Same old (stripper) story

Immaturely, I still check collegehumor.com. I found this article linked to it today:

Club Plans Tubing Trip With Strippers

(AP) NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas A San Antonio topless club is planning a tubing river excursion that features strippers. Trey Maddox, a manager at Palace Men's Club, said Sunday's event, during which men can pay $25 to join the strippers, isn't meant to fly in the face of the city's new rules.

"We're not hookers, dope dealers or Mafia thugs," he said, noting that the strippers will be appropriately dressed. "We're just coming to have a good time."

City Councilman Ken Valentine isn't so sure.

"I'm really disappointed that this is going to occur on Sunday when people should be in church," he said. "I hope they behave themselves and keep their clothes on, but I'm not sure they will because strippers are trained to take off their clothes."

The New Braunfels City Council has been cracking down on rowdy behavior on the Comal and Guadalupe rivers in recent months, banning volume drinking devices better known as beer bongs, increasing the maximum fine for noise ordinance violations, and prohibiting sound amplification on the river between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

A new ordinance banning containers with a liquid volume of 5 ounces or less — an attempt to ban Jell-O shots and the associated litter — will take effect after the next city council meeting.

Mayor Bruce Boyer said he thought it was unfortunate that the San Antonio club is taking advantage of the situation "to get free publicity."

"And all we're trying to do is make it safe and pleasant for anybody 8 to 80 to come and have a safe and enjoyable river experience," he said.


My initial thoughts on this article:
-"I'm really disappointed that this is going to occur on Sunday when people should be in church"... So it's okay any other day of the week then, even weekdays, when people should be in work? All right, let's reschedule.

-"I hope they behave themselves and keep their clothes on, but I'm not sure they will because strippers are trained to take off their clothes..." They're trained? What are the strippers, dogs? Seals? Look, strippers though they are, they're still people. Or are women not people to Mr. "Everyone's in church on Sunday"?

-"And all we're trying to do is make it safe and pleasant for anybody 8 to 80 to come and have a safe and enjoyable river experience," he said. No you're not. You're trying to circumvent the rules, and you know it. But therein lies the bigger problem.

I've never even been in a strip club (I know it's hard to believe, but it's true), but this kind of argument has undoubtedly been seen before. Conservative, likely Christian, town in America wants adult business proprietor to take a long walk off a short pier. Conservative town tries to implement ridiculous excuses and legislation to convince adult business to shut down. Adult business obstinately refuses and usually finds some way to circumvent the rules to thumb their noses at conservative town.

The major problem is not only that this dilemma is recurring, but that both sides obstinately refuse to budge even a little, and thereby they avoid the real problems involved in strip clubs. Women with low self-esteem and few good employment opportunities have nowhere else to turn but stripping? Doesn't need to be discussed in conservative town. Low self-esteem males who either treat women like objects or are too lonely and desperate to get an actual date spending all their time in said strip club? Not an issue.

No, instead we get conservative town saying, "You stop that right now!" and strip club owner yelling "Make me."

Reminds me of my teenage years.

Just once, I'd like to hear a conservative town say, "Strip clubs represent a bigger problem with society's views of women and the opportunities that women have. In order to fight this problem, we need to investigate this problem at all levels of government. It should start with us."

Just once, I'd like to hear a strip club owner say, "The sad thing is, these girls make more money here than they would in some of the jobs this city has to offer them. The region's economy is to blame, of course, and conservative town would rather ignore the problem than help its citizens. The real problem with my establishment? It points out the ineffectiveness that government has had in addressing this bigger picture."

Too sophisticated and clean-cut of an argument to expect from both sides? Probably.

Then too, there's a certain entertainment value with the arguments, "Stripping is not in the Bible," and "Up Yours!" right?

A few months ago, I went to a bar in DeKalb

It was a law student thing. Free beer (Miller Lite). Free pizza (thin crust).

Some law students I got along with. Others repulse me.

I am coming to the realization that the ones who do not repulse me are the ones who are fairly older than me.

There are many of them who are younger than me or are my age. They were at the bar last night too. Most of them I can't stand. You see these students at the bar more often.

One of them had a popped collar (this makes fun of itself, doesn't it?). He and his friends went over to play Golden Tee. Needless macho competition expressed through a video game about golf. Fun.

Then there are the girls who still dress all slutty like sorority girls, trying to fall all over guys who are acting like frat boys. Gotta love that Greek scene. Yeah...

What's even more fun are the girls who are badly overweight and still try to do that. Shameless self-denial. More fun!

Some of the guys just stared at and/or flirted with the waitresses. Classy. Her steroid-popping, steel-lifting boyfriend would kick their asses if he was there. Maybe that guy is even sitting at the bar. Who knows?

There was a professor there. He's got to be in his 50s. Dude, don't you have a family or something?

It was crowded. I absolutely hate overly crowded bars. I hate it when you can't move without almost knocking someone else's or my own drink over. Got me to thinking...

I think I have officially tired of the college bar scene. Then too, I really didn't anticipate the law school social scene to be this much like undergrad. I expected a little more maturity. As usual, I was wrong.

Still, I don't need to engage in stupid, macho competitions to prove my worth as a man. I don't need to hit on or flirt with girls who seem to think that they need men to give them attention. I don't need to be around a whole bunch of people who are in a bar for the sake of being in a bar.

I have a loving, attractive girlfriend. I like a little different flavor in my beer than what even Miller Lite has to offer. I want to sit in a bar and drink those various beers and have a conversation where I can actually hear myself speak. Is that so wrong?

As I left the bar last night, I thought to myself, "I will have no trouble leaving the college scene behind." I really feel that I'm ready to leave that whole undergrad scene behind and get on with the rest of my life.

Maybe I'm just getting older, but there's no shame in acting your age.

Besides, my life's far from over...it's just beginning.

A letter to Donald Rumsfeld

Dear Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld,

People are saying that you should be fired.

Unfortunately, our President isn't smart enough to do so...yet...maybe ever.

To hell with that, I say. I say you should resign.

Well gee, quite a thought pattern there, huh? I think you should either be fired or that you should resign. I'm still a liberal, all right. However, there's more to my thinking you should resign than me just being a liberal.

Dude, why would you want to keep taking responsibility for this war? Why would you want to keep taking shots for Bush? Did you see what happened today? Here, take a look:

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/05/06/385995.html&cvqh=itn_britishcopter

What a mess. Sure, you're partly at fault for it. You said, "Full speed ahead, there's weapons of mass destruction to be found!" Yeah, good call there. You find those yet?

However, Bush still could've stopped you. He could have forced his hand and said "I want more proof." But he cared about proof even less than you did, Rummy. He just wanted to finish what his daddy started (but, incidentally, not something that his daddy even WANTED to finish. Read his memoirs some time).

So why, Donny Rumsfeld, would you want to stick around to see the end of this? Why would you want to keep being called a liar, a murderer, a scoundrel? (I'm thinking British insults here, forgive me.)

Dude, look around you. There's like, you, Cheney, and Condi Rice still around from the first administration. The rest saw a sinking ship and jumped off before their lives got any harder. The only reason Cheney's still around is because he feasts on human flesh to keep himself fit. The only reason Condi has stuck it out is because...well, probably because she's the only high-ranking woman in the Bush administration and MIGHT be subject to less heat. But those days are numbered too.

So, with the casualties rising, the whole administration facing 1000 attacks from 100 different directions every day, and Iraqi, Iranian, and Afghanistani citizens making our nation look foolish, as well as money and oil-hungry, why do you want to stick around, Mr. Rumsfeld? I admire your loyalty, but come on! Don't you have pride? Don't you have dignity? Don't you have some hunting to do or something?

If I were you, I'd have left ages ago. I wouldn't want to take responsibility for a war that hardly anyone wants anymore. I'd have grown tired of constant attacks on my character and legacy. I'd be sick of taking bullets for a man whom I probably hold a great deal of contempt for (don't deny it Rummy...I see the contempt in your eyes...you have it for everyone!)

In conclusion, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, can you look me in the eyes and honestly tell me that the hits you take every day are worth it? Can you look into the eyes of the mother who has lost her son or daughter to this war and honestly tell them that they did what they did for the right reasons? Hell, some of those soldiers probably didn't even like you! Can you honestly tell me that you have nothing better to do than speak up and defend this, the world's worst war-zone mess?

You're probably a proud man, Mr. Rumsfeld. I know that the last thing you'd like to do is admit that you and your administration were wrong. Still, look at who and what you're taking the blame for. Is this how you want to spend what will probably be the last years of your life?

Walk away while you've still got legs to walk on, Rummy.

On May 10, 2006, I made history...sort of...

On May 10, 2006, I looked back a year ago at what I was writing in my Xanga. Since what I wrote still has some relevance today, I reprint it now:

(5/10/2005)

Enough of this though, on to my next ranting topic: the Paula Abdul scandal on American Idol. Not that I watch American Idol. You'd have to pay me to tune in. Seriously. Pay me, and I'll tune in. Otherwise, I'm living my life in a useful manner.

I don't know which of two larger issues is sadder about this whole fiasco: A) that it's a scandal at all, being that the dude obviously has a grudge against American Idol and everyone associated with it since he was disqualified after it was discovered that he beat the crap out of his sister on a regular basis, or B) that reality television has gotten so bored of itself, it needs a reality scandal to keep its viewers tuned in and interested.

If you think about it, everything about the scandal is sad. Let's start with the fact that the dude accusing Paula Abdul has a grudge against American Idol. Holy shit dude, you mean the brainwashing, conformist, image-conscious Nazis of reality television wanted you to be a squeaky-clean family boy? AND YOU'RE SURPRISED??????? Hopefully he is cast down with the rest of the trash from society, since he's obviously too stupid to understand any of it.

Even more sad, this is all helping Paula Abdul's image. People say she's becoming a sympathetic character whose popularity is increasing the longer the scandal goes on. Don't ask me why she's sympathetic...maybe 'cause the Man's out to get her? Who knows? But anyway, I've even heard that Paula's image is making a "rebound," which would be the second for her in the past two years. Remember that her albums weren't exactly flying off the shelves after 1992. Wait, what albums?

Perhaps worst of all, this whole scandal has made American Idol more popular, despite my comment above. Let's refresh, shall we:

"Reality television has gotten so bored of itself, it needs a reality scandal to keep its viewers tuned in and interested."

This phrase should mean the end of reality television's existence. Truly. The mere idea of it is a pathetic, new low for reality TV and that is saying a hell of a lot. But it goes on, stronger than ever? Why? WHY?

A frightening prospect exists here: reality television can't kill itself. The new low it reached with a real scandal to promote the ratings of its flagship show actually caused it to grow again. It's like that movie Hollow Man, where they shoot Hollow Man (Kevin Bacon) with a flame thrower and knock him essentially senseless, yet he is still inexplicably able to crawl up the emergency ladder, a charred remnant of his former self. Perhaps he has been made stronger by the fire. Perhaps so has American Idol.

So I urge you once again, America, please, turn off reality TV. I beg you. Do it for your own self-respect. Do it because you WANT to expect better of yourself. These reasons should be enough for you to do it, but they're all I have for now, so please, just listen to me. Go for a walk in the park. Play a family game. Go see a movie. ANYTHING. Just don't continue to support this abomination known as reality television.

Of course, why should anyone listen to me? I mean, who's actually seen Hollow Man?

One year later, I see that American Idol is still on the air and that America has not turned off reality television. My prediction has, unfortunately, been proven right, and I'm not sure why. Maybe because much of America is, much like its President, STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a side note, there is apparently another thing called "Canton Idol," which my cousin Amanda took part in this past weekend. I'm not sure how she did, but she is an incredible singing talent. Maybe she could win American Idol some day... THAT might actually make me watch, for a change.

Still, I'm sure that reality TV is NOT dead, especially with how powerful American Idol is. In fact, I'm not sure if that whole Paula Abdul scandal even "resurrected" the show at all. I'm not sure it ever needed resurrecting...American Idol is basically the most popular show on television.

I don't care though. Until my cousin is on it, I'm not watching. More incentive: the one guy who got kicked off by viewers (perhaps proving the lack of intelligence and sophistication of Idol's viewers) now has a job with the band Fuel. Rock on dude! http://www.comcast.net/music/index.jsp?cat=MUSIC&fn=/2006/05/12/390127.html&cvqm=hit_daughtry

So, America, I could make the same appeal to you one year later, but what the hell, you're not listening. You'll keep this crappy show on the air for another decade with YOUR taste in music. Can I ask you to try to improve that taste in music, at least?

I mean, do YOU trust your judgment? You almost made Justin Guarini a winner...

You choose carefully, America...

Since there will always be problems with the Cubs...

The Problem With The Cubs

Last night, the Cubs fans started venting their frustration at Wrigley Field (visual aid is provided below):

CHICAGO (AP) -- Even a stellar outing by Carlos Zambrano couldn't prevent Jacque Jones from being targeted by a home fan.

Zambrano pitched four-hit ball through eight innings, helping the Chicago Cubs beat the Washington Nationals 4-0 Tuesday night for just their second win in 14 games.

However, Jones, who has been booed repeatedly during his first season with the Cubs, received quite a scare before the top of the ninth inning as a fan in the right-field bleachers threw a ball that nearly hit Jones in the face. According to Cubs officials, the woman was drunk and detained by ballpark security, but not arrested. They wouldn't release her name.

"I threw a ball to Juan (Pierre) and then turned around to get in my position and the ball came whizzing past my head," Jones said. "It went right past my face. I'm not going to let one person ruin my time here. I signed here for three years and I signed to help this team win."

Jones has struggled at times at the plate and on the bases. He was picked off second base from the outfield on a double play for the third time this month in the fourth inning, and was booed after that.

So the Wrigley faithful are not throwing beer yet, just baseballs. Nothing less should be expected of fans who are most likely about to see their 97th year without a World Series victory. The Cubs, in 4th place in the Central at16-22, 7.5 games behind division-leading St. Louis, are well on their way to being terrible once again.

I'm sure that Cubs fans will all have differing opinions as to what is wrong with the team and what can or can't be done. Regardless of what each Cub fan thinks, throwing baseballs at the players is only a mildly good idea, so let me begin the debate with a few pro/con proposals out there for all to see and discuss. Here is...

thatperlakyguy's Cures For What Ails The Chicago Cubs:

1. Fire Manager Dusty Baker- Sure, the easy way out. But this guy DID get the Cubs a playoff appearance (with good players), and he had plenty of contending teams when he managed in San Francisco. Because of all those contending teams (and at least a winning team in 2004), are these last two duds entirely Dusty's fault? Despite the ease of this solution, common sense seems to say no. Besides, if you fire him, who are you gonna bringg in? Pitching Coach Larry Rothschild, who did such a GREAT job of making the Devil Rays respectable? Good luck with that.

2. Fire General Manager Jim Hendry- Honestly, I love this idea. His brilliant moves have included: keeping Sammy Sosa past his prime, holding on to the idea that oft-injured starter Kerry Wood can still be in the rotation and NOT on the disabled list, and making no significant moves at last year's trade deadline. One quick (false) start this year (with a fairly weak schedule to boot), and they slap him with a contract extension??? Did I walk into the Opposite Zone? On the other hand, is this team entirely his fault? I mean, management did foolishly believe in him...

3. Start Bringing Up The Farm System- From what I understand, this has already begun somewhat. So should we bring it up more? Iowa (the Cubs' AAA affiliate) is in 3rd place in their division, hardly contending the way that they should. While some good young guys are in place already in Chicago, is there even anything else waiting then?

4. Let The Infamous Goat Onto the Field- You mean to try to reverse the Curse? Nah, they already tried that. And besides, the goat that started it is long dead. But could it hurt to try this again?...Probably.

5. Exorcise Wrigley Field- See above Goat idea.

6. Let Steve Bartman Back In- Nah, I don't think that's gonna work either.

7. Change Nothing! The Cubs are Fine!- Sir, you are either Ron Santo or delirious, and in any case you're not helping, so let's move on...

8. Tear Down Wrigley Field and Build a New Stadium- I've heard this argument before: modify that fun game-day atmosphere around Wrigleyville so that the emphasis is on winning the game instead of just having a good time. Lots of people (namely the Sun-Times and Sox fans) say that Cubs fans don't even care about the product that is on the field, evidenced by how Wrigley is always sold out, win or lose, rain or shine, and that so long as the beer never stops flowing, Wrigley Field and Wrigleyville are just not a conducive atmosphere to create a winning team. All might be valid points, but they present several further issues: A. Where would the new stadium be built? Taking the Cubs out of the North Side is not an option, if only for tradition's sake, and you'd have to buy out a lot of valuable property to build a stadium, which may be money the city doesn't have; B. Is this theory even valid? Boston still plays in a park built at the turn of the 20th Century, with bars surrounding it, and they won a World Series two years ago. What should it matter if the Cubs stay in old Wrigley? And new stadiums may not even make that big of a difference anyway (see: Tigers, Reds, early White Sox, Pirates, Brewers, Mariners, for starters); C. Especially if the new stadium is still around Wrigleyville, the fans will still come to have a good time, and IF they don't care about the product on the field in an old stadium, why will they care more in a new stadium? Which brings me to: D. The fans DO care about the product on the field. Why else would one have thrown a baseball at Jacque Jones last night?

9. Just Bring In Better Players- Yeah, no Cub fan buys that the Tribune Company doesn't have money to spend on other players, and few players would say outright, "I don't want to play in Chicago." The "con" for this number? Well, numbers 1 and 2 are likely precursors to it.

But until something is done, Cubs fans, feel free to hurl more stuff onto the field until someone in the organization gets the hint.

My Thoughts on the Da Vinci Code

Even though it's now playing at a cheap theater near you!

The Da Vinci Code movie was released last week. Did pretty good at the box office, though many serious film critics said it was only mediocre.

Lots of protesting of the movie going on. Apparently, the book suggests that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. This idea is supposedly based off of some of the unofficial, "Gnostic" gospels, even though none of the gnostic gospels even state this outright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene). Some suggest that she was closer to Jesus than some of the other apostles, but there is, as of yet, apparently no concrete proof that Jesus was ever married.

Regardless, The Da Vinci Code and this theory have been criticized endlessly by some (NOT all) Christians. Some other blogs have already commented on it, so I will do the same right now.

I do not understand why this issue has put so many people up in arms. The Da Vinci Code is a novel, a work of fiction. No one, not even the author (go ahead, check it out: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html) has claimed that the book's theories are based on fact.

But Dan Brown, the author, certainly won't do anything to end the controversy. As a matter of fact, he probably likes it very much. Dan Brown was a struggling author before this book, at one point selling novels out of the back of a station wagon. Because of all of the hype over the book, sales for the book and movie are through the roof. While extremely conservative ministers cry foul on Dan Brown, he is laughing all the way to the bank. You'd think these extremely conservative ministers would realize by now that the best thing to do with those topics that you don't like is stay silent and ignore them. Human beings love controversy, and they will flock to it, without fail, regardless of their feelings.

However, Dan Brown is proud that his book has at least started a dialogue in many religions about the possibility that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene. I find nothing wrong in starting a dialogue about this subject. Honestly, I think it'd be great if it were true that Mary Magdelene married Jesus. I think it would be an excellent expression of love for many to follow. Think of how that might elevate the status of marriage in the eyes of every church. Perhaps people who are rushing into marriage would stop and think a little more seriously before taking steps towards the "most holy of sacraments." Maybe, just maybe, the divorce rate would go down as a result. Would this be so bad?

I think the problem with many people who criticize and attack this theory is that they find it difficult to have their most pertinent faith-based beliefs challenged. This isn't one of those things where it's like someone tells you "Eating a sandwich a day helps reduce your risk of lung cancer" or something (and no, I don't know whether or not that's true, but I suppose it would depend on what's in the sandwich). Undoubtedly, no one would find their entire life shaken by such a revelation. When someone suggests, "Hey, your God isn't all you believe him to be!" this undoubtedly stirs many emotions.

But let's be realistic. Saying that Jesus might have been married is a far cry from saying that he wasn't God, or your Lord and Savior, or something like that. No one's suggesting, and I think that it would be impossible to suggest, that Jesus would be less divine as a result of his being married. To believe this would be plain overreacting, and at least somewhat misogynistic. Being married to a woman makes you more sinful and less holy? Shit, we should all be gay then. It pays to keep an open mind about such topics.

Will I see the Da Vinci Code movie? Maybe. I have nary seen Audrey Tatou or Tom Hanks in a bad movie. Will I read the book? Yeah, when do I have time for that? In any case, I welcome the debate that The Da Vinci Code raises, whether it may one day turn out to be truth or not.

One's faith in any religion can and should be a pillar of strength for people, it's true. However, one's faith should not be completely static either. It should be capable of growth and of accepting new ideas, all the more that the person who believes should be a more open, caring person.

Too many religions out there today miss that point.

Sweet Lord, Chicago...

My thoughts after the Cubs were swept by the Tigers some weeks back:

Chicago, we need to talk.

Listen, there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that you’re one of the greatest cities in the world, and certainly a much better city than Detroit. People can walk in Chicago’s downtown without fearing for their lives. There’s more to do in downtown Chicago than downtown Detroit (where there’s two stadiums, an opera house, and a couple theaters. Yeah...Detroit). Chicago has a public transportation system that can actually be used (compared to Detroit’s “People Mover”). Chicago has taller buildings, more bars, and most importantly, better pizza.

Given all of these facts, please tell me why, Chicago, when you play Detroit in ANY sport lately, you get spanked like a four-year-old misbehaving in the grocery store.

This past weekend, the Chicago Cubs were swept, at Wrigley Field, by the Tigers. I listened to the game on the radio. You could hear the “Let’s Go Tigers” chants wafting through the stadium. I expected to at least hear some “Detroit Sucks!” chants in response (much like Blackhawks fans do when the Red Wings play them in Chicago). I heard practically nothing.

Not that I blame the Cubs fans. In comparison to the Tigers this year, the Cubs have absolutely no right to say that “Detroit Sucks.” Indeed, this year, the Cubs suck, and lately, so do all of Chicago’s sports teams when they play Detroit. Let’s look at the stats from other sports matchups:

The Chicago Blackhawks were 1-7 against the Detroit Red Wings last hockey season. The Chicago Bulls were 0-5 versus the Detroit Pistons. The Cubs, in their only matchup this year against a Detroit team, were swept badly.

Sure, I could recognize exceptions for the Chicago White Sox (5-1 so far against Detroit Tigers this year) and the Chicago Bears (2-0 vs. the Detroit Lions), but I won’t. The White Sox have been unable to pass the Tigers since they’ve taken the AL Central Division lead, and who are the Bears kidding, a team of trained seals could have beaten the Lions last season. (And hey, at least when the Lions were as bad as they were, Detroit fans took to the streets in protest, dressed in the opposing team's attire. You listening, Cubs and Blackhawks fans?)

So what’s your excuse, Chi-town? Why does the Motor City consistently blow the Windy City away? Why the hell should a run-down garbage pit of a city beat a world-class city on such a consistent basis when it comes to our national pastimes? Why are Detroit fans allowed to infiltrate Wrigley Field, the United Center, and maybe even U.S. Cellular Field to get in the faces of Chicago fans everywhere, reminding them how much better the teams from Michigan are? (Speaking of Michigan, how many times has Northwestern beaten U of M? Two? Northwestern should work on that as well.)

It’s ridiculous. No WAY should Detroit be better than Chicago at ANYTHING, least of all sports! And worse, Chicago doesn’t even seem to be angry about it! I mean, come on Cubs fans, I heard you booing for, like, the first inning, and then Detroit scored three runs and you were silent. What the hell?! Who cares that Detroit was up by three, get in their fans' faces! Throw stuff at them, shout or chase them out of the stadium, do something, do ANYTHING to tell these Detroit bastards that this is CHICAGO, and they need to go home to the ghetto!

(Yes, I know that no Detroit sports fan that can afford to travel goes home to the ghetto. They all go home to their cozy suburbs in West Bloomfield, Auburn Hills, and Plymouth. And actually, I don’t care to badmouth Plymouth because they have the Box Bar, which has a ton of beers from all around the world, as well as really good food. Props to Plymouth, indeed. But the rest of Detroit is a rotting pit, and the people in the suburbs could care less, so I don’t feel too bad about ragging those fans about it. Do something about your rotting namesake city, ya miserable bastards.)

At the risk of supporting vigilante violence, I will come to my primary point, which is that Chicago is too great and too proud of a city to let the Detroit "hole" beat them down so badly at sports. Chicago sports fans are among the most loyal one can find, and such a great sports city should be able to watch their teams beat ANY city on a consistent basis (Case-in-point: the Cubs are almost certainly going to finish near last place, but Wrigley remains sold out for every game. Where was everyone at Comerica Park during the Tigers’ 119 loss campaign?).

Hopefully, one day, the trend will be reversed. One day, perhaps Chicago teams will be the ones beating Detroit sports teams like red-headed stepchildren (Chris Shelton, you’re definitely a target). Until then, is it too much to ask of those loyal Chicago sports fans to fill the stadiums, at the very least, on every day that a Detroit team plays in town? Is it too much to ask of the coaches and players to play with a little more pride against teams from such a pitiful city? Is it too much to ask that those “Let’s Go Tigers/Red Wings/Pistons/Lions” cheers will be drowned out by chants of “DETROIT SUCKS! DETROIT SUCKS!” at every stadium?

Stand up, Chicago. You’re better, and you know it. Chase those Motor City jerks back to GM headquarters in downtown Detroit…

Where they’ll all get promptly go bankrupt making shitty cars.

I Heart Media

Thanks to the national media outlets...

...I had to dig for information about why gas prices are so high

...I had to dig even deeper to find where low gas prices are

...I know that one of America's largest corporations, GM, is in trouble, but I had to dig for info to find out how much trouble and why

...I had to dig for more information about what Congress is doing at the moment (All I knew was it had something to do with flag-burning)

...I had to find out from The Daily Show that the Bush Administration was mad at the New York Times for an article they printed

...I have little to no idea what the Supreme Court is ruling on (and they are ruling on a lot of things)

...I didn't even know why Israel was mad until they invaded the Gaza Strip

...I have scant clue what's going on in my state or city today or this weekend

...I know there's flooding going on, but I don't exactly know where

...I have little to no idea what progress is being made in Iraq or Afghanistan

But thanks to the national media outlets...

...I am a total expert when it comes to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's kids

...I know when Britney Spears is eating Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner

...I feel like I was there at Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban's "private" wedding

I think we have some "values" problems in this nation...

I am Not Carl Sandburg

My thoughts from a couple weeks ago:

Chicago has a soul. The city lives, breathes, and moves around the people who live and work there. The people themselves may not have souls, and many of them will give a lifeless, into-the-air stare when you see them on the El. The city springs to life from dawn til dusk and again from dusk til dawn, and the people are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. You may be here, and they might be too, but you don't see their souls or sense their souls or feel their souls, except at Wrigley Field, where the most hardcore people have brought their souls and left them there, hoping to one day find them again when the team is actually successful. That day won't come, but the place breathes because of those souls. Other places, namely at some of the night clubs, people didn't really have souls to begin with.

Fast forward 10 years: they live in Naperville. They drive expensive cars like they escaped the lunatic asylum, they raise obnoxious children, and they do whatever they can to hurry you along and thrust you away in contempt if you don't do it the way that they like. There is no soul to Naperville because very often, there are no souls to its people.

I work in Naperville. I live with this every day.

But it's not just Naperville. It's hard to find people that care about anything but money in much of the area. It's hard to find people that are anything but surface, people who have no substance and no purpose but to keep up as best they can with the Joneses. There are people that care here, but they are getting harder and harder to find. You have to dig for them like weeds in a garden. The rest of them, you look into their eyes and you cannot see a thing and you cannot feel a thing.

You should not have to find a soul among weeds.

You go downtown in Chicago. The buildings have character, they have a life-like feel. And you wonder if the people didn't leave their souls behind there sometimes to give the buildings that life.

When I walk around the buildings, I feel living, breathing things. It truly scares me that I don't get that same living, breathing feeling from many of the people. If there was a city that "The Matrix" was based on, it was probably New York, but you could make a case for Chicago.

Sometimes, the people are just not there.

The city of broad, lifeless shoulders.

I am getting sick and tired of the lack of substance. I cannot stand walking past the advertisements for the latest fashions and gadgets. I am getting sick and tired of walking around and feeling like the only thing that's real and alive are the monochromatic buildings. I will never stop being that person who needs to connect with people to really live, and there is a strong disconnect from this region. You get the feeling, looking at these people that they really are like that Oasis song, "Part of the Queue." You could understand how one could feel lost in this city.

And I'm having some trouble just finding some souls in this town.

ESPN: Egad, Switch Priorities Now!

Let’s say I have a deck of cards. From that deck of cards, I pull the 9 of hearts.

Let’s also say that I tell the person next to me that I will bet him/her $100 that I’ll pull another 9 from that deck of cards.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that I do pull another 9, the 9 of spades.

Pretty lucky, right? Sure, damn lucky. I just won $100 on some pretty wild odds.

But would anyone say that I had just played a sport?

My guess is that 98% of people would say hell no, I hadn’t just played a sport, and I would agree. (I’m not sure what the other 2% of you are thinking, exactly). Did I challenge my mind? Nope. Did I do any difficult physical activity? Of course not.

So please, someone explain to me why Poker is still televised on ESPN.

I cannot say emphatically enough that Poker is NOT A SPORT!!!!! Poker requires no mental skill, no physical prowess, yet it continues to be televised every Tuesday night on ESPN at 8 AND 9 PM! So just in case I missed a couple guys getting handed random cards at 8, that’s okay because I can watch more of that at 9! At 10, do I get to watch grass grow on ESPN2?

I’m sorry, but Poker players are NOT athletes! They do not “train” outside of keeping the same face for an hour or two (and even that’s a joke because many of them make it easier by wearing sunglasses). They do no mental balancing outside of maybe calculating odds that might even be wrong. Want to know how much “skill” is required to win at Poker? Look, a freaking 21-year-old just won a tournament: (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/news/story?id=2527689)

And yet this so-called “sport” even gets its own page on ESPN.com! (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/index) For WHAT reason!?!? Even worse, there are ANALYSTS for this thing. What the hell are they analyzing? “Well, Moneymaker was thinking he was going to get the queen of hearts out there tonight, but he should’ve planned on the king of spades instead.” Wow, I bet it’s all fantastic journalism, and I can’t wait for their upcoming reports on Gladys Cunningham’s strategy at the slot machines in Reno.

Seriously, why does Poker get any airtime on ESPN? I mean, even other alleged “non-sports” require more physical and mental concentration than Poker. Compare it to some other “non-sports” I’ve heard debated about:

Auto Racing: Requires exemplary mind and body strength to handle cars going 180 mph and up. Pit crews must be in outstanding shape to move quickly during pit stops.

Poker: Most players are overweight and the only thing that requires “mind and body strength” is picking up the cards and tossing them on the table.

Darts: Requires hand-eye coordination, accurate wrist movement, and enough arm force to make the darts land on the board in the right places.

Poker: I dunno, does it require a lot of “arm force” and “wrist movement” to place the cards face-down or face-up on the table? Careful, you might get a sprain!

Bowling: Requires hand-eye coordination, as well as powerful and accurate wrist movement, together with proper lower-body movement.

Poker: Players sit in a chair trying to keep their faces still while picking up and tossing down cards.

Surfing: Requires extremely careful balance, as well as upper and lower-body power to handle ferociously high waves in sometimes life-or-death conditions.

Poker: See comparison to Bowling.

So there really is no comparison to Poker from any of these sports. Yet you will not see any Auto Racing, Bowling, or Surfing on ESPN’s Tuesday night lineup (though I hear Darts IS actually going to be televised now…), but you will get to see overweight people wearing sunglasses in already dimly-lit rooms playing games of cards. Fantastic. Count me out.

Is there really nothing else that ESPN can televise right now besides Poker? I’d watch a game between the Devil Rays and Royals before I’d watch Poker. Hell, I’d watch table tennis! I mean, isn’t there a college lacrosse tournament going on or something? How about a nice football game between North Dakota State and Sacramento State? How about ANY real sport, and not Poker, whose popularity is arguably dwindling anyway?

But please don’t get me wrong. If you like getting together with your friends on a Tuesday night, grabbing a few beers, smoking a few cigars and playing Poker in your basement, more power to you. Go right ahead and play your game and have all the fun in the world. However, I will never agree that your Tuesday night gathering is worthy of sports coverage on ESPN no matter how you might feel after winning your third straight hand. And anyway, is Poker the kind of thing that you want your already obese kid to be watching and learning from ESPN? Do you want him to be known as the cow-kid that never got any physical activity and was laughed at in gym class?

I will leave for another day the topics of how the National Spelling Bee and original movies are also televised on ESPN (and are not sports) and whether Poker is merely a game or a form of gambling (I express no opinion at the moment). I only say that Poker is not worthy of coverage on any sports network, and I don’t see what’s so damn entertaining about it anyway. Give me hockey, give me volleyball, heck, give me WATER POLO before you give me Poker to watch on ESPN.

If I’m sitting in a chair, watching TV, and being lazy, I don’t need to watch other people doing the same thing.

At least SOMEONE wants to take on the President

I'm a proud member of the ABA. Reasoning? This:

ABA: Bush violating Constitution

Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy

Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 11:05 a.m. EDT (15:05 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

Some congressional leaders had questioned the practice. The task force's recommendations, being released Monday in Washington, will be presented to the 410,000-member group next month at its annual meeting in Hawaii.

ABA policymakers will decide whether to denounce the statements and encourage a legal fight over them.

The task force said the statements suggest the president will decline to enforce some laws. Bush has had more than 800 signing statement challenges, compared with about 600 signing statements combined for all other presidents, the group said.

Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration attorney who practices law in Washington, said the president is doing nothing unusual or inappropriate.

"Presidents have always issued signing statements," he said. "This administration believes that it should make clear ... when the Congress is getting close to the lines that our Constitution draws."

Francisco said the administration's input is part of the give and take between the branches of government. "I think it's good that the debate is taking place at a public level," he added.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said last month that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The ABA report said President Reagan was the first to use the statements as a strategic weapon, and that it was encouraged by then-administration lawyer Samuel Alito -- now the newest Supreme Court justice.

The task force included former prosecutor Neal Sonnett of Miami; former FBI Director William Sessions; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards; and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein; and law school professors and other lawyers.

Hiding from the Carnell Breeding fans...

Well, I've had it.

I can't take being searched for relentlessly by Carnell Breeding fans on Xanga.

I am thus moving my rants (but not my Wacky Emails) to this site from now on.

Do I expect people to take me more seriously with a blogspot? Maybe.

But more importantly, I won't have anyone reading my site thinking that somewhere, maybe near the end of it, I will have B5's phone number.

And how does a musical group have a "collective" phone number anyway??!!?!?!