had thoughts enough to make a post on: LeBron James and his free agency.
While the summer of 2010 has been fittingly dubbed "The Summer of Me" by someone on bleacherreport.com, the beginning of this ridiculous amount of hype goes back much further than the end of the NBA Finals, further than when Lebron's Cavaliers were ousted by the Boston Celtics in conference semis, where there was a shot of Mr. James symbolically removing his Cleveland jersey in the tunnel leading to the locker room. Speculation began years ago, when teams like the New York Knicks began cutting payroll, drafting cheaper players, with the intent on signing Lebron or one of the many other big name free agents whose contracts would expire July 1, 2010.
From attending Yankee's games to hanging out with Jay-Z, it was thought for a while that LeBron would come to NY, or maybe even NJ, a team the Jay-Z is a partial owner of. Heck, he even came out with shoes that were blue and orange, the Knicks colors. But, this was seen as a possible coincidence, as many people can enjoy those colors without it predicting what team they will sign with in a year. The Cavs old jerseys used to feature those colors.
So, in years leading up to his impending free agency, there was already massive speculation as to LeBron's whereabouts in Fall 2010.
ESPN, who has some love for following the moves of the biggest names in sports as if we cared about when they took their dog for a walk (see: Brett Favre, Tiger Woods), continued their tradition of over analyzing and covering with this summer's free agency class, especially LeBron. Like Tiger and Favre, LeBron was given his own bar on the ESPN "BottomLine." There were hours upon hours of "analysts" digesting any possible scenario involving James.
But, obviously, it was not just ESPN that is at fault for making 2010 "The Summer Of Me." LeBron fanned his own flames. Prior to the July 1, he had made plans for a "free agent summit" with other big named free agents, including Dwayane Wade, A'mare Stoudamire and Chris Bosh. The meeting was planned so that they could figure out where each other were planning on going, so the others could make their plans based on that information. While I do not agree with such a meeting, it's fine. They can do what they want.
Fast forward to after July 1st. LeBron is officially a free agent. He has a few major teams vying for his services. The teams are the New York Knicks, the New Jersey Nets, the Chicago Bulls, the Miami Heat, and his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers.
I'll run down now why he should've signed with each team, and why he shouldn't have.
New York Knicks:
The Knicks had been preparing to sign LeBron for over two years. He was their Plan A to restart their once-storied franchise. He showed interest, and millions of people originally thought he'd be in New York by July 2. But, NY signed A'mare, who for some reason might not have worked ideally with LeBron. They're both personalities, what do you expect? The Knicks were poised to break the bank for the best player in the game to come to the biggest stage.
The problem with the Knicks was that besides location, they didn't really have anything LeBron wanted. He wanted to win, and if he couldn't do that in Cleveland, with a team built around him, how was he expecting to win in NY, with their best player, David Lee, expected to sign elsewhere. A'mare is a superstar, but just having two good players won't win you a championship.
It would have been nice to see LeBron as a Knick, reignite some rivalries, bring basketball back to New York, but in the end, it's not about that for LeBron. He wanted to win. Not in three years, not in five years, he wanted to win NOW.
New Jersey Nets:
New Jersey was a little different than NY, but not much. They have a good core of up and coming superstars in Devin Harris and Brook Lopez, but not much else. Yea, Jay-Z sorta owns the team, and him and LeBron are buddies, but, still, LeBron wants to win NOW.
Chicago Bulls:
This would've been the most interesting team to sign with. The Bulls have a great core group of guys, and really just needed an All-Star like LeBron to make them perennial conference leaders. They were already pretty much a playoff team, something that none of the other teams (minus the Cavs) could really say.
The issue with Chicago is MJ. LeBron, like anyone in the NBA today, grew up watching and respecting Michael Jordan. MJ will always be seen as a Bull, with all the championships he won with them in the 90's. LeBron supposedly has so much respect for Michael that LeBron has changed his number (which was 23, because of MJ) to 6. He encouraged other 23-wearers to do the same. Regardless how legit his respect is, if LeBron came to Chicago, he'd constantly be compared to Jordan, which is a hard DON'T agree that that should be a reason to not sign with someone, but hey, I'm not LeBron. I just don't understand it: If basically you're only concern is to win championships, why not sign with the team that during the early stages of the free agency period, had the absolute best chance out of all your suitors?
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Let me begin by saying I feel really bad for Cleveland. In general. Pre-LeBron, post-LeBron, whatever. The city's economy sucks, and it doesn't really have much going for it as far as tourism (The Rock 'n' Roll Hall Of Fame doesn't count!) Basically, their economy was based on LeBron James, and player the city had loved and respected for seven years. He had saved Cleveland, somewhat. But, time and time again, the Cavs were unable to win, LeBron's goal. But not without trying. They made it to Finals once, the conference finals in almost all of the last 4 seasons. They won the most games of any team during the 09-10 regular season. They were a great team. While I do not understand why they didn't win, and I do believe, had LeBron returned, they would have a good shot at winning, as they have the last 4 years. But, you can't ignore the facts: They DIDN'T win. LeBron had tried his luck with his hometown team, and it didn't work out.
I feel bad for the city of Cleveland because LeBron was too selfish to stay, but I can't say I really blame him for not wanting to be in Cleveland.
Check out these videos on Cleveland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmLA5TqbIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM
Miami Heat:
Before I get into the Heat, let me first off state that I AM a Celtics fan. We do have our own Big Three of superstars, so I don't really have a right to say that their Big Three is unfair. Yes, LeBron is better than Paul Pierce, Dwayane Wade is better all-around than Paul Pierce, and Chris Bosh has better knees than KG, but that's beyond the point. The point is that LeBron wanted to win, and joining a team with two other superstar free agents seems like a logical choice in order to do so. If I were in LeBron's situation, would I have done the same thing? Really, my answer is no (I would've gone with Chicago), but I do not disagree with his decision to go to South Beach. It's logical. If you want to win, you join the team with the best players (that is able to sign you).
The Magic's GM Otis Smith, who said that he thought LeBron was "more of a competitor" brings up an interesting point. But a wrong one. Yes, you'd expect someone with as much talent as LeBron to want a challenge, but, it was widely known that he wanted to win. He will be given such a chance with this Miami Heat team. They are by no means a complete team, right now, but they're getting there. They signed Haslem today. They'll have a good team, if not great, by the time the season starts. They'll be in the hunt for a conference championship. There's no question about that. And with LeBron, Wade, and Bosh's young age, they should be good for a very long time.
Does LeBron's decision upset me? It sure as hell does. That's just another team to compete with my Celtics! But it's business! Sports are now, more than ever, more business than anything else. It's sad, but that's the way it is.
I will not get too far into LeBron's television special, "The Decision," but I will say this to LeBron: It's sickening that you would buy an hour of television for yourself to have a press conference; I appreciate that the advertising money will be sent to charity; I think it's poor style that you told people they would know your decision by 9:10, and then proceeded to not say anything until 9:35; How egotistical must you be to call it "The Decision?"
And that is all I have to say about LeBron, until next summer when the C's take 'em down in the second round again.
And hey, check out my friend Max Benjamin's photography!
http://maxbenjamin.smugmug.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/murreasy/4778544942/
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Refereeing Failure
I was just thinking...
"Find a rope, find a tree, let's haaang the referee."
This sentiment against refs has always been a common thought to have while playing and spectating sports. For the most part, it is usually not directed at officiating of major league sports, but occasionally it is. Until seemingly somewhat recently.
Really, there have been problems with officiating for as long as there has been sports officiating. But, in recent history it is taken a much more major part of the game. Over the past few years there have been many instances of alarm with the officiating of games, starting with:
The Tim Donaghy gambling scandal
The biggest result of his exposure was not that he had gambled on games he officiated, but that there is favoritism based on sales, by many refs. His tell-all book exposed many other NBA refs as favoring certain teams and players, changing the way the game is played, and even the outcome. Some excerpts from this book, which I highly recommend reading, can be found here: http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read
If you have ever watched an NBA game that has a superstar on the team, or a team the NBA wants to see win (i.e. the Lakers) because they will generate viewership, chances are you have seem some shady calls, and become slightly if not overly upset and frustrated with the refs. I know I have. It's despicable that the game is being changed for revenue's sake. That is not the way the game is supposed to be played, and it is unfair for the teams that aren't the ones the NBA wants to win, or don't have the superstar the NBA is selling.
Instant-replay for MLB
The possibility of instant-replay becoming part of baseball has been a major debate point for years, but finally came to some realization a few years ago, when instant-replay was added for questionable home run balls. This addition has been successful, but some fans still think there should be more instant-replay used, for instances like trapped balls, safe and out calls on the bases, etc. While I agree there could be more, I am content with the current usage.
Jim Joyce and the Armando Galarraga Perfect Game
Never have I ever seen anything like this before. A safe call on a clearly out throw, costing Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Jim Joyce is a great ump, and definitely one of, if not the best in the league. But he clearly got the call wrong in that Tigers-Indians game earlier this year. Instant-replay would have been extremely beneficial here. It's the way it is, though, and it's in the past, but I mean, Galarraga lost his chance at being in the history books because of a missed call by an ump.
The Koman Coulibaly Call
This is the event that spurred me to write this entry: In yesterday's (6/18) World Cup game between the US and Slovenia, there was possibly the worst call I have ever seen. (That, and the Jim Joyce "safe" call are definitely in the top 3) The US had been down 2-0, came back to tie it at 2, and with about 5 minutes left in the game, they had a corner kick. The bouncing kick from Landon Donovan ended up going off the well timed kick of Maurice Edu, scoring the winning goal. However, the goal was immediately waved off by ref Koman Coulibaly. The original sign was that it was offside. This turned out not to be the call, and it would've been an incorrect call, had that been the call. Coulibaly refused to give explanation as to what the call was on, but it was assumed to have been a foul call. Upon watching the play over and over again on television, it was determined by everyone in the world that any fould call that was made should have been against SLOVENIA, not the US. Slovenians physically held US players back, but Edu was able to cleanly escape and score. The call was incredibly wrong, and there was nothing done to deserve it. Even the unbiased English announcers said the call was ridiculously incorrect. While it yet remains to be seen the impact of this call on the US's future in the World Cup, it did severely impact the score of the game. The US won the game 3-2, but were only given a tie. If the United States does not make it to the round of 16 because they had two ties, but would've moved on had their Slovenia tie been called a win, (as it should have been) this botched call will go down in history as the worst call of all time. FIFA, the organization that runs the World Cup has spoken about removing Koman Coulibaly from any more World Cup matches, which I agree with, but it does not give the US the win they deserved.
While I appreciate the work that many referees and umpires do, there are too many instances that should not be left with them alone. We have all this technology, which would be beneficial for the games, if used.
"Find a rope, find a tree, let's haaang the referee."
This sentiment against refs has always been a common thought to have while playing and spectating sports. For the most part, it is usually not directed at officiating of major league sports, but occasionally it is. Until seemingly somewhat recently.
Really, there have been problems with officiating for as long as there has been sports officiating. But, in recent history it is taken a much more major part of the game. Over the past few years there have been many instances of alarm with the officiating of games, starting with:
The Tim Donaghy gambling scandal
The biggest result of his exposure was not that he had gambled on games he officiated, but that there is favoritism based on sales, by many refs. His tell-all book exposed many other NBA refs as favoring certain teams and players, changing the way the game is played, and even the outcome. Some excerpts from this book, which I highly recommend reading, can be found here: http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read
If you have ever watched an NBA game that has a superstar on the team, or a team the NBA wants to see win (i.e. the Lakers) because they will generate viewership, chances are you have seem some shady calls, and become slightly if not overly upset and frustrated with the refs. I know I have. It's despicable that the game is being changed for revenue's sake. That is not the way the game is supposed to be played, and it is unfair for the teams that aren't the ones the NBA wants to win, or don't have the superstar the NBA is selling.
Instant-replay for MLB
The possibility of instant-replay becoming part of baseball has been a major debate point for years, but finally came to some realization a few years ago, when instant-replay was added for questionable home run balls. This addition has been successful, but some fans still think there should be more instant-replay used, for instances like trapped balls, safe and out calls on the bases, etc. While I agree there could be more, I am content with the current usage.
Jim Joyce and the Armando Galarraga Perfect Game
Never have I ever seen anything like this before. A safe call on a clearly out throw, costing Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Jim Joyce is a great ump, and definitely one of, if not the best in the league. But he clearly got the call wrong in that Tigers-Indians game earlier this year. Instant-replay would have been extremely beneficial here. It's the way it is, though, and it's in the past, but I mean, Galarraga lost his chance at being in the history books because of a missed call by an ump.
The Koman Coulibaly Call
This is the event that spurred me to write this entry: In yesterday's (6/18) World Cup game between the US and Slovenia, there was possibly the worst call I have ever seen. (That, and the Jim Joyce "safe" call are definitely in the top 3) The US had been down 2-0, came back to tie it at 2, and with about 5 minutes left in the game, they had a corner kick. The bouncing kick from Landon Donovan ended up going off the well timed kick of Maurice Edu, scoring the winning goal. However, the goal was immediately waved off by ref Koman Coulibaly. The original sign was that it was offside. This turned out not to be the call, and it would've been an incorrect call, had that been the call. Coulibaly refused to give explanation as to what the call was on, but it was assumed to have been a foul call. Upon watching the play over and over again on television, it was determined by everyone in the world that any fould call that was made should have been against SLOVENIA, not the US. Slovenians physically held US players back, but Edu was able to cleanly escape and score. The call was incredibly wrong, and there was nothing done to deserve it. Even the unbiased English announcers said the call was ridiculously incorrect. While it yet remains to be seen the impact of this call on the US's future in the World Cup, it did severely impact the score of the game. The US won the game 3-2, but were only given a tie. If the United States does not make it to the round of 16 because they had two ties, but would've moved on had their Slovenia tie been called a win, (as it should have been) this botched call will go down in history as the worst call of all time. FIFA, the organization that runs the World Cup has spoken about removing Koman Coulibaly from any more World Cup matches, which I agree with, but it does not give the US the win they deserved.
While I appreciate the work that many referees and umpires do, there are too many instances that should not be left with them alone. We have all this technology, which would be beneficial for the games, if used.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The War In Afghanistan
I was just thinking...
Earlier this month the "war" in Afghanistan became the longest war in US history. While there is still some speculation that Vietnam was still technically longer, the point remains the same: We've been in Afghanistan for too long. We went into the country with the mission of stopping al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden, in direct response to the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Of course, the US was successful in capturing/killing many al-Qaeda leaders, but the leaders have been replaced, and bin Laden still remains on the lam, or possibly dead. Meanwhile, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have moved on to other countries in the Middle East, mainly Pakistan, rendering the war unsuccessful. The plan was to establish democracy in Afghanistan, which is relatively true now, but they have a corrupt government, where elections are fixed. Technically, that should be none of the US's concern, but they remain the military force there, and are needed for the security of the turbulent nation. There is no end in sight, the US troop numbers are being increased, not decreased. The withdrawl plans seem like an "if" at this point. Like Vietnam, we have gotten ourselves into a war that was not winnable, and that would be difficult to leave.
It is sad, but most of my life as a knowledgeable member of a nation has been in a war time. I disagree with the pursuit of war, however I am realistic and understand that there is no negotiating with organizations like al-Qaeda, and that sometimes war is unavoidable, and not a one-sided decision to make.
I do support our troops, I do not support war. The war in Afghanistan needs to end. Wars need to end. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this world who cannot simply be talked out of violence, and that is how wars begin. I realize a world without war is a utopia, and unrealistic, but ending a conflict like Afghanistan shouldn't be too much to ask.
Afghanistan is a similar war to Vietnam, yet, it does not receive the same sort of strong feelings as Vietnam got. Protests and rallies against the war were daily occurrences in the 60's, but there is hardly anything now. Does nobody care?
The best way to support our troops is to bring them home.
Earlier this month the "war" in Afghanistan became the longest war in US history. While there is still some speculation that Vietnam was still technically longer, the point remains the same: We've been in Afghanistan for too long. We went into the country with the mission of stopping al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden, in direct response to the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Of course, the US was successful in capturing/killing many al-Qaeda leaders, but the leaders have been replaced, and bin Laden still remains on the lam, or possibly dead. Meanwhile, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have moved on to other countries in the Middle East, mainly Pakistan, rendering the war unsuccessful. The plan was to establish democracy in Afghanistan, which is relatively true now, but they have a corrupt government, where elections are fixed. Technically, that should be none of the US's concern, but they remain the military force there, and are needed for the security of the turbulent nation. There is no end in sight, the US troop numbers are being increased, not decreased. The withdrawl plans seem like an "if" at this point. Like Vietnam, we have gotten ourselves into a war that was not winnable, and that would be difficult to leave.
It is sad, but most of my life as a knowledgeable member of a nation has been in a war time. I disagree with the pursuit of war, however I am realistic and understand that there is no negotiating with organizations like al-Qaeda, and that sometimes war is unavoidable, and not a one-sided decision to make.
I do support our troops, I do not support war. The war in Afghanistan needs to end. Wars need to end. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this world who cannot simply be talked out of violence, and that is how wars begin. I realize a world without war is a utopia, and unrealistic, but ending a conflict like Afghanistan shouldn't be too much to ask.
Afghanistan is a similar war to Vietnam, yet, it does not receive the same sort of strong feelings as Vietnam got. Protests and rallies against the war were daily occurrences in the 60's, but there is hardly anything now. Does nobody care?
The best way to support our troops is to bring them home.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Tea Party (no tea involved)
I was just thinking...
Everyone knows about the "Tea Party" by now. A group of conservative protesters who tour the nation putting on rallies in protest of anything and everything that Socialist/Nazi/Communist/Hippie president Barack Obama does. While I do not support their message, I do support their freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, regardless of how incredibly wrong it is ;)
Most notably, the Tea Party has spoken out against the notion of Health Care Reform. Yea, yea, I know. This passed months ago. That's beside the point. The point is that these people, who are the same people who supported George W. Bush through blunder after blunder for 8 long, terrible years, are AGAINST the government helping its own people! I can't seem the wrap my head around this aspect. Why WOULDN'T you want your government to help you? I understand the Republican philosophy is for as little federal government power as possible, but seriously? You don't want help, if it's offered?
One of the Tea Party's main points against Health Care Reform was the cost. A valid point, yes, but hypocritical, DEFINITELY. For 8 years, the Tea Partiers had no issue with all the government money used to fund an unjust, illegal war, which was started on information that turned out to be completely false. They were okay with the government using their tax money for killing people from other countries, but if that money were to be used to HELP people WITHIN the country, THEN it is a catastrophe! THEY MAKE NO SENSE!
The people who seem to be leading, or at least fueling the wrongness of this "Tea Party", are none other than Nazi-Whistle-blower Glenn Beck, and I-can-see-Russia-from-my-house crazy Sarah Palin. While I have an immense hatred, and could rant about those two for hours, I will save that rant for the next time they do something ridiculous (don't worry, that won't take longer than a month!). I bring them up now not because what they say is so obviously wrong, but because it is BELIEVED! The "Tea Party" was supposedly formed to, like the original tea party, dissent against the government. While I fully support dissent (I have a pin that reads: Dissent Protects Democracy, which I fully believe) what they are engaging in is not dissent. They are lemmings! Just because Sarah Palin says and Glenn Beck writes it on his blackboard does in no way make a fact! The "Tea Party" movement is founded on lies accepted as truth!
In the end, protesting for an honorable cause is a good thing, a great thing, even, but what the "Tea Party" is doing is not for an honorable cause.
Everyone knows about the "Tea Party" by now. A group of conservative protesters who tour the nation putting on rallies in protest of anything and everything that Socialist/Nazi/Communist/Hippie president Barack Obama does. While I do not support their message, I do support their freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, regardless of how incredibly wrong it is ;)
Most notably, the Tea Party has spoken out against the notion of Health Care Reform. Yea, yea, I know. This passed months ago. That's beside the point. The point is that these people, who are the same people who supported George W. Bush through blunder after blunder for 8 long, terrible years, are AGAINST the government helping its own people! I can't seem the wrap my head around this aspect. Why WOULDN'T you want your government to help you? I understand the Republican philosophy is for as little federal government power as possible, but seriously? You don't want help, if it's offered?
One of the Tea Party's main points against Health Care Reform was the cost. A valid point, yes, but hypocritical, DEFINITELY. For 8 years, the Tea Partiers had no issue with all the government money used to fund an unjust, illegal war, which was started on information that turned out to be completely false. They were okay with the government using their tax money for killing people from other countries, but if that money were to be used to HELP people WITHIN the country, THEN it is a catastrophe! THEY MAKE NO SENSE!
The people who seem to be leading, or at least fueling the wrongness of this "Tea Party", are none other than Nazi-Whistle-blower Glenn Beck, and I-can-see-Russia-from-my-house crazy Sarah Palin. While I have an immense hatred, and could rant about those two for hours, I will save that rant for the next time they do something ridiculous (don't worry, that won't take longer than a month!). I bring them up now not because what they say is so obviously wrong, but because it is BELIEVED! The "Tea Party" was supposedly formed to, like the original tea party, dissent against the government. While I fully support dissent (I have a pin that reads: Dissent Protects Democracy, which I fully believe) what they are engaging in is not dissent. They are lemmings! Just because Sarah Palin says and Glenn Beck writes it on his blackboard does in no way make a fact! The "Tea Party" movement is founded on lies accepted as truth!
In the end, protesting for an honorable cause is a good thing, a great thing, even, but what the "Tea Party" is doing is not for an honorable cause.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Issues with Facebook
I was just thinking...
Everyone in the United States, and millions of people abroad know of the power of the social networking tool that is Facebook. While it is incredibly useful for communicating with friends, old and new, planning events, and overall organization of all things social, it is also an outlet for lots of things I take issue with.
To begin with:
The movement to "liking" pages, which are connected to you profile in your "interests," "activities," "music," "movies," "books," and the like. While this is not a big deal, I don't like it. I want my interests to be MY interests, not links to pages about it.
Also, with some new policy I don't really understand, your interests can be shared with outside, who can in turn advertise to you, and see what you are doing. Any information you share with Facebook is now shared with anyone on the internet. This is very Big Brother-esque, if you ask me. Because of this, my Facebook no longer has any of my interests or activities, save for a few that I am largely involved with (i.e. ROCU). There is a way to get out of sharing your information with outside groups, but the link to it has since been rendered impossible to find with Facebook, as it is now not possible to access links you have posted in the past, unless they were recent, or if you want to keep going back to older and older posts. If I have time to do so later, I will surely share this link.
There are many groups which I find to be absolutely sickening. While I am a big proponent of freedom of speech, some of these are just ridiculous. I will now use my freedom of speech to tell you why these groups/pages are so awful.
It's not racism, stupid! You are here ILLEGALLY!
Yes, I briefly spoke on this one the other day, but it's pretty ignorant. The part of the Arizona Immigration law that people consider racist isn't that people who are here illegally are being found out about, but rather that if you LOOK like you COULD possibly be here illegally (meaning if you look Hispanic) you are subject to arrest, if you don't have papers documenting your legal right to be in the United States. THAT is racial profiling, and so incredibly wrong. People that support this law need to better understand what is really going on.
Period pains? try getting killed by your own care package!
My friend's brother joined this group ("liked" it?) a while ago, and I immediately took issue with it. Of course, he had an issue with me having an issue with what he "likes," but that's not the point here: I understand, he is a gamer, and I can figure how getting killed in online play by something meant to help you could be unpleasant, but, seriously, IT'S A VIDEO GAME. It's not real life! Something tangible and real, like period pains is definitely something to be taken more seriously than death in a video game. Real, physical pain should not be taken lightly, especially in comparison to something that is NOT real, like video games.
"Dear Lord, in the past year you have TAKEN AWAY my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze; my favorite actress Farah Fawcett; my favorite singer Michael Jackson; and my favorite salesman Billy Mays. I just wanted you to know that my favorite president is Barack Obama.... amen."
Well, this one is definitely the most shocking one I have seen. This made CNN and other news outlets, and with good reason. I understand, this is probably a joke, but that is not a funny joke. You don't joke about the death of politicians on something as public as Facebook. Not only is it despicable that someone would want this (what has he done that is so wrong?) but the fact that hundreds of thousands of people joined it is even more sickening. Everyone is entitled to their own political thoughts, but suggesting that your president be killed is crazy.
God, give us back Tupac and Biggie and we will give you Justin Bieber.
C'mon! Seriously? I understand, you're upset because Tupac and Biggie were people you liked, and that you dislike Justin Bieber, but, like the Obama page, you shouldn't joke about death. And let's at least pretend to know how the world works. You can't bring people back from the dead, EVEN IF you exchange them for someone already alive.
Of course, there are many other groups/pages that are just as despicable and disgusting, but I believe this was a good sampling to dissect.
Tomorrow: The Tea Party and Health Care Reform.
Everyone in the United States, and millions of people abroad know of the power of the social networking tool that is Facebook. While it is incredibly useful for communicating with friends, old and new, planning events, and overall organization of all things social, it is also an outlet for lots of things I take issue with.
To begin with:
The movement to "liking" pages, which are connected to you profile in your "interests," "activities," "music," "movies," "books," and the like. While this is not a big deal, I don't like it. I want my interests to be MY interests, not links to pages about it.
Also, with some new policy I don't really understand, your interests can be shared with outside, who can in turn advertise to you, and see what you are doing. Any information you share with Facebook is now shared with anyone on the internet. This is very Big Brother-esque, if you ask me. Because of this, my Facebook no longer has any of my interests or activities, save for a few that I am largely involved with (i.e. ROCU). There is a way to get out of sharing your information with outside groups, but the link to it has since been rendered impossible to find with Facebook, as it is now not possible to access links you have posted in the past, unless they were recent, or if you want to keep going back to older and older posts. If I have time to do so later, I will surely share this link.
There are many groups which I find to be absolutely sickening. While I am a big proponent of freedom of speech, some of these are just ridiculous. I will now use my freedom of speech to tell you why these groups/pages are so awful.
It's not racism, stupid! You are here ILLEGALLY!
Yes, I briefly spoke on this one the other day, but it's pretty ignorant. The part of the Arizona Immigration law that people consider racist isn't that people who are here illegally are being found out about, but rather that if you LOOK like you COULD possibly be here illegally (meaning if you look Hispanic) you are subject to arrest, if you don't have papers documenting your legal right to be in the United States. THAT is racial profiling, and so incredibly wrong. People that support this law need to better understand what is really going on.
Period pains? try getting killed by your own care package!
My friend's brother joined this group ("liked" it?) a while ago, and I immediately took issue with it. Of course, he had an issue with me having an issue with what he "likes," but that's not the point here: I understand, he is a gamer, and I can figure how getting killed in online play by something meant to help you could be unpleasant, but, seriously, IT'S A VIDEO GAME. It's not real life! Something tangible and real, like period pains is definitely something to be taken more seriously than death in a video game. Real, physical pain should not be taken lightly, especially in comparison to something that is NOT real, like video games.
"Dear Lord, in the past year you have TAKEN AWAY my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze; my favorite actress Farah Fawcett; my favorite singer Michael Jackson; and my favorite salesman Billy Mays. I just wanted you to know that my favorite president is Barack Obama.... amen."
Well, this one is definitely the most shocking one I have seen. This made CNN and other news outlets, and with good reason. I understand, this is probably a joke, but that is not a funny joke. You don't joke about the death of politicians on something as public as Facebook. Not only is it despicable that someone would want this (what has he done that is so wrong?) but the fact that hundreds of thousands of people joined it is even more sickening. Everyone is entitled to their own political thoughts, but suggesting that your president be killed is crazy.
God, give us back Tupac and Biggie and we will give you Justin Bieber.
C'mon! Seriously? I understand, you're upset because Tupac and Biggie were people you liked, and that you dislike Justin Bieber, but, like the Obama page, you shouldn't joke about death. And let's at least pretend to know how the world works. You can't bring people back from the dead, EVEN IF you exchange them for someone already alive.
Of course, there are many other groups/pages that are just as despicable and disgusting, but I believe this was a good sampling to dissect.
Tomorrow: The Tea Party and Health Care Reform.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
BP Oil Spill
I was just thinking...
By now, almost everyone has heard about the BP oil spill in the Gulf. You would think that a disaster of this magnitude (it is already worse that the Exxon-Valdez) would be something that would be a uniting event, breaking partisan politics, with the whole country coming together.
April 20th the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion started the largest offshore oil spill in US History. 50 days later (it is exactly 50 today) and there is still gallons upon gallons of oil gushing towards the Gulf coast. Birds, fish, and other wildlife are covered in gloppy, disgusting oil. You've probably seen the disturbing pictures by now. While there are relief efforts, not enough is being done. If you have the means and opportunity to go down and help out, please do. Also, I recommend boycotting BP gas.
While the spill itself is sickening on it's own, some people's reactions are just as sickening. Lots of ignorant people have been referring to this oil spill as "Obama's Oil Spill." Not only is that name incredibly unfair to President Obama, and not giving credit where credit is due to BP, but it is also not true. Obama had nothing to do with causing this spill. In fact, all blame lays solely on British Petroleum (BP). Fox News has been credited as calling this spill "Obama's Katrina." To compare a natural disaster to an oil spill that could have been prevented had the company had credible safety procedures is despicable. This brings me to the point that BP, in the last 4-5 years has had 740 safety violations. "Wow," you may say, "that's a lot." You're probably also thinking, "well, I bet all oil companies have similarly high numbers of violations." NOT TRUE! The next closest is Exxon, with 8. EIGHT! BP is a disgusting company run incredibly badly and should be punished exponentially.
Please do what you can to stop BP. Write letters to politicians, protest, boycott, make phone calls, anything. Let us not let an avoidable disaster like this ever happen again.
Also, send support to New Orleans and the Gulf coast. They have had to deal with too much too quickly with Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil Spill.
Tomorrow: Dissecting disgusting Facebook groups.
By now, almost everyone has heard about the BP oil spill in the Gulf. You would think that a disaster of this magnitude (it is already worse that the Exxon-Valdez) would be something that would be a uniting event, breaking partisan politics, with the whole country coming together.
April 20th the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion started the largest offshore oil spill in US History. 50 days later (it is exactly 50 today) and there is still gallons upon gallons of oil gushing towards the Gulf coast. Birds, fish, and other wildlife are covered in gloppy, disgusting oil. You've probably seen the disturbing pictures by now. While there are relief efforts, not enough is being done. If you have the means and opportunity to go down and help out, please do. Also, I recommend boycotting BP gas.
While the spill itself is sickening on it's own, some people's reactions are just as sickening. Lots of ignorant people have been referring to this oil spill as "Obama's Oil Spill." Not only is that name incredibly unfair to President Obama, and not giving credit where credit is due to BP, but it is also not true. Obama had nothing to do with causing this spill. In fact, all blame lays solely on British Petroleum (BP). Fox News has been credited as calling this spill "Obama's Katrina." To compare a natural disaster to an oil spill that could have been prevented had the company had credible safety procedures is despicable. This brings me to the point that BP, in the last 4-5 years has had 740 safety violations. "Wow," you may say, "that's a lot." You're probably also thinking, "well, I bet all oil companies have similarly high numbers of violations." NOT TRUE! The next closest is Exxon, with 8. EIGHT! BP is a disgusting company run incredibly badly and should be punished exponentially.
Please do what you can to stop BP. Write letters to politicians, protest, boycott, make phone calls, anything. Let us not let an avoidable disaster like this ever happen again.
Also, send support to New Orleans and the Gulf coast. They have had to deal with too much too quickly with Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil Spill.
Tomorrow: Dissecting disgusting Facebook groups.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The "Patriot" Act
I was just thinking...
Last night I watched "The US vs. John Lennon" and I was reminded of government wire tapping and spying on their own citizens. This type of despicable behavior has been going on for years, but most recently with the Bush Administration's passing of the USA PATRIOT Act. This stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act. Of course, this sounds like a positive act, a good tool in battling terrorism. But what is not made clear with the name is the fact that this act made it LEGAL for the US Government to wiretap and other forms of spying on their own citizens. Yes, governments have had this type of control over their citizens regularly, but NOT in so-called democratic republic. The act did not LITERALLY give the government the right to wiretap ANY citizen they wanted, but it might as well have. They were given the right to spy on anyone they considered to be a possible threat to the United States. Which, in essence, means they could spy on anyone. THEY are the ones who decide who is a possible threat, AND the ones who carry out the spying. Big brother much? I think so.
This act is clearly a violation of rights of privacy, and SHOULD be illegal.
Recently, a similar type of unfair abuse of power has been enacted in Arizona, where their recent immigration law gives cops the right to ask anyone who APPEARS as if they could be here illegally (i.e. ANYONE who looks even vaguely Hispanic) for their "papers" (documentation that they are legally allowed to be here). If the accused party does not have the "papers" on their physical body, they are subject to immediate arrest. Sickening. This legitimately sounds like something that would have been done in Hitler's Germany, minus the death camps. It is, and should be considered incredibly illegal. It is a law allowing severe racism.
Via Facebook, I have seen support for this Arizona law, with groups named "It's not racism, you're here ILLEGALLY." These support groups do NOT understand what it is about the law that is wrong; The law gives the hand of the law (cops) the right to arrest ANYONE who LOOKS like they COULD possibly be here illegally. Yes, the government has the right to deport/detain/arrest those here illegally, but to round up anyone because the way they look is disgusting and wrong.
This brings me back to the original law discussed, the USA PATRIOT Act. This contrived acronym was used because a majority of US citizens are stupid. If it sounds like something good, like patriotism, they will automatically assume it is itself good. It's just like liking Green Day. They were good at one point, so people assume they still are, and don't come in with a critical eye, immediately accepting dreck like "21st Century Breakdown" as a good album, even though it is clearly not. The same goes for laws like the USA PATRIOT Act.
There are so many issues with this country that need to be addressed, and the USA PATRIOT Act is definitely one of them.
Tomorrow, I will talk about the BP Oil Spill.
Last night I watched "The US vs. John Lennon" and I was reminded of government wire tapping and spying on their own citizens. This type of despicable behavior has been going on for years, but most recently with the Bush Administration's passing of the USA PATRIOT Act. This stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act. Of course, this sounds like a positive act, a good tool in battling terrorism. But what is not made clear with the name is the fact that this act made it LEGAL for the US Government to wiretap and other forms of spying on their own citizens. Yes, governments have had this type of control over their citizens regularly, but NOT in so-called democratic republic. The act did not LITERALLY give the government the right to wiretap ANY citizen they wanted, but it might as well have. They were given the right to spy on anyone they considered to be a possible threat to the United States. Which, in essence, means they could spy on anyone. THEY are the ones who decide who is a possible threat, AND the ones who carry out the spying. Big brother much? I think so.
This act is clearly a violation of rights of privacy, and SHOULD be illegal.
Recently, a similar type of unfair abuse of power has been enacted in Arizona, where their recent immigration law gives cops the right to ask anyone who APPEARS as if they could be here illegally (i.e. ANYONE who looks even vaguely Hispanic) for their "papers" (documentation that they are legally allowed to be here). If the accused party does not have the "papers" on their physical body, they are subject to immediate arrest. Sickening. This legitimately sounds like something that would have been done in Hitler's Germany, minus the death camps. It is, and should be considered incredibly illegal. It is a law allowing severe racism.
Via Facebook, I have seen support for this Arizona law, with groups named "It's not racism, you're here ILLEGALLY." These support groups do NOT understand what it is about the law that is wrong; The law gives the hand of the law (cops) the right to arrest ANYONE who LOOKS like they COULD possibly be here illegally. Yes, the government has the right to deport/detain/arrest those here illegally, but to round up anyone because the way they look is disgusting and wrong.
This brings me back to the original law discussed, the USA PATRIOT Act. This contrived acronym was used because a majority of US citizens are stupid. If it sounds like something good, like patriotism, they will automatically assume it is itself good. It's just like liking Green Day. They were good at one point, so people assume they still are, and don't come in with a critical eye, immediately accepting dreck like "21st Century Breakdown" as a good album, even though it is clearly not. The same goes for laws like the USA PATRIOT Act.
There are so many issues with this country that need to be addressed, and the USA PATRIOT Act is definitely one of them.
Tomorrow, I will talk about the BP Oil Spill.
Monday, June 7, 2010
First post!
I was just thinking...
Fundamentalist Christians take issue with stem cell research and cloning, saying that "We can't play god," yet, their bible says that we were "created in god's image." If we were created in god's image, then why can't we take after god's actions of creating things in our image? If we are supposed to be like god, shouldn't we be meant to act like god?
Fundamentalist Christians take issue with stem cell research and cloning, saying that "We can't play god," yet, their bible says that we were "created in god's image." If we were created in god's image, then why can't we take after god's actions of creating things in our image? If we are supposed to be like god, shouldn't we be meant to act like god?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
