Despite paying little or no attention to college football in my blog this year, in the spirit of the recently-concluded "rivalry weekend" (or I guess I could say week now, as there were games on Thursday and Friday), I'm going to force you to choose whether or not to be subjected to my musings. (But the answer is yes).
-First of all, hats off to Michigan for beating the Buckeyes for the first time in seven years. Granted it was a very close win at home against a far inferior opponent, but still- a win is a win. A lot has changed at Michigan since the last time they beat the team from the south. Michigan has been doing the Hoke-y Pokey this season, which seems to have turned themselves around (which is really what it's all about). Jim Tressel (the anti-John Cooper) is busy rocking his sweater-vest as a consultant for worst NFL team in the world (for once, not the Detroit Lions). Terrelle Pryor, highly esteemed four year OSU starting QB, graduated and....wait, you mean Pryor didn't graduate? He was forced to leave school early because of a scandal? Oh. Never mind*.
- Urban Meyer, former Florida Gators coach and current ESPN talky guy, created quite a stir this weekend by denying reports that Ohio State had offered him its head coaching position, but then asking to be taken off of the broadcast team for the OSU-U-M game. Meyer has admitted that if the Buckeyes make an offer, he'd have "a decision to make" (which shows that Meyer has come a long way from middle school, when girls would ask him to dance and he'd just sort of stand there until they either gave up or just grabbed his arms and dragged him to the dance floor).
I mean, if he does decide to return to coaching, he's not going to get much of a better offer than OSU. Top notch school, great tradition and history, able to pick from the best players every year- with a great offensive mind like Meyer has, OSU would be back on top in, like, two seasons. Tops.
And I hate that we're even talking about this. Not just because it's OSU, either.
What pisses me off is that he "retired" last December (which is, according to my calendar, less than a year ago) to "spend some time with his family". I used the ".." because I think it's probably B.S. And I'm not just hating on Meyer. I know other coaches have done this as well, and and retiring to spend time with his family, only to quickly return to some other lucrative coaching opportunity.
At least Meyer did take some time off. Yeah, he took off about a month and a half before he was hired by ESPN in January of 2011 to be a college football analyst. This probably means one of three things:
1) He realized that he really doesn't like his family that much.
2) He does like his family, but in that month and a half he was able to spend so much time with them that there was literally nothing else that they could do as a family.
3) Urban is really, really bad with money and just needed to get a job.
Of course, a fourth reason is probably that he realized Tim Tebow had graduated and that a string of 4-5+ loss seasons was looking him square in the face. That's enough to send any coach to the hospital with chest pains. I think coaches leave for this reason or that reason, and the "spend time with family" one is supposed to somehow dumb things down- like they're trying to convince us that they really are humans (just like us) and not simply overly-competitive workaholic megalomaniacs.
I wonder if his kids got really excited when they found out he was quitting the job that meant he was never, ever home (and probably distant/stressed out when he was home)- and what their feelings were when, less than two months later, he was going back to another job that meant lots of hours, phone calls on birthdays and 'hurry up and open your damn Christmas presents, I have to be at practice at 6 a.m. today' holidays.
Note to future Urban Meyer players: If Urban Meyer ever refers to your team as 'family', then abandon ship- you know that you are about to be thrown under the bus.
-Speaking of throwing under the bus, Montee Ball from U-W decided that, in his quest to break Barry Sanders' single-season record for TDs (and by the way, when I read that, I realized how strongly I still feel about Barry Sanders because it sort of made me mad that someone was approaching his record), he would give his O-line the Marq-tran Heave-ho. After the Badgers win against Penn State, he said (in terms of the record), "Whatever the offensive line wants. If they want me to get there, then I'll get there".
Alright, so I guess it's not really throwing them under the bus, it's more like a well-time hip check just as the bus is coming by.
Still, I couldn't believe it when I read that. You're putting the onus on your O-line to get you this mark? That whether or not you achieve your record is dependent on their level of desire? Never mind which plays the coaches call, down/distance, game situations, defensive game planning, what have you. The latent statement here is "If I don't get it, it's because my O-line is a bunch of selfish slackers". Which isn't really a message you want to send to the guys protecting you from the 250+ pound Ball-seeking missiles.
Montee, you've had a phenomenal season, even if you don't break the TD record (and I'm hoping you don't. Just saying). But could it be that maybe you got your sports cliches mixed up? That is, you recognize that the O-line is a huge part of your success and you know that every player is an important part of the team but you had to answer a question about an individual record and there was some sort of short circuit in your brain...maybe?
It'll be interesting to see if the Badger O-line takes it personal (and I'm hoping they do. Just saying).
-After a topsy turvey seasons end, the BCS is finally shaping up a little bit...unfortunately it looks like it's going to be an SEC title game in the NCAA title game. As a football fan and SEC ambivalist, I'm not really looking forward to this.
I don't want to take away anything from the LSU Tigers- they were pretty much dominant in every game this season (only one win was by less than 2 TD- technically. 13 point win against Mississippi State) and they look like the best team in the country. I'm still holding out hope that Georgia pulls the upset in the SEC title game but I'm not holding my breath. And even if I were holding my breath, I'd wait until much, much closer to the actual game itself because I would surely pass out several times if I started now.
But after seeing Michigan lose out on a shot at a rematch against OSU a few years ago (when they met late in the season as #1 vs. #2) , I'm not overly keen on seeing LSU-Alabama II for all the marbles. Yes, they're ranked #1 and #2- but my personal feelings are that those rankings are (maybe) more indicative of where they started the season ranked. At seasons beginning, LSU was ranked #4 and Alabama was #2. Now, they did each have an early season test (which they both passed)- but there was a lot of fluff to be had on those schedules as well. And overall, the SEC had what I would call a down year.
I've already written about the inherent flaw in the ranking system, so I won't get into that again. In fact, I'm not even going to hyperlink to it. If you want to read it, then by golly get up off your lazy butt and find it! Sorry, I was just channeling my inner-Montee Ball there for a second.
As someone who likes to see underdogs succeed, it's very frustrating that teams like Oklahoma State (who admittedly had a really, really bad hiccup), Boise State (who lost a much more defensible close game at home versus a very good TCU team), and even Stanford (with only one loss, which came against a top-10 team) are going to be left on the sidelines while Alabama gets the second chance that Michigan didn't get five years ago.
- If Mark Ingram won the Heisman back in 2009 (which he did, according to my sources), then Trent Richardson deserves to win it in 2011. I would vote for Richardson on principle, but he's had superior numbers to Ingram and ended his regular season with a monster game in the Iron Bowl against Auburn (unlike Ingram, who limped to the finish and pretty much won the Heisman because he had a captive audience the weekend the votes were cast). There are plenty of worthy candidates- but Richardson has been a beast all year playing for the #2 ranked team. He was held under 100 yards rushing 3 times- against Kent State (37 yards, probably only played like a quarter, did have 3 TDs), Tennessee (77 yards, had 2 TDs), and LSU (89 yards, with 80 yards receiving). So even when he was "sub-par", he was still pretty "sup-er". Did you see what I did there? Impressive, no?
So that's my football thoughts for now. In the meantime, Go Snow Flurries!!!
*Obviously I knew about the scandal. Even though I no longer consider myself a die-hard Michigan fan, this disdain for OSU has died hard, and I couldn't resist a little elbow-to-the-ribs of the Buckeye nation. Nothing like a rivalry win to make me feel a little Internet bravery, eh?
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Shame on Suh
In case you didn't watch the Packers-Lions turkey day tilt this afternoon (and if you're reading this blog, there is really no reason why you shouldn't have), then you missed the time when Ndamukong Suh morphed into the WWF version of the Incredible Hulk.
Much has been made this season about the Detroit Lions being a dirty team and Suh being named the dirtiest player in the league (in a recent poll done by the Sporting News. I guess). For the most part, I don't have a huge problem with, as Brian Urlacher put it, the Lions playing to 'the echo of the whistle'. This is about changing a losing culture, and if they have to go a little too far the other way- well, that's fine. People just need to know that they can't mess with the Detroit Lions.
In that regard, I love what Suh brings to the table. He is a physical freak- with python-like arms, a non-stop motor, and running back athleticism. He has an impossible to pronounce/spell first name mixed with a phonetically pleasing last name which helps him to appeal to...well, whatever demographic that sort of thing appeals to. His arrival in Detroit has coincided with the Renaissance that has been Detroit football the last couple years. It's like a breath of fresh air, which is no trivial thing when you're living in a cesspool like Detroit.
Of course, you have to take the bad with the good, and in this case, our dominant defensive lineman/philanthropist is also apparently a delusional homicidal maniac. During the past two seasons, he has almost ripped the heads off of two QBs. He also did a pretty fair 'Hulk Smash' impression on Jay Cutler's back last year. The worst part of this is that he doesn't seem to realize this- or he does realize and just doesn't care.
Today's incident seriously upped the rhetoric from the 'Suh/dirty player' camps, and as much as it pains me to say this- the pundits just might be right about this one. I think what puts elevates this incident over the others in terms of 'Okay, maybe Suh is a little bit of an angry douche-bag' was when he unsuccessfully tried to tell the world that he was the victim here.
Before watching Suh wade through probably the worst apology/defense since Tiger Woods tried to tell us his golf clubs had attacked him, his shenanigans reminded me of the Bad Boys. Sure, they played rough, and they may or may not have broken some rules (as well as basic laws of human decency), but they were our team and it actually made us feel closer to them. People were backing us into the same corner, and as long as that corner wasn't anywhere near Bill Laimbeer, we were just fine to bunkerize ourselves with them.
It's been the same thing for Donkey-Kong Suh. With each incident, each act of competitive violence, it was just justified in the context of being a 'competitor'. Yeah he tried to rip his head off- but it's Jake Delhomme. He'd have done the Browns a favor! And so what that he tried to forearm shiver Jay Cutler into a greasy paste? He was just trying to make a play! Besides, sometimes I just think your hands end up really close to someones head in football and you just have to violently tear them away. Completely natural.
But today was somehow different. And I really think the difference lies in the level of self-deceit apparent in the post game comments about the incident.
Understand that football can be a violent game and with all that adrenaline and testosterone and pressure, it makes sense that dudes would get pissed off once in awhile. I'm not begrudging Suh that. Sure, his stunt gave the Packers a first down inside the 5 after we had just stopped them on a third-and-goal, which was exactly what our team needed after the Packers apparently performed some sort of ritual exorcism at halftime and rid them of the first half sucktitude. The fact that he got ejected was just icing on the 'We're screwed' cake. Okay, so maybe I'm a little bit begrudging.
But if he just would have came out afterwards and been like 'Man, I don't know what happened- I was just really really hungry and I didn't think I could wait until after the game, and I just kept thinking about turkey, and I was pissed that I couldn't eat until after the game and- well, I let my hunger get the best of me and I behaved in a way that was detrimental to my team, the fans, and this great organization. I'm sorry, and I'll accept whatever punishment that comes my way'. I would have accepted that. Lots of dudes get angry and do stupid stuff. Especially when turkey is involved.
That's not what he did though. He came out and basically blamed the refs for throwing him out for just trying to get up. He appealed to his 'true fans' and God (I'm assuming God. He said 'the man upstairs'. Which, given his apparent assessment of reality, could be some guy that he actually thinks lives 'upstairs') and basically accused anyone who tries to spin this into the 'Suh=dirtiest NFL player' narrative of being some sort of self-serving jerk-nalist. He tried to justify the kicking action by saying he was 'trying to gain his balance'.
 |
| HULK...TRYING TO...MAINTAIN....EQUILIBRIUM... |
And seriously, I think a suspension would do him good, if for no other reason than to hopefully get him to acknowledge that 'Hey, I can still be a tough guy who stretches the rules just as long as I don't obviously break them'. We were joking about Suh before the game, and the ripping off of other players heads (figuratively speaking) and in that moment I sort of pictured that very thing literally happening- and it didn't surprise me at all. And it makes sense. Suh is not the first guy with that kind of strength and that built up passive rage (while seeming to lack the ability to comprehend his actions from a second-person perspective) that we've come across...
 |
| HULK SHOW YOU ROUGHING PASSER!!!!! |
PIC-
Hulk 1- http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/4835814723_cce53fd3c3.jpg
Hulk 2- http://www.riverglassdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/hulk-smash1.jpg
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Rock, paper, scissors, arms race
NEWS FLASH- Being a parent is hard, apparently. Especially those first few precious years of life when you spend most of your time thinking about what the hell you were thinking. Really the only thing that helps parents get through that endless stretch of sleepless nights, constant crying, and crappy diapers (other than the fear of legal recourse. Oh, and love. Heh heh, obviously love too. I thought that was implied. Guys?) is the knowledge the someday, your children's worldview will completely and totally be like clay in your hands.
What this really means in layman's terms is that you will be able to buy the toys that you wished you could buy when you were a kid (but your parents wouldn't let you have) and watch your favorite movies and TV shows all the time. Sure, your kids will end up just as screwed up as you are- but that's why they have kids. So they can heal through the life journey that is living our your repressed childhood fantasies through action figures and video games. It's called the circle of life for a reason people!
I say all of that merely to say that one of the recent events in my own pre-apocalyptic timeline is that I have indoctrinated my children into the greatest game ever invented- Paper, Scissors, Rock. Or is it Rock, Paper, Scissors? Gah, I can never remember!
For a passive, non-confrontationalist like me, Crush/Cover/Cut is THE way for solving problems without actually solving problems. If you've spent any time around human beings lately, you know that there are always issues that arise that are not immediately settled and requires either quick thinking or violence to resolve. This happens generally for two reasons (there are probably more but for the sake of making me seem like I know what I'm talking about, let's just assume there's only two):
1) There is an inadequate supply of resources.
2) Negotiations have broken down to a state of 'Uh huh/Nuh uh'.
Teaching them Rochambeau is a great way to help them resolve conflict in a nice, tidy way without yelling, screaming, or violent fisticuffs. But sometimes I feel that by teaching my children to obtain a compromise by using this game, I am just painting them with blood and throwing them to the sharks. Am I overreacting?
Obviously I'm not teaching them this game just to play it as a game. As you know from all the times you've ever played Paper, Rock, Scissors, the only time it ever gets played is when there is some discord that needs to be unsown. Whether it's the last piece of pizza or who has to get their pajamas on first, Rock, Scissors, Paper is just a much faster and easier way to get to the bottom of things- and it's much more fun! Besides, it potentially involves thumping your sister without fear of reprisal. Wait- I thought you were writing against the game. So what are these supposed downsides?
Well, they are simply this- that my children will not only develop a series of easily deduced (yet fatal) flaws, but also develop equally inane (yet limited) strengths. To convince you that I am, in fact, a Prophet, we're going to look at the Scissors, Paper, Rock love triangle and how all of these pieces interact with each other. Your role in this is to be amazed and then send me money.
Paper versus Rock
Winner: Paper
What Paper teaches us- To take on challenges outside of your pay grade because of you have a plucky underdog spirit.
What would happen instead- You get chewed up, crumpled up, stepped on, torn apart and sent to the recycling bin.
I'm starting with the most obvious miscast first. I cannot imagine any sort of battle where wielding paper would lead you to victory- unless your enemy is packing air guitars. Generally, if you are going into battle and your strongest weapon is found in a MEAD notebook, you might as well tear out a piece, tape it to a pencil (I'm assuming you have these things with you because you have chosen to wage war with office supplies) and just wave it around in the air because surrendering is your best option.
Yes sometimes it's good to face the odds and stare them down because underdogs can win. But sometimes it's just as good to retreat. Sure David beat Goliath- but it's not because Goliath was a great big pushover. David had a little thing I like to call 'divine intervention'. When you clearly don't have that though, probably the next best thing is a little thing I like to call 'retreat!'.
A great man of wisdom said it best- You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know just when to get the eff out. For instance, whenever the best weapon in your arsenal is wood shavings mixed with water.
Rock versus Scissors
Winner:Rock
What Rock teaches us- You don't need to totally defeat your enemies- you can get by with only mostly defeating them.
What would happen instead- No, you actually need to defeat them all the way or else they will come back bigger, stronger, and wearing an ass-kicking chip on their now-robust shoulders.
This one actually makes more sense than Paper v. Rock- especially if your scissors are made of plastic. A well-placed blow from a heavy rock to a pair of children's paring shears could probably reduce the scissors to dust (and the child to tears. Uh, sorry kid, war is an ugly thing...and you should have picked paper. I know, it doesn't make sense to me either). But if it's an average pair of kitchen sheers? Then maybe not so much. See lots of scissors are made from stainless steel. Now I'm not smart guy, but I do know that a blow from a rock is not going to be enough to destroy steel. Steel is meant to withstand heavy blows, and it takes thousands of degrees of applied heat to really get close to what I would consider to be 'destroying' it.
In fact, brute strength plays an essential part in the creation of a pair of scissors. One of the tools used to make scissors is called a drop hammer. A drop hammer can exert more than 11,000 pounds of force. When they pound the red-hot steel with one of those suckers, it not only shapes the steel- but it makes it stronger as well.
So unless you are generating large amounts of continuous heat by striking with your rock with the force of a drop hammer, you are definitely not defeating the scissors. All you are probably doing is pissing them off and making them stronger. And if that pair of scissors decides to turn on you?
Scissors versus Paper
Winner: Scissors
What Scissors teach us- Treat anyone however you wish to treat them, even if that means that you have to hurt them in the process.
What would happen instead- People will get tired of your antics, band together, and you will face an endlessly self-replicating army of enemies.
This one definitely makes the most sense, because it obviously works. Look, I went to Kindergarten. I've seen scissors cut paper before- and it was like the paper wasn't even there. That's a fact. Yo.
Unfortunately, unless you are using flaming scissors, cutting the paper does not kill it. Surely you know this! As with Rock v. Scissors, physical deformity does not equal defeat. All your smug efforts have done is create a second sheet of paper. Sure it's smaller- but you haven't destroyed it, or even disarmed it- you've just doubled it. And probably pissed it off. Congratulations!
And due to the rules of engagement you definitely can't burn it- unless you use the Nuke. But then you're breaking the rules. And nobody likes to play with the kid that breaks the rules.
PICS-
Rock- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Rock-paper-scissors_(rock).png
Paper- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Rock-paper-scissors_(paper).png
Scissors- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Rock-paper-scissors_%28scissors%29.png
Rock- http://www.hobbycraft.co.uk/Assets/Ideas/Large/84.jpg
Shawshank- http://images.wikia.com/shawshank/images/8/85/Andy_Dufresene%27s_escape.jpg
Congress- http://micevhill.com/attachments/Image/congressional_seal.png
What this really means in layman's terms is that you will be able to buy the toys that you wished you could buy when you were a kid (but your parents wouldn't let you have) and watch your favorite movies and TV shows all the time. Sure, your kids will end up just as screwed up as you are- but that's why they have kids. So they can heal through the life journey that is living our your repressed childhood fantasies through action figures and video games. It's called the circle of life for a reason people!
I say all of that merely to say that one of the recent events in my own pre-apocalyptic timeline is that I have indoctrinated my children into the greatest game ever invented- Paper, Scissors, Rock. Or is it Rock, Paper, Scissors? Gah, I can never remember!
For a passive, non-confrontationalist like me, Crush/Cover/Cut is THE way for solving problems without actually solving problems. If you've spent any time around human beings lately, you know that there are always issues that arise that are not immediately settled and requires either quick thinking or violence to resolve. This happens generally for two reasons (there are probably more but for the sake of making me seem like I know what I'm talking about, let's just assume there's only two):
1) There is an inadequate supply of resources.
2) Negotiations have broken down to a state of 'Uh huh/Nuh uh'.
Teaching them Rochambeau is a great way to help them resolve conflict in a nice, tidy way without yelling, screaming, or violent fisticuffs. But sometimes I feel that by teaching my children to obtain a compromise by using this game, I am just painting them with blood and throwing them to the sharks. Am I overreacting?
 |
| Look at this face. It is serious. Clearly then the answer is 'no, I am not overreacting'. |
Well, they are simply this- that my children will not only develop a series of easily deduced (yet fatal) flaws, but also develop equally inane (yet limited) strengths. To convince you that I am, in fact, a Prophet, we're going to look at the Scissors, Paper, Rock love triangle and how all of these pieces interact with each other. Your role in this is to be amazed and then send me money.
Paper versus Rock
Winner: Paper
What Paper teaches us- To take on challenges outside of your pay grade because of you have a plucky underdog spirit.
What would happen instead- You get chewed up, crumpled up, stepped on, torn apart and sent to the recycling bin.
I'm starting with the most obvious miscast first. I cannot imagine any sort of battle where wielding paper would lead you to victory- unless your enemy is packing air guitars. Generally, if you are going into battle and your strongest weapon is found in a MEAD notebook, you might as well tear out a piece, tape it to a pencil (I'm assuming you have these things with you because you have chosen to wage war with office supplies) and just wave it around in the air because surrendering is your best option.
Yes sometimes it's good to face the odds and stare them down because underdogs can win. But sometimes it's just as good to retreat. Sure David beat Goliath- but it's not because Goliath was a great big pushover. David had a little thing I like to call 'divine intervention'. When you clearly don't have that though, probably the next best thing is a little thing I like to call 'retreat!'.
 |
| Who is covering who now, huh punk? |
Rock versus Scissors
Winner:Rock
What Rock teaches us- You don't need to totally defeat your enemies- you can get by with only mostly defeating them.
What would happen instead- No, you actually need to defeat them all the way or else they will come back bigger, stronger, and wearing an ass-kicking chip on their now-robust shoulders.
This one actually makes more sense than Paper v. Rock- especially if your scissors are made of plastic. A well-placed blow from a heavy rock to a pair of children's paring shears could probably reduce the scissors to dust (and the child to tears. Uh, sorry kid, war is an ugly thing...and you should have picked paper. I know, it doesn't make sense to me either). But if it's an average pair of kitchen sheers? Then maybe not so much. See lots of scissors are made from stainless steel. Now I'm not smart guy, but I do know that a blow from a rock is not going to be enough to destroy steel. Steel is meant to withstand heavy blows, and it takes thousands of degrees of applied heat to really get close to what I would consider to be 'destroying' it.
In fact, brute strength plays an essential part in the creation of a pair of scissors. One of the tools used to make scissors is called a drop hammer. A drop hammer can exert more than 11,000 pounds of force. When they pound the red-hot steel with one of those suckers, it not only shapes the steel- but it makes it stronger as well.
So unless you are generating large amounts of continuous heat by striking with your rock with the force of a drop hammer, you are definitely not defeating the scissors. All you are probably doing is pissing them off and making them stronger. And if that pair of scissors decides to turn on you?
 |
| Oh. So that's what pissed-off metal can do to rock. |
Scissors versus Paper
Winner: Scissors
What Scissors teach us- Treat anyone however you wish to treat them, even if that means that you have to hurt them in the process.
What would happen instead- People will get tired of your antics, band together, and you will face an endlessly self-replicating army of enemies.
This one definitely makes the most sense, because it obviously works. Look, I went to Kindergarten. I've seen scissors cut paper before- and it was like the paper wasn't even there. That's a fact. Yo.
Unfortunately, unless you are using flaming scissors, cutting the paper does not kill it. Surely you know this! As with Rock v. Scissors, physical deformity does not equal defeat. All your smug efforts have done is create a second sheet of paper. Sure it's smaller- but you haven't destroyed it, or even disarmed it- you've just doubled it. And probably pissed it off. Congratulations!
And due to the rules of engagement you definitely can't burn it- unless you use the Nuke. But then you're breaking the rules. And nobody likes to play with the kid that breaks the rules.
 |
| Right? |
Rock- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Rock-paper-scissors_(rock).png
Paper- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Rock-paper-scissors_(paper).png
Scissors- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Rock-paper-scissors_%28scissors%29.png
Rock- http://www.hobbycraft.co.uk/Assets/Ideas/Large/84.jpg
Shawshank- http://images.wikia.com/shawshank/images/8/85/Andy_Dufresene%27s_escape.jpg
Congress- http://micevhill.com/attachments/Image/congressional_seal.png
Monday, November 21, 2011
Rex Ryan and the $75,000 F-bomb
In the spirit of Thanksgiving in three days, I have finally found something to be thankful for. And it came to me in the most unlikely of places (New York) in the most unlikely of packages (Rex Ryan). Guys, I am thankful for Rex Ryan. I'll say it right now, I don't even care who knows it- Jesus, thank you for giving Rex Ryan to the NFL.
True, I think he talks way too much trash for someone who hasn't really done anything except almost make it to two Super Bowls. And...actually, I guess now that I think about it, the only thing I really hold against him is his bravado. Hmmm...he might actually be a decent guy!
Let's see...his players seem to love playing for him. He has a better sense of humor than most coaches. Rexy has, for the most part, been a successful head coach- two trips to the AFC title game the last two years (his first two on the job, OH BY THE WAY). He's quite portly, which gives me and my expanding waistline hope for success. Shoot, I might have just talked myself into the Rex Ryan fan club. Thank you, Thanksgiving!
Since I'm Rex's newest BFF, I have no other alternative than to come to the defense of my closest friend. Today, the NFL announced that Rex Ryan would be fined $75,000 for swearing at a fan. Here's the video if you haven't seen it:
Apparently the NFL stands for 'No F-bombs aLlowed', or something. Apparently in the magical land of the NFL, a fan can provoke a coach who is coming off of a three hour emotional rollercoaster (that pretty much ended with a straight shot down into hell) into saying the 'F' word and it costs the coach $75,000. Meanwhile, Lee Corso drops an 'Effer in a nice comfy chair surrounded by cute,cheering co-eds-
and gets zero disciplinary action (other than having to apologize on-air). So unfair.
Seriously, this is completely ridiculous! Is anyone else as pissed off as I am pretending to be? I know, I know- these aren't even the same situation. Two very different bureaucracies (NFL vs. ESPN) involving two wildy divergent histories (the Sunshine Scooter versus the NFL's Marshall Mathers). Some dufus with a webcam
pokes Rex with a verbal stick (which seems about as smart as poking a bear with
a stick-stick, and not just because of physical similarities) while Corso works the room like a comedian getting ready to drop the big punchline. Just makes me sick.
I'm not really bothered by either incident, actually. I've already talked about how words are really just formations of letters that are devoid of meaning unless it's assigned meaning from an external source. An 'eff bomb' here or there doesn't really bother me at all- in fact, Lee Corso doubled my joy intake for his gaffer. I just find it terrible that Ryan's more defensible act cost him 75,000 bones while Corso's seemingly more pre-meditated (at best, less of an emotional reaction) cost him a five-second apology.
Okay, okay, my ill-conceived and baseless rant in defense of my buddy is over. Yes I was wrong. I recognize that there are rules for a reason and that Ryan clearly violated the sportsmanship clause of the disciplinary policy. As the coach of an NFL team, you can't take your frustrations out on the poor, defenselessprobably drunk fans. You have to keep your cool, Rex.
But this is where I show Rex that I'm a real friend. Because not only did I stick up for him- but I'm going to help him do better next time. I did some exhaustive research (by that I mean I read like, four articles maybe) and found some ways that Rex can blow off some steam, maintain a sense of self-deviance, and save a bundle of money (or at least get more bang for his buck).
- Try to rip off an opponents head by grabbing the face mask and just ripping that puppy off. That only cost Matthew Stafford $7,500. Savings- $67,500
- Allow someone to try and tear your head off and then get pissed and retaliate, just like D.J. Moore did. Sure, you'll get fined twice as much as the guy who tries the initial head/neck breach ($15,000), but you'll still save a cool $60,000.
- Next time there's a lockout, just say 'Whatever' to the rules and keep in touch with your players. The Bucs just got fined 100,000 big ones for improper lockout contact. Sure, it's more money up front. But wouldn't you rather spend $100,000 to practice illegally than $75,000 getting pissed because it looks like you don't practice at all?
- Lots of times, we can tell if we're starting to get stressed way before we have a big blow up. And when that happens, we just have to find someone that we're comfortable talking to. Blow off a little steam, get some feedback, and we're good to go. Crisis averted. Borrow a page from Troy Polamalu's book and just keep a cell phone handy on the sidelines for such an occasion. That'll only cost you 10k, and save you a fortune (depending on your cell phone plan, of course).
- Sometimes a little talky-talky doesn't really do the soul any good though. In those instances, the best thing you can do is find someone in a vulnerable, defenseless position and just unload on them. Knock that poor bastard into next week. It won't save you a ton of change (Ryan Clark was fined $40,000 for hitting a defenseless receiver), but the satisfaction it brings will make up for it in spades.
- Don't be afraid to do something a little bit dangerous...as far as fashion goes. The NFL had to fine Earl Bennett twice (for a total of 15,000) and threatened him with an additional $15,000 fine for wearing bright orange shoes during two games (instead of the acceptable orange and blue shoes). Why the fine? I posit that it's because Earl was just working those shoes, man!
- It's okay to admit that you don't like Tom Brady. You hate him. You don't have to pretend with me, Rexy- I know how you feel about him. Especially when you look at your own QB (Mark Sanchez) and see how much he sucks when compared to Brady. It's like that cocky neighbor kid you just can't stand...except you keep comparing him to your own kid and realizing how much better he is than your kid and so you still hate the neighbor kid but now you don't really like your own kid and ALRIGHT ALREADY JUST HIT HIM IN THE KNEE- JUST TAKE A SLEDGEHAMMER TO THAT #*%$*#@*% KNEE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!! Cost of relief- $15,000 (as long as it's you nicknaming one of your players 'Sledgehammer'. An actual sledgehammer to the knee will probably run you much more than $15,000)
- Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Take A.J. Hawk for example. In a game earlier this year, Hawk decided to fly the Middle Finger flag- and only got docked $10,000. Think about it man- if you just flip the bird when you're in the tunnel, instead of using that sweet, sultry baritone booming voice to thunder the old 'F.U.'- you'd most likely still have that $75,000 to spend on Twinkies. Worst case scenario, you're only out $10,000.
Of course, it'd probably be best if you just handled it like your peers do. After the game, charge across the field like a crazy-eyed Jack Nicholson, launch yourself into the air (as much as is possible after charging all the way across the field) and simply slam into the opponents coach- a la Jim Harbaugh/Schwartz. That might be the least appropriate course of action, though. After all, as a coach, you're expected to model acceptable behavior and model fine, upstanding citizenry. And to do something like that would cost you way more than the $75,...wait, what? They didn't get fined? Never mind. Break out the Sledgehammer.
Information regarding fines was used from several articles on NFL.com
PIC- Kirk- http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/Kirk%20Herbstreit.jpg
Christian- http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/blogs/popwrap/200809/Images/200809_christian_siriano41.jpg
True, I think he talks way too much trash for someone who hasn't really done anything except almost make it to two Super Bowls. And...actually, I guess now that I think about it, the only thing I really hold against him is his bravado. Hmmm...he might actually be a decent guy!
Let's see...his players seem to love playing for him. He has a better sense of humor than most coaches. Rexy has, for the most part, been a successful head coach- two trips to the AFC title game the last two years (his first two on the job, OH BY THE WAY). He's quite portly, which gives me and my expanding waistline hope for success. Shoot, I might have just talked myself into the Rex Ryan fan club. Thank you, Thanksgiving!
Since I'm Rex's newest BFF, I have no other alternative than to come to the defense of my closest friend. Today, the NFL announced that Rex Ryan would be fined $75,000 for swearing at a fan. Here's the video if you haven't seen it:
 | |||
| And don't forget beautiful college girls |
I'm not really bothered by either incident, actually. I've already talked about how words are really just formations of letters that are devoid of meaning unless it's assigned meaning from an external source. An 'eff bomb' here or there doesn't really bother me at all- in fact, Lee Corso doubled my joy intake for his gaffer. I just find it terrible that Ryan's more defensible act cost him 75,000 bones while Corso's seemingly more pre-meditated (at best, less of an emotional reaction) cost him a five-second apology.
Okay, okay, my ill-conceived and baseless rant in defense of my buddy is over. Yes I was wrong. I recognize that there are rules for a reason and that Ryan clearly violated the sportsmanship clause of the disciplinary policy. As the coach of an NFL team, you can't take your frustrations out on the poor, defenseless
But this is where I show Rex that I'm a real friend. Because not only did I stick up for him- but I'm going to help him do better next time. I did some exhaustive research (by that I mean I read like, four articles maybe) and found some ways that Rex can blow off some steam, maintain a sense of self-deviance, and save a bundle of money (or at least get more bang for his buck).
- Try to rip off an opponents head by grabbing the face mask and just ripping that puppy off. That only cost Matthew Stafford $7,500. Savings- $67,500
- Allow someone to try and tear your head off and then get pissed and retaliate, just like D.J. Moore did. Sure, you'll get fined twice as much as the guy who tries the initial head/neck breach ($15,000), but you'll still save a cool $60,000.
- Next time there's a lockout, just say 'Whatever' to the rules and keep in touch with your players. The Bucs just got fined 100,000 big ones for improper lockout contact. Sure, it's more money up front. But wouldn't you rather spend $100,000 to practice illegally than $75,000 getting pissed because it looks like you don't practice at all?
- Lots of times, we can tell if we're starting to get stressed way before we have a big blow up. And when that happens, we just have to find someone that we're comfortable talking to. Blow off a little steam, get some feedback, and we're good to go. Crisis averted. Borrow a page from Troy Polamalu's book and just keep a cell phone handy on the sidelines for such an occasion. That'll only cost you 10k, and save you a fortune (depending on your cell phone plan, of course).
- Sometimes a little talky-talky doesn't really do the soul any good though. In those instances, the best thing you can do is find someone in a vulnerable, defenseless position and just unload on them. Knock that poor bastard into next week. It won't save you a ton of change (Ryan Clark was fined $40,000 for hitting a defenseless receiver), but the satisfaction it brings will make up for it in spades.
- Don't be afraid to do something a little bit dangerous...as far as fashion goes. The NFL had to fine Earl Bennett twice (for a total of 15,000) and threatened him with an additional $15,000 fine for wearing bright orange shoes during two games (instead of the acceptable orange and blue shoes). Why the fine? I posit that it's because Earl was just working those shoes, man!
 |
| Admit it- you would pretend to care about fashion to be this close to Heidi Klum. |
- Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Take A.J. Hawk for example. In a game earlier this year, Hawk decided to fly the Middle Finger flag- and only got docked $10,000. Think about it man- if you just flip the bird when you're in the tunnel, instead of using that sweet, sultry baritone booming voice to thunder the old 'F.U.'- you'd most likely still have that $75,000 to spend on Twinkies. Worst case scenario, you're only out $10,000.
Of course, it'd probably be best if you just handled it like your peers do. After the game, charge across the field like a crazy-eyed Jack Nicholson, launch yourself into the air (as much as is possible after charging all the way across the field) and simply slam into the opponents coach- a la Jim Harbaugh/Schwartz. That might be the least appropriate course of action, though. After all, as a coach, you're expected to model acceptable behavior and model fine, upstanding citizenry. And to do something like that would cost you way more than the $75,...wait, what? They didn't get fined? Never mind. Break out the Sledgehammer.
Information regarding fines was used from several articles on NFL.com
PIC- Kirk- http://www.clevelandleader.com/files/Kirk%20Herbstreit.jpg
Christian- http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/blogs/popwrap/200809/Images/200809_christian_siriano41.jpg
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Everyone wants to keep CHRIST in Christmas...what about MAS?
Well, November is over halfway done, and Thanksgiving is next week (this week if you're one of those crazies that starts their week on Sunday), which can only mean one thing- Christmas season started 3 weeks ago.
Normally I'm all gung-ho for Christmas. A couple years ago, I spontaneously decorated the house one early November weekend because we got an inch of snow. This year....well, this year I'm trying to remember that Turkey Day technically comes first chronologically and there's still a whole month to enjoy the Christmas festivities afterwards. Besides, snow (obviously) plays a huge role in my Christmaspiritometer, and Marquette has been going through a period of snow impotence lately. I mean, I woke up to our first snow day of the year to find this on the ground:
Most people don't care about that though, and so Christmas has begun. Viva la Christmas!
With the onset of the Christmas fever, it is inevitable that Facebook walls, Twitter, message boards, and church signs everywhere will begin the War on anti-christ-mas and those unholy spawns of Satan who want to ninja-sneak into our beds and slice the CHRIST right out of CHRISTmas- leaving behind a poor, tired, huddled -Mas. Indeed, it has already begun, and can only lead to a holly, jolly blood bath, some amped up rhetoric, and all of us waking up on December 26th just to realize no one really changed anyone's mind or made any headway in winning the war. Nope- we just took a month of peace and goodwill, dragged it out back, and shot it in the face. Ho ho ho indeed.
It doesn't have to be this way though. Because here's the thing about holidays- they are what you make them. You. Singular. Emphasis on YOU. You decide the meaning of the holiday. I literally cannot make this any more clear. Seriously, I can't. I bolded/underlined/italicized it. Then I changed the size and the font. Finally, I gave it some color (Christmas colors in fact). The only thing I could do at this point would be to provide a hyperlink, but if you can't understand it here, you sure as heck aren't going to understand it there, where they don't even go to the trouble of providing such witty banter and excellent service.
Think about the various Christmas traditions. Santa Claus. Christmas trees. The decorations. The giving of the gifts. Even the date (December 25th). All of them have some basis on Pagan traditions. But most of us don't care about that because all of those things mean something completely different to us now. Saturnaila is out of the picture. We aren't worshipping the trees by adorning them with precious idols.
And we are able to celebrate free from the stain of guilt on our pious consciences because we have made these customs our own. Each person, each family folds a desired practice into their celebration and lets the other things fall by the wayside.
This doesn't just go for Christmas, either. It's all holidays. In our family, Halloween is not some big Satan fest (we celebrate that on 'SomeBigSatanFest Day')- it's a day where we get to dress up like Batman and go get free candy. I'm sure I have spent at least a few Thanksgivings without giving thanks for anything besides that big old turkey we chomping at the bit for. On Easter we teach our kids about the time the Easter Bunny rose from the dead to check if there was six more weeks of winter and to give all the good little boys and girls of the world pastel candy.
Of course, we also have the freedom to ignore holidays should we so choose. Columbus Day pretty much comes and goes like any other non-Columbus Day in our house (except with disruption to the mail and banking sectors. Even in death, Chris Columbus is giving us the finger).
I believe the reason that things started to shift away from Christmas and towards Wintersmas is that some people couldn't understand/accept the idea of different beliefs being taught than what they believed and felt persecuted. Then they went on a crusade for their beliefs. So the powers-that-be, not really understanding how to accommodate minority belief systems without upsetting the majority, just decided that nobody gets to play Special Winter Holiday today (which is honestly how any good parent decides a dispute between their two children fighting over the same toy. That is what good parents do, right?). Many Christians, not understanding/accepting the idea of different beliefs than what they believed, started to feel persecuted and began to crusade for their beliefs.
Just saying.
Personally, I have no problem saying 'happy holidays' to someone. I'm acknowledging the fact that there are like, a bunch of holidays in the span of a month as well as acknowledging respect for another persons feelings and beliefs. Maybe they celebrate Christmas because of Jesus, maybe they even celebrate Christmas without Jesus (because, let's be honest- the idea of unlimited sweets, free stuff, and two weeks off of school are all pretty good non-religious reasons to celebrate Christmas), and maybe they don't celebrate Christmas period. In a country that was forged by a group of people fleeing religious persecution, I don't mind not persecuting someone's religion.
Myself, I wouldn't mind if schools allowed the incorporation of different festivities- and not just so I could keep my CHRISTmas. It'd be a way for my kids to learn about people outside their tiny bubble. I mean, come on- most children end up believing what their parents believe anyways so it's not like our kids are going to drift away into heresy. As long as we're actively involved in their lives, and they know we love them and want what is best for them, we have nothing to fear about them being exposed to things outside of our comfort zone. If we actually embraced differences (instead of treating them like they're a great big game of Hot Potato) then maybe our kids would grow up and realize that 'Hey. We can, you know...actually talk about our differences in a respectful fashion and maybe not just hate each other because of some invisible, ideological divide'. Crazy talk, I know.
PICS- Columubs- http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/10/10/o_henry/
John McClane- http://media.screened.com/uploads/1/13855/580047-3.jpg
Normally I'm all gung-ho for Christmas. A couple years ago, I spontaneously decorated the house one early November weekend because we got an inch of snow. This year....well, this year I'm trying to remember that Turkey Day technically comes first chronologically and there's still a whole month to enjoy the Christmas festivities afterwards. Besides, snow (obviously) plays a huge role in my Christmaspiritometer, and Marquette has been going through a period of snow impotence lately. I mean, I woke up to our first snow day of the year to find this on the ground:
 |
| In serious need of some snow Viagra. |
With the onset of the Christmas fever, it is inevitable that Facebook walls, Twitter, message boards, and church signs everywhere will begin the War on anti-christ-mas and those unholy spawns of Satan who want to ninja-sneak into our beds and slice the CHRIST right out of CHRISTmas- leaving behind a poor, tired, huddled -Mas. Indeed, it has already begun, and can only lead to a holly, jolly blood bath, some amped up rhetoric, and all of us waking up on December 26th just to realize no one really changed anyone's mind or made any headway in winning the war. Nope- we just took a month of peace and goodwill, dragged it out back, and shot it in the face. Ho ho ho indeed.
It doesn't have to be this way though. Because here's the thing about holidays- they are what you make them. You. Singular. Emphasis on YOU. You decide the meaning of the holiday. I literally cannot make this any more clear. Seriously, I can't. I bolded/underlined/italicized it. Then I changed the size and the font. Finally, I gave it some color (Christmas colors in fact). The only thing I could do at this point would be to provide a hyperlink, but if you can't understand it here, you sure as heck aren't going to understand it there, where they don't even go to the trouble of providing such witty banter and excellent service.
Think about the various Christmas traditions. Santa Claus. Christmas trees. The decorations. The giving of the gifts. Even the date (December 25th). All of them have some basis on Pagan traditions. But most of us don't care about that because all of those things mean something completely different to us now. Saturnaila is out of the picture. We aren't worshipping the trees by adorning them with precious idols.
And we are able to celebrate free from the stain of guilt on our pious consciences because we have made these customs our own. Each person, each family folds a desired practice into their celebration and lets the other things fall by the wayside.
This doesn't just go for Christmas, either. It's all holidays. In our family, Halloween is not some big Satan fest (we celebrate that on 'SomeBigSatanFest Day')- it's a day where we get to dress up like Batman and go get free candy. I'm sure I have spent at least a few Thanksgivings without giving thanks for anything besides that big old turkey we chomping at the bit for. On Easter we teach our kids about the time the Easter Bunny rose from the dead to check if there was six more weeks of winter and to give all the good little boys and girls of the world pastel candy.
Of course, we also have the freedom to ignore holidays should we so choose. Columbus Day pretty much comes and goes like any other non-Columbus Day in our house (except with disruption to the mail and banking sectors. Even in death, Chris Columbus is giving us the finger).
 |
| No holiday pay for you, SUCKAS!!!! |
Just saying.
Personally, I have no problem saying 'happy holidays' to someone. I'm acknowledging the fact that there are like, a bunch of holidays in the span of a month as well as acknowledging respect for another persons feelings and beliefs. Maybe they celebrate Christmas because of Jesus, maybe they even celebrate Christmas without Jesus (because, let's be honest- the idea of unlimited sweets, free stuff, and two weeks off of school are all pretty good non-religious reasons to celebrate Christmas), and maybe they don't celebrate Christmas period. In a country that was forged by a group of people fleeing religious persecution, I don't mind not persecuting someone's religion.
If you want to keep Christ in Christmas, then first try being Christ-like. Jesus didn't run around waving the sword of "Na-nana boo-boo" or smashing people over the head with the hammer of "Pwn'd n00bs". By and large, his earthly ministry was based on kindness, compassion, and humility. Of course, we take that example and become the religious equivalent of John McClane.
 |
| Shoot first, shoot later. THEN ask questions. Then shoot them too. |
Look, Jesus was the Son of God, right? The Son of freaking God. Not only that, but He was freaking God Himself. But He humbled Himself to come down to Earth to hang with us, teach us all really good lessons, and then die for our sins. I think if God was willing to do that...then maybe this Christmas we can all humble ourselves and spread some peace and goodwill instead of lobbing culture bombs at our demon neighbors.
PICS- Columubs- http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2005/10/10/o_henry/
John McClane- http://media.screened.com/uploads/1/13855/580047-3.jpg
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Assassins Creed: Revelations comes out today...which means I won't be getting it for a couple months
This blog is one of those rare entities where the title of my blog pretty much says what I want the whole blog to say. And if you want to leave right now, I wouldn't blame you. You've probably spent minutes, if not hours, reading my posts before only to arrive at the end with your neck involuntarily spasming and contracting your face into your desk. So leave now if you must. I won't hold it against you. You'll just miss out on the chance to win free money.
Now that I have you hooked, I'm going to tell you that there actually is no chance at winning free money. But hahaha- you're hooked! You can't just leave now! You'd look/feel foolish. So even though you'll keep reading until the end with slightly blushing cheeks and an increasingly complex plan for vengeance, by the time you reach the end of this I'll most likely be washing my hair in another country. Also, you'll notice that I've managed to stretch a blog that admittedly was summarized in the title into two whole paragraphs.
But let's get down to some business. Because I do actually have something I would consider to be relevant commentary on the thesis I proposed in my title.
Yes, the new Assassins Creed game (Revelations) comes out today and I want it- bad. In fact, on my Wishpot wish list, I gave it the highest desire ranking I could- I neeeed it! I've played through the first three games (although Assassins Creed: Revelations is not Assassins Creed IV...it's more like II.III), and could conceivably never own another (non-Assassins Creed) game for the rest of my life. They're amazing.
The Assassins Creed games are basically every dudes fantasy set a few hundred years in the past. Your whole job is to climb up buildings, kick butt, mess with the local police force, and sometimes kill bad guys. You have an almost unlimited means of income. You can rent women. At any given time, you'll have a pistol, two hidden daggers, a sword, a knife, some vials of poison, and several throwing blades on your person. You are always in peak physical fitness and you can traipse around the city wearing robes and armor. In other words, this is exactly the kind of stuff we used to play when we were kids, except our weapons were sticks and women were still the enemy (cooties are much like a weaponized Krippen virus back then). I don't need to buy any more video games ever...that is, until they make a new Assassins Creed game.
I'm mostly joking when I say this, but that's pretty much what capitalism is built on- the production and consumption of things that we don't really need. And the people that make these things (and the people that market them) are very, VERY good at their jobs. Sure, I don't need this game at all in a technical sense, and I definitely need things like toilet paper, gasoline, and a place to live much more than I need to roam around virtual Constantinople in the 1500s. I know these things in my head. I know the the games $59.99 price tag will go down considerably after a few months, and I'll be able to play the same game but for cheaper (while also having a home where I can wipe my bum with the toilet paper I drove to the store to buy).
But that didn't stop me from having to basically strap myself to a chair and take myself offline over the past week as my mind kept trying to figure out some way, any way, to get my hands on that game on the day it came out. "How much cushion do we have in the checking account? How much remaining balance is on that credit card? How much could I get if I sold this game or that book or those children? Hey, I could order from here and open a new account...". Even though I rationally understand that the ability to wait will give us added financial stability while saving money in the long run, my brain was still trying to convince me to just go ahead and get the game already. Thanks a lot, brain.
Please understand, I'm not looking for sympathy (maybe a little) or a handout (although I wouldn't give it back)- I'm just relaying the ridiculous struggle that I'm sure millions of Americans go through when their favorite book/movie/game/toy is released to stores. Somehow, whether from our parents or our friends or commercials or our own humanity (or a combination of the above), we get roped into the capitalist mindset and struggle to suppress immediate gratification for trivia even though the practical situational reality should work just fine to ensure that we focus our energies on the bottom parts of the hierarchy. You know, just things like FOOD. WATER. SHELTER.
Capitalism doesn't want to hear that noise though, so they created credit cards. And while things have changed in recent years to make things less unfair for credit card users (including not having college kids sitting around giving out free t-shirts for signing up for your first credit card), that doesn't change the reality for myself and millions of Americans.
I don't think this is a moral issue or something where it makes me (and people like me) somehow 'inferior' to others. The system was created to exploit us! I'm frustrated that the Occupy Wall Street dividing line seems to be between hippie socialists and stoic Great Depression survivors. Many on the stoic side say , "If I want something I just save for it. I don't live past my means". Which is, by all accounts, outstanding. I commend you. That doesn't give you the right to look down on the rest of us, but I commend you.
Unfortunately, that's not everybody. And it isn't that I want a bailout, or a do-over. I made mistakes- I know that, I own them, and have no problem paying back the money that I borrowed against my future to pay for the present. That's my role in all this. I may not have completely understood the ramifications, but I at least knew that I'd have to pay this money back.
The system is still screwed up though. It's designed around people like me. Without people like me, it falls apart. So they use crazy powerful science to manipulate our feelings, emotions, thinking and get us to desire things that we don't really need (or even want)...and then they give us the means to purchase those things even when we don't have the means. That's why I'm generally for the Occupy movement. The system is designed to keep the masses suppressed and immobilized while a select few hold onto the resources and power in our society.
But I'm getting slightly off topic. I honestly didn't mean to turn this into anti-capitalist propaganda. I actually was hoping primarily to talk about how I'm refocusing my other blog. You know, the Sojourn Boulevard one? What am I talking about- of course you remember. Pretend like I didn't even question.
I'm pretty much turning it into my own little on-line journal/diary/what have you about Ezio's escapades through late 15th-early 16th century Italy. There's three games (as well as some novels and a wiki), so I should have lots of info for plenty of shenanigans to keep me busy. I will miss the Darth Vader/Dr. Manhattan/Ezio roomie situation (and possibly one day will bring it back), but in the end I just don't have the chops to pull it off right now. Not that I have the chops to pull of most of what I write, but hey, what do you expect? Don't look for it anytime soon necessarily- I've actually taken it offline for the time being- because I'm trying to focus more on seriousy type stuff. But I just wanted to let you, the faithful reader, be in the know before the know gets known. Ya know?
So now- aren't you glad you finished reading this post? Please, don't answer that.
PIC- https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZpEv46uXahSw9S0bZ8K8ogVBbeobrWDV1A6PFsATEd8fUf_W40iEcjnl3g5JUTSbZFYxwxaukGEFoWUH2V0XjnMKVWzceQAIWsbgJ7PDsw9GQDs3xVaHyD8c2eVdvNRw4UW3yOvNyBRk/s1600/Can-t-Buy-Me-Love-caps-patrick-dempsey-7134090-720-528.jpg
Now that I have you hooked, I'm going to tell you that there actually is no chance at winning free money. But hahaha- you're hooked! You can't just leave now! You'd look/feel foolish. So even though you'll keep reading until the end with slightly blushing cheeks and an increasingly complex plan for vengeance, by the time you reach the end of this I'll most likely be washing my hair in another country. Also, you'll notice that I've managed to stretch a blog that admittedly was summarized in the title into two whole paragraphs.
 |
| (I just wanted a chance to show a picture of pre-meltingly hot Patrick McDreamy Pants) |
Yes, the new Assassins Creed game (Revelations) comes out today and I want it- bad. In fact, on my Wishpot wish list, I gave it the highest desire ranking I could- I neeeed it! I've played through the first three games (although Assassins Creed: Revelations is not Assassins Creed IV...it's more like II.III), and could conceivably never own another (non-Assassins Creed) game for the rest of my life. They're amazing.
The Assassins Creed games are basically every dudes fantasy set a few hundred years in the past. Your whole job is to climb up buildings, kick butt, mess with the local police force, and sometimes kill bad guys. You have an almost unlimited means of income. You can rent women. At any given time, you'll have a pistol, two hidden daggers, a sword, a knife, some vials of poison, and several throwing blades on your person. You are always in peak physical fitness and you can traipse around the city wearing robes and armor. In other words, this is exactly the kind of stuff we used to play when we were kids, except our weapons were sticks and women were still the enemy (cooties are much like a weaponized Krippen virus back then). I don't need to buy any more video games ever...that is, until they make a new Assassins Creed game.
I'm mostly joking when I say this, but that's pretty much what capitalism is built on- the production and consumption of things that we don't really need. And the people that make these things (and the people that market them) are very, VERY good at their jobs. Sure, I don't need this game at all in a technical sense, and I definitely need things like toilet paper, gasoline, and a place to live much more than I need to roam around virtual Constantinople in the 1500s. I know these things in my head. I know the the games $59.99 price tag will go down considerably after a few months, and I'll be able to play the same game but for cheaper (while also having a home where I can wipe my bum with the toilet paper I drove to the store to buy).
But that didn't stop me from having to basically strap myself to a chair and take myself offline over the past week as my mind kept trying to figure out some way, any way, to get my hands on that game on the day it came out. "How much cushion do we have in the checking account? How much remaining balance is on that credit card? How much could I get if I sold this game or that book or those children? Hey, I could order from here and open a new account...". Even though I rationally understand that the ability to wait will give us added financial stability while saving money in the long run, my brain was still trying to convince me to just go ahead and get the game already. Thanks a lot, brain.
Please understand, I'm not looking for sympathy (maybe a little) or a handout (although I wouldn't give it back)- I'm just relaying the ridiculous struggle that I'm sure millions of Americans go through when their favorite book/movie/game/toy is released to stores. Somehow, whether from our parents or our friends or commercials or our own humanity (or a combination of the above), we get roped into the capitalist mindset and struggle to suppress immediate gratification for trivia even though the practical situational reality should work just fine to ensure that we focus our energies on the bottom parts of the hierarchy. You know, just things like FOOD. WATER. SHELTER.
Capitalism doesn't want to hear that noise though, so they created credit cards. And while things have changed in recent years to make things less unfair for credit card users (including not having college kids sitting around giving out free t-shirts for signing up for your first credit card), that doesn't change the reality for myself and millions of Americans.
I don't think this is a moral issue or something where it makes me (and people like me) somehow 'inferior' to others. The system was created to exploit us! I'm frustrated that the Occupy Wall Street dividing line seems to be between hippie socialists and stoic Great Depression survivors. Many on the stoic side say , "If I want something I just save for it. I don't live past my means". Which is, by all accounts, outstanding. I commend you. That doesn't give you the right to look down on the rest of us, but I commend you.
Unfortunately, that's not everybody. And it isn't that I want a bailout, or a do-over. I made mistakes- I know that, I own them, and have no problem paying back the money that I borrowed against my future to pay for the present. That's my role in all this. I may not have completely understood the ramifications, but I at least knew that I'd have to pay this money back.
The system is still screwed up though. It's designed around people like me. Without people like me, it falls apart. So they use crazy powerful science to manipulate our feelings, emotions, thinking and get us to desire things that we don't really need (or even want)...and then they give us the means to purchase those things even when we don't have the means. That's why I'm generally for the Occupy movement. The system is designed to keep the masses suppressed and immobilized while a select few hold onto the resources and power in our society.
But I'm getting slightly off topic. I honestly didn't mean to turn this into anti-capitalist propaganda. I actually was hoping primarily to talk about how I'm refocusing my other blog. You know, the Sojourn Boulevard one? What am I talking about- of course you remember. Pretend like I didn't even question.
I'm pretty much turning it into my own little on-line journal/diary/what have you about Ezio's escapades through late 15th-early 16th century Italy. There's three games (as well as some novels and a wiki), so I should have lots of info for plenty of shenanigans to keep me busy. I will miss the Darth Vader/Dr. Manhattan/Ezio roomie situation (and possibly one day will bring it back), but in the end I just don't have the chops to pull it off right now. Not that I have the chops to pull of most of what I write, but hey, what do you expect? Don't look for it anytime soon necessarily- I've actually taken it offline for the time being- because I'm trying to focus more on seriousy type stuff. But I just wanted to let you, the faithful reader, be in the know before the know gets known. Ya know?
So now- aren't you glad you finished reading this post? Please, don't answer that.
PIC- https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZpEv46uXahSw9S0bZ8K8ogVBbeobrWDV1A6PFsATEd8fUf_W40iEcjnl3g5JUTSbZFYxwxaukGEFoWUH2V0XjnMKVWzceQAIWsbgJ7PDsw9GQDs3xVaHyD8c2eVdvNRw4UW3yOvNyBRk/s1600/Can-t-Buy-Me-Love-caps-patrick-dempsey-7134090-720-528.jpg
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Least Likely to Succeed: The review
Last week, I privileged you with a copy of my first (and so far only) published work. If you haven't read it (and judging from the page view stats from Google, almost 7 billion of you haven't), then you need to stop doing whatever it is that you are doing that isn't reading my blog- and go read it. It will change your life- or at least give my page view a bump.
Now that you've read it, I can tell you that it's not my best work (it's about ten years old after all). Hey I couldn't have told you that before you read it- then you might not have read it. Sometimes a little trickery is involved in this business. I don't make the rules- I just play by them.
Understand that I still think it's pretty good. I proudly claim it as my own. It's just....rough around the edges. In fact, when I first went through to type it out, I got about two paragraphs in when I realized that some serious rewriting could be done. I danced around points, was overly wordy, and on more than one occasion did not successfully link points together. STOP NODDING YOUR HEADS, ALL OF YOU!!!!
I ended up deciding against it- on the condition that I could critique it. Not really critique it (that's an actual skill that I actually don't possess)- I guess I was thinking I'd provide, like, the directors commentary as a bonus feature. Like any good directors commentary, I will seek to be equal parts informative, funny, and not-boring.
Let's just start with a technical issue- my love of the comma has not cooled at all. It's as if I'm working on a comma commission, or a comma-ission. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. I could be rich!
Seriously though, grammar has never been one of my strong suits, and this piece wears my incompetence proudly. Although I do feel that grammar is merely an artificial system set up by higher education to further illuminate the difference between the haves and the have-nots. So maybe I'm just like the grammar Robin Hood, sticking it to the establishment every time I misuse punctuation. That's how I sleep at night, anyways...
Second, I was so focused on discerning the mystery meaning of Tolkien's words that the idea that an audience will attach their own meanings onto the subject completely passed me by. Yes, Tolkien's beliefs would at the very least shade his writings in some way- but a reader would do the same thing with their own beliefs, meaning that my role was not so much herald of Tolkien's secret message- but more of hit-you-over-the-head harbinger of my own message.
In fact, that's probably my biggest frustration with this piece- I wrote it through the eyes of my younger, fundamentally religious self that looked to slap the Jesus label on anything and everything. There was no part of me that would have ever thought "Hey, maybe Tolkien just wrote this book because he had some really cool dreams"- everything was black and white to me, and I had to try and fit my own ideas and beliefs with the fact that Lord of the Rings existed.
That doesn't nullify my paper necessarily. Obviously I was writing out of the meaning that I attached to it. It's not wrong to have opinions, and my interpretation was pretty 'pro' actually (for the non-inundated, 'pro' is pretty much the best thing you can be called). Isn't that why we read movie reviews and book reviews and watch shows like 'The View' and 'Pardon the Interruption' (and no, I don't watch 'The View' anymore)? We enjoy to hear what other people thing about things. That way we can either strengthen our own beliefs and views or else feel righteous indignation that someone doesn't agree with us.
It's just that when I read this piece, it's like 23 year old Jason is in the room, talking to me, and I want to acknowledge him for everything that he meant to 32 year old Jason- while also telling him to chill out and just enjoy life. There doesn't have to be a spiritual meaning in everything. It's okay to just watch a good movie or read a good book. You don't have to write Bible verses on the cash drop envelopes at the Gas Station. If you see a license plate from Texas, don't read too much into it. Some things in life...just...are.
Back to technical disproficiency. As I am wont to do, I strayed a little off topic and spent a few too many words that were ultimately inconsequential to the main point, which was that Frodo was a parallel to Christ. I still like that premise- I think Frodo's quest parallels the Jesus QUEST of biblical lore. I just could have shaved a couple paragraphs by skipping over the Messianic qualifications of Aragorn and Gandalf (and saved that for my own little trilogy of essays) and just gone straight to Frodo...which was the point of the essay.
Of course, it doesn't matter what the point of the essay was if there was nobody to deliver it to, and that's probably the biggest glaring weakness- no real focused audience. Sometimes I feel like I'm writing to Christians, other times to non-Christians. Sometimes I'm explaining basic Lord of the Rings concepts like I'm writing a 'One Ring for Dummies' book, explaining the Ringwraiths and Rivendell. Then I basically turn around and quote the Silmarillion, quote Erestor, name-drop the Ainur and I even freaking called Mount Doom Orodruin.
At that point, I really don't think I understood the importance of knowing your audience. One could make the argument that I still don't, to which I say 'hold still while I go get a heavy iron pan'. My favorite authors to read are the ones who know their audience and cater to that audience. Bill Simmons. The guys at Cracked.com. Granted, they chose largely to write to simpletons like me- but still. I love it. It might just be that I feel like I'm a part of a bigger community when I read their stuff, so I view it more favorably- or it could be that they know who they are and who they're writing for, and that leads to more focus.
I'm also struck by a lack of research. Back then, I really didn't have any clue how big the world is, and how much information is out there. Of course, a lot of it is just airheads like me flying off the cuff. But at least I have the pretense of subjecting myself to a higher standard. Not back then though.
For instance,my comparison between Sauron and Satan was not necessarily based in empirical fact or comparison to other literary villains- or even an actual literary assessment of Satan himself- but my own understanding of what I had been told about Satan. The problem with that is that it can easily sound like I know what I'm talking about without actually knowing what I'm talking about. That's how misinformation can spread.
I'm better now about fact checking than I used to be, but sometimes things get past the goalie. A few weeks ago I forwarded around what I was told was the last-ever strip of Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. It's been out of circulation for about 15 years, so I knew it had ended, but I didn't explicitly remember the strip. The one forwarded to me was this terribly sad strip where Calvin has been put on some medication and is furiously working on some report. Hobbes wants to play, but Calvin wants to get the report done. The last shot is Calvin working while the stuffed Tiger Hobbes just sits there. It almost brought tears to my eyes- how sad, that Calvin's imagination and wonder were taken away by the system trying to control him!
Of course, then when I actually Googled the last strip, it was something much more hopeful and the above-mentioned strip was some sort of sick, bizarre fan submission or something (of course, maybe it's not. CURSE YOU INTERNET!!!). The point is that I'm trying to work towards a point where the things I write and say are either blatantly personal opinion or well researched stated facts. Least Likely To Succeed was blatantly personal opinion mixed with a lot of heresay facts. That might cut it some places- but that's not where I want to be, either as a writer or as a person.
The thing I missed the most though was my trademark humor (although some people might not miss it or worse yet- not think I'm funny at all. EEK). I do think this was probably intentional, partially because of the tone of the piece (serious) and largely due to the fact that I really hadn't discovered my own voice yet as a writer (other than the overuse of commas and utilizing superfluous words like they were going out of style).
Despite my missteps and whatnot, I do feel like it was a fairly well constructed essay, and I was setting up for the dramatic ending haymaker and.....well, I just sort of fizzled. "With the victory He purchased, we don't have to". Really? That's the dramatic ending? Geeze- the haymaker ended up more like a grazing slap across the shoulder.
All in all, I'm glad I went back into the vault and read this piece. It's always good to look back and see areas of growth as well as areas that still need tweeking. As cringing as it was at times, it was still a tremendous experience to have something I crafted see publication- no matter how small of an audience got to see it. I had a lot of fun working on the piece, and I am proud to have contributed to keeping the Lord of the Rings alive- a timeless tale of fantasy, good-versus evil, friendship...and whatever else you decide it is.
PIC- https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXDHHkvaIYk_gAZ6O45BhBHnhmMVbomahLsInlxnv6-rk99FnSmfBnKom6AJg-aABZCyizmKxAzy7llRocaOpSKlE9H2OiFc5Yfm2gH_iy14Bi9VpsMRZFKUVKKFGP-jKsKqtbJBM068A/s1600/nice+ad%252C+old+spice+sea+captain.png
Now that you've read it, I can tell you that it's not my best work (it's about ten years old after all). Hey I couldn't have told you that before you read it- then you might not have read it. Sometimes a little trickery is involved in this business. I don't make the rules- I just play by them.
Understand that I still think it's pretty good. I proudly claim it as my own. It's just....rough around the edges. In fact, when I first went through to type it out, I got about two paragraphs in when I realized that some serious rewriting could be done. I danced around points, was overly wordy, and on more than one occasion did not successfully link points together. STOP NODDING YOUR HEADS, ALL OF YOU!!!!
I ended up deciding against it- on the condition that I could critique it. Not really critique it (that's an actual skill that I actually don't possess)- I guess I was thinking I'd provide, like, the directors commentary as a bonus feature. Like any good directors commentary, I will seek to be equal parts informative, funny, and not-boring.
Let's just start with a technical issue- my love of the comma has not cooled at all. It's as if I'm working on a comma commission, or a comma-ission. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. I could be rich!
 |
| And have a beard. And also, I'm punching a giant squid on my shoulder. |
Second, I was so focused on discerning the mystery meaning of Tolkien's words that the idea that an audience will attach their own meanings onto the subject completely passed me by. Yes, Tolkien's beliefs would at the very least shade his writings in some way- but a reader would do the same thing with their own beliefs, meaning that my role was not so much herald of Tolkien's secret message- but more of hit-you-over-the-head harbinger of my own message.
In fact, that's probably my biggest frustration with this piece- I wrote it through the eyes of my younger, fundamentally religious self that looked to slap the Jesus label on anything and everything. There was no part of me that would have ever thought "Hey, maybe Tolkien just wrote this book because he had some really cool dreams"- everything was black and white to me, and I had to try and fit my own ideas and beliefs with the fact that Lord of the Rings existed.
That doesn't nullify my paper necessarily. Obviously I was writing out of the meaning that I attached to it. It's not wrong to have opinions, and my interpretation was pretty 'pro' actually (for the non-inundated, 'pro' is pretty much the best thing you can be called). Isn't that why we read movie reviews and book reviews and watch shows like 'The View' and 'Pardon the Interruption' (and no, I don't watch 'The View' anymore)? We enjoy to hear what other people thing about things. That way we can either strengthen our own beliefs and views or else feel righteous indignation that someone doesn't agree with us.
It's just that when I read this piece, it's like 23 year old Jason is in the room, talking to me, and I want to acknowledge him for everything that he meant to 32 year old Jason- while also telling him to chill out and just enjoy life. There doesn't have to be a spiritual meaning in everything. It's okay to just watch a good movie or read a good book. You don't have to write Bible verses on the cash drop envelopes at the Gas Station. If you see a license plate from Texas, don't read too much into it. Some things in life...just...are.
Back to technical disproficiency. As I am wont to do, I strayed a little off topic and spent a few too many words that were ultimately inconsequential to the main point, which was that Frodo was a parallel to Christ. I still like that premise- I think Frodo's quest parallels the Jesus QUEST of biblical lore. I just could have shaved a couple paragraphs by skipping over the Messianic qualifications of Aragorn and Gandalf (and saved that for my own little trilogy of essays) and just gone straight to Frodo...which was the point of the essay.
Of course, it doesn't matter what the point of the essay was if there was nobody to deliver it to, and that's probably the biggest glaring weakness- no real focused audience. Sometimes I feel like I'm writing to Christians, other times to non-Christians. Sometimes I'm explaining basic Lord of the Rings concepts like I'm writing a 'One Ring for Dummies' book, explaining the Ringwraiths and Rivendell. Then I basically turn around and quote the Silmarillion, quote Erestor, name-drop the Ainur and I even freaking called Mount Doom Orodruin.
At that point, I really don't think I understood the importance of knowing your audience. One could make the argument that I still don't, to which I say 'hold still while I go get a heavy iron pan'. My favorite authors to read are the ones who know their audience and cater to that audience. Bill Simmons. The guys at Cracked.com. Granted, they chose largely to write to simpletons like me- but still. I love it. It might just be that I feel like I'm a part of a bigger community when I read their stuff, so I view it more favorably- or it could be that they know who they are and who they're writing for, and that leads to more focus.
I'm also struck by a lack of research. Back then, I really didn't have any clue how big the world is, and how much information is out there. Of course, a lot of it is just airheads like me flying off the cuff. But at least I have the pretense of subjecting myself to a higher standard. Not back then though.
For instance,my comparison between Sauron and Satan was not necessarily based in empirical fact or comparison to other literary villains- or even an actual literary assessment of Satan himself- but my own understanding of what I had been told about Satan. The problem with that is that it can easily sound like I know what I'm talking about without actually knowing what I'm talking about. That's how misinformation can spread.
I'm better now about fact checking than I used to be, but sometimes things get past the goalie. A few weeks ago I forwarded around what I was told was the last-ever strip of Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. It's been out of circulation for about 15 years, so I knew it had ended, but I didn't explicitly remember the strip. The one forwarded to me was this terribly sad strip where Calvin has been put on some medication and is furiously working on some report. Hobbes wants to play, but Calvin wants to get the report done. The last shot is Calvin working while the stuffed Tiger Hobbes just sits there. It almost brought tears to my eyes- how sad, that Calvin's imagination and wonder were taken away by the system trying to control him!
Of course, then when I actually Googled the last strip, it was something much more hopeful and the above-mentioned strip was some sort of sick, bizarre fan submission or something (of course, maybe it's not. CURSE YOU INTERNET!!!). The point is that I'm trying to work towards a point where the things I write and say are either blatantly personal opinion or well researched stated facts. Least Likely To Succeed was blatantly personal opinion mixed with a lot of heresay facts. That might cut it some places- but that's not where I want to be, either as a writer or as a person.
The thing I missed the most though was my trademark humor (although some people might not miss it or worse yet- not think I'm funny at all. EEK). I do think this was probably intentional, partially because of the tone of the piece (serious) and largely due to the fact that I really hadn't discovered my own voice yet as a writer (other than the overuse of commas and utilizing superfluous words like they were going out of style).
Despite my missteps and whatnot, I do feel like it was a fairly well constructed essay, and I was setting up for the dramatic ending haymaker and.....well, I just sort of fizzled. "With the victory He purchased, we don't have to". Really? That's the dramatic ending? Geeze- the haymaker ended up more like a grazing slap across the shoulder.
All in all, I'm glad I went back into the vault and read this piece. It's always good to look back and see areas of growth as well as areas that still need tweeking. As cringing as it was at times, it was still a tremendous experience to have something I crafted see publication- no matter how small of an audience got to see it. I had a lot of fun working on the piece, and I am proud to have contributed to keeping the Lord of the Rings alive- a timeless tale of fantasy, good-versus evil, friendship...and whatever else you decide it is.
PIC- https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXDHHkvaIYk_gAZ6O45BhBHnhmMVbomahLsInlxnv6-rk99FnSmfBnKom6AJg-aABZCyizmKxAzy7llRocaOpSKlE9H2OiFc5Yfm2gH_iy14Bi9VpsMRZFKUVKKFGP-jKsKqtbJBM068A/s1600/nice+ad%252C+old+spice+sea+captain.png
Friday, November 11, 2011
Penn State and video games
This is going to sound extremely trivial, so you're going to have to bear (bare? Gosh, I can never get this right!) with me for a bit- NCAA Football 11 for the PS3 drove home the magnitude of the Penn State sexual abuse/cover up scandal.
I don't mean this to belittle the severity of what happened or the pain of those whose lives have forever been shattered. I just merely wish to point out that in the complexity of the human brain, we can still find surprises in the every day, mundane things. In this instance, I spent several hours this past week reading articles about Jerry Sandusky and Penn State University and it took EA Sports and a year-old PS3 title for me to really process this historically awful event.
Let me break it down.
Earlier this afternoon I was playing NCAA Football 11 while I try to get Shane to JUST FREAKING FALL ASLEEP ALREADY OH MY GOSH!!!! Seriously he was not feeling well so I was doing whatever I could to get him to get bored and fall asleep. Like a good dad should, right? Anyways, what could be more boring than watching your dad relive his imaginary glory years than by quarterbacking a pretend school on a 27 inch television?
So I turned it on, started playing innocen...OH COME ON REF- THAT HOLD HAD NO RELEVANCE TO THE PLAY- GAH ALL THE COMPUTER DOES IS FRICKING CHEAT!!!!! And that's when I started to realize what this whole Penn State fiasco means for football.
I don't mean that statement in a manner that belittles the sufferings of sexual abuse victims. I spent about four years at a non-profit agency working with kids who had been abused and neglected. So I have a slight idea, a limited understanding of what sexual abuse means to those kids. It's probably the ugliest thing that can happen in our society nowadays. So in the grand scheme, it really doesn't matter what it means to football.
But looking at college football as a separate entity...OH MY GOODNESS- how does this happen? I know that sports are not immune to this sort of vile crime, and that I'm prone to thinking through my idiot lens. But college football people don't do this. College football people take steroids, and pay athletes under the table, and practice more than they're supposed to, and sell their swag for tattoos, and help their athletes stay eligible by cheating in the classroom. College football people don't sexually abuse children. They don't ruin innocence. Yes, yes, I'm generalizing and type casting- but that's the college football image that has been cultivated in my mind over years and years of exposure. Sure, we break the rules...but nobody really gets hurt. They can't say that anymore.
The fact that it's Penn State just adds to the layer of shock. Maybe it's just all the articles I've read in the past couple of days from Penn State alums talking about how great Penn State is/was...but this is probably the last institution I ever would have thought I'd hear that this sort of thing had happened at. Maybe it's the boring uniforms or the lack of offseason shenanigans or the Coke-bottle glasses-wearing coach- the truth is I just never really thought about Penn State at all, which in our culture of Falling-Star worship is pretty much the highest praise I can give to an institution. They excelled on the football field, but they kept their profile out of the tabloids. You can't say that anymore.
And it took an afternoon playing a football video game for me to really get ahold of the concept that the Penn State scandal is not just about the loss of innocence for those 8 victims- it's about the loss of innocence for an entire sport. Sexual abuse is no longer just something that that faceless villains to do innocent kids in nameless towns all over the world. It's something that can happen anywhere. Anywhere. Even in college football, a place that I always thought was safe from that sort of thing.
Of course, having worked with a subset of the population that it has happened to, I knew this. It's probably my biggest fear as a parent is that somewhere in the system, someone that we trust our children's lives with will brutally and shamefully violate that trust and leave our children with the most horrible and painful scars imaginable. But I suppress it, largely because if you have that level of distrust of every person working in the system all the time- you turn into a paranoid schizophrenic.
Still though...the lesson now is that as a parent, there is a need for some hypervigilance. Those we used to write blank trust checks for are now the ones that we will take the closest look at. By all accounts, Jerry Sandusky was a saint. Now it appears he was merely a wolf dressed as a sheep. And his alleged actions (and the actions of those like him) have made wearing wool the latest fashion faux pas.
Today, I officially laid to rest college football's aura of innocence. I don't grieve for the sport- rather, I grieve for those who have been hurt because of my (and those like me) obsession with it. The culture of invincibility that we have worshipped at for countless Saturdays has been exposed as just another big business venture willing to do whatever to whoever in the name of self-interest. That said, I will try to keep perspective in the weeks and months ahead and not just assume the worst of every coach, coordinator, and player I see.
I just won't think they're Mr. Rogers, either.
PIC- http://www.nickjr.com/flex_article/assets/wallpaper/dora-school-wallpaper/dora-school-wallpaper-standard.jpg
I don't mean this to belittle the severity of what happened or the pain of those whose lives have forever been shattered. I just merely wish to point out that in the complexity of the human brain, we can still find surprises in the every day, mundane things. In this instance, I spent several hours this past week reading articles about Jerry Sandusky and Penn State University and it took EA Sports and a year-old PS3 title for me to really process this historically awful event.
Let me break it down.
Earlier this afternoon I was playing NCAA Football 11 while I try to get Shane to JUST FREAKING FALL ASLEEP ALREADY OH MY GOSH!!!! Seriously he was not feeling well so I was doing whatever I could to get him to get bored and fall asleep. Like a good dad should, right? Anyways, what could be more boring than watching your dad relive his imaginary glory years than by quarterbacking a pretend school on a 27 inch television?
 |
| And ordinarily, you'd be right. |
I don't mean that statement in a manner that belittles the sufferings of sexual abuse victims. I spent about four years at a non-profit agency working with kids who had been abused and neglected. So I have a slight idea, a limited understanding of what sexual abuse means to those kids. It's probably the ugliest thing that can happen in our society nowadays. So in the grand scheme, it really doesn't matter what it means to football.
But looking at college football as a separate entity...OH MY GOODNESS- how does this happen? I know that sports are not immune to this sort of vile crime, and that I'm prone to thinking through my idiot lens. But college football people don't do this. College football people take steroids, and pay athletes under the table, and practice more than they're supposed to, and sell their swag for tattoos, and help their athletes stay eligible by cheating in the classroom. College football people don't sexually abuse children. They don't ruin innocence. Yes, yes, I'm generalizing and type casting- but that's the college football image that has been cultivated in my mind over years and years of exposure. Sure, we break the rules...but nobody really gets hurt. They can't say that anymore.
The fact that it's Penn State just adds to the layer of shock. Maybe it's just all the articles I've read in the past couple of days from Penn State alums talking about how great Penn State is/was...but this is probably the last institution I ever would have thought I'd hear that this sort of thing had happened at. Maybe it's the boring uniforms or the lack of offseason shenanigans or the Coke-bottle glasses-wearing coach- the truth is I just never really thought about Penn State at all, which in our culture of Falling-Star worship is pretty much the highest praise I can give to an institution. They excelled on the football field, but they kept their profile out of the tabloids. You can't say that anymore.
And it took an afternoon playing a football video game for me to really get ahold of the concept that the Penn State scandal is not just about the loss of innocence for those 8 victims- it's about the loss of innocence for an entire sport. Sexual abuse is no longer just something that that faceless villains to do innocent kids in nameless towns all over the world. It's something that can happen anywhere. Anywhere. Even in college football, a place that I always thought was safe from that sort of thing.
Of course, having worked with a subset of the population that it has happened to, I knew this. It's probably my biggest fear as a parent is that somewhere in the system, someone that we trust our children's lives with will brutally and shamefully violate that trust and leave our children with the most horrible and painful scars imaginable. But I suppress it, largely because if you have that level of distrust of every person working in the system all the time- you turn into a paranoid schizophrenic.
Still though...the lesson now is that as a parent, there is a need for some hypervigilance. Those we used to write blank trust checks for are now the ones that we will take the closest look at. By all accounts, Jerry Sandusky was a saint. Now it appears he was merely a wolf dressed as a sheep. And his alleged actions (and the actions of those like him) have made wearing wool the latest fashion faux pas.
Today, I officially laid to rest college football's aura of innocence. I don't grieve for the sport- rather, I grieve for those who have been hurt because of my (and those like me) obsession with it. The culture of invincibility that we have worshipped at for countless Saturdays has been exposed as just another big business venture willing to do whatever to whoever in the name of self-interest. That said, I will try to keep perspective in the weeks and months ahead and not just assume the worst of every coach, coordinator, and player I see.
I just won't think they're Mr. Rogers, either.
PIC- http://www.nickjr.com/flex_article/assets/wallpaper/dora-school-wallpaper/dora-school-wallpaper-standard.jpg
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The -ology of passing the buck
By the time you read this, a news story that surfaced this weekend has exploded into a major scandal that has already claimed the job of the winningest D-1 football coach ever, put a university president on notice and left a couple more high ranking officials reading the writing on the wall. Not to mention the lives of at least 8 young men forever scarred. I'm talking about the happenings at Penn State University.
There isn't much I can add to the discussion of the Penn State sexual abuse scandal that hasn't already been said. And believe me, I looked. I did extensive research on this issue- literally reading more than three articles for over twenty minutes and accumulating at least two pages of notes.
But I'm still going to blog about it anyways. Don't worry- I'm not going to be playing the part of Internet Avenger or Moral Crusader. What I am going to say is that in light of what we know about human psychology and organizational theory, this type of cover-up response is not necessarily indicative of any moral failure- at least, not as we understand morality in our day-to-day lives.
Before I begin, I'm going to tell you what I'll not be saying. I'm not saying it's okay to sexually abuse children. I'm not saying it's okay for people in power positions to abuse their position. I'm not saying that people (Paterno and Spanier specifically) shouldn't lose their jobs. I'm not saying Penn State and Second Mile are blameless in this. I'm not saying that organizations should expect to employ child predators or that it's okay to cover up the transgressions of others. That should cover the list of things that I'm not saying.
Now, to what I am saying. And what I am saying is that the behaviors of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier (among others) are understandable within the context of organizational theory and our understanding of psychology.
Look, I'm 99% sure we can all agree that there is no place for the abuse of power that happened in this situation, and that people need to be held accountable. And obviously sexual abuse is a moral issue and its perpetrators have what I would consider a moral failing. But I do not agree with those that say Paterno and Spanier (by omission) committed gross moral failure. In fact, statistically speaking, they probably did what a majority of us would have done were we in their same shoes.
Chilling? Maybe. Unbelievable? Most definitely. But that's why you read this blog, right? To be consistently and routinely amazed. Anyways, enough about me. Let's talk about you- what do you think of me?
I'm building my hypothesis with bricks of psychology and macro-sociology.
To start with, check out these human behavior experiments. Ordinarily, Cracked probably wouldn't be the first source of authority I'd send you to to back up my points (Wikipedia would be the first), but these are all legitimate scientific studies that each tell a frightening tale about the depths of common humanity.
The whole article is relevant in that it talks about ways we change our behavior from norms depending on social settings/power/etc. Pay particular attention to #3 (Bystander apathy) and #2 (Stanford prison). Have you read it yet? No. Okay. Go read it, and then come back. And no, I'm not stalling.
My point is this- our ideological morality is not necessarily our pragmatic morality. Most of us have some sort of moral code that we adhere to. It helps us navigate a very grey world by making certain areas black and white. That means we have to spend less time thinking and pondering those situations- we can just process them through our moral filter, make a quick judgment, and move onto the nextepisode of American Idol pressing ethical dilemma.
The thing is that, as these studies have shown, our moral compasses are not always set to 'stun'. Our behavior is shaped by a multitude of forces other than what we believe to be right and wrong. Sometimes people will do things they would otherwise deem inappropriate because of social setting. Sometimes people will do those things because they are given power. Sometimes people will do things because of peer pressure. But regardless, there are situations that arise that will impact our behavior and cause us to do things that we probably swore we would never ever do.
These statements will make more sense as I awkwardly transition to my second topic, which is organizational theory. But first, another disclaimer!
Again, I am not saying that people shouldn't be held accountable for what happened. I agree with State police commissioner Frank Noonan when he says "somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child...I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone...to call us". I just want everybody playing the moral superiority card to tone it down a few notches- because each of us has a unique set of circumstances that could put us in morally compromising situations that we probably would handle pretty damn poorly according to the popular consensus.
Moving on.
Organizations are, anthropomorphically speaking, survivors that form a symbiotic relationship with human beings. They give us power, money, prestige- we give them the ability to survive. Fair trade right? Except for the part about human beings giving them life. That's just asking for a techno-organic cluster-frack.
Looking at the Penn State situation specifically, some are chalking it up to big bucks football power-type stuff, where love of the green (grass) and love of the green (money) come together to sacrifice kittens in crudely drawn, bloody pentagrams in endzones across the country. I would posit that it's much more than that. This isn't just about money and football- it's a reality of any organization. It's a systemic issue. It's inherently built into the system.
There's a reason that certain people are mandated reporters. I'll give you a hint- it isn't because these people are screw-ups or likely to have indecent moral standards. I'm guessing it's because sticky ethical situations probably arose and the government wanted to have some form of legal recourse (note: I'm sure I could do some research to find out the origin of mandated reporter laws- but you've been flat-out blessed by all the research I've done so far. Don't push it).
In the ESPN article I linked to above (good read, BTW), Bryant says the "special power of an institution lies in it's moral authority". I disagree. I say that institutions (to be fair, he may be talking strictly collegiate institution whereas I am applying it in a broader sense) have power because that power has been given to (or more accurately, not taken away from) them by those we charge with our governance. We tacitly give our stamp of approval by our willing submission to those organizations on a daily basis. Many of them are necessary to run our society- at least, the society that we choose to live in. I mean, when you have cities with hundreds of thousands of people, you pretty much have to turn things over to the Man in order for things to even run with a modicum of precision.
Of course, that precision comes with a price, and unfortunately there are times when the cost is our humanity. Our systems are largely built on chain-of-command communication which can lend itself quite skillfully to breaking down while also providing a wonderful layer of protection. Just make sure to pass on information to your superior (or whoever you are supposed to tell), and you can pretty much cross it off your to-do list- once you've made the proper documentation that is. This sort of thing probably happens way more than you'd think- it's just not usually with serious things like sexual abuse.
Communications breakdowns aside (and there were a crap ton of them with this Penn State debacle), I think there are a couple of reasons why something like this could happen without someone being like 'hey, um, this is pretty...wrong'. Note: I'm not saying that these are legitimate reasons that give a free pass for covering for illegal, immoral activities. I'm just saying that in the context of an organization's desire for survival, these are probably reasons why 'cover-ups' would happen.
1) Protect the organization. There can be a lot of chaos when something like this hits the tabloids. Disruption in the work place and at home. Loss of jobs. Tarnished reputation- both for an individual and the agency/organization they are associated with. It's pretty easy on the outside to say that those things are not more important than people- and in a vacuum, you'd be 100% right. But when it comes down to protecting a living, breathing, known quantity (self, friends, family) or protecting a nameless, possibly faceless statistic...that 100% can come down considerably.
Like a living organism, an organization is going to fight to survive- and it fights for survival through the people it feeds. It will not be consumed. It disguises its intentions behind peoples lives, their jobs, and their financial security. It takes what we have in common and disregards it in favor of what makes us different (namely that you're here and they're not).
2) Protect friends. It's easier to want to cover up and hide people you know and are probably friends with than unknown- which doesn't make it right, but that doesn't make it an ethical slam dunk either. Paterno knew Sandusky for over 40 years. Sandusky played football while Paterno was an assistant coach at Penn State, and became the defensive coordinator the year after JoePa started as head coach. So they worked together for over 30 years. Sandusky started his Second Mile foundation (a non-profit which helped at-risk youth) in 1977. So they knew each other for over 40 years, worked together for over 30, and Sandusky ran a non-profit organization for over 20 years when the 2002 incident happened.
So when a graduate assistant came to his house and told him he had seen Sandusky behaving inappropriately in the shower with a young boy- I'm just assuming that it didn't register as something that was really happening. Obviously he told his superior, which fulfilled his legal requirement. We know the incident was never followed up on. But I imagine there was probably quite a struggle of being confronted with that terrible accusation- a person, a friend that you've known for over 40 years does the absolute most disgusting, horrible, inhumane thing you can imagine.
There's also probably a degree of self-indictment. If you allow yourself to really think on the horrible things that your friend has done while still outwardly appearing like everything is going on like business as usual...it seems like there would be a tremendous overwhelming sensation of 'what else have I been wrong about?'. You probably refuse to believe that you could be deluded, because you have such a strong, alert moral filter. Maybe you live in denial of the event. Maybe you minimize it. Maybe you think 'well, I told my boss, so if this is the real deal, then something will happen and then I will deal with this'.
Of course outside people are quickly accusing the Penn State big wigs of simply passing the buck. They say they absconded from their moral and ethical responsibilities. To which I would say, well of course they did- they live and work in a system that is set up for them to do such a thing.
One of the board members said on Tuesday that they want to put "systems, procedures...in place so this can never happen again". You mean like the ones you have now? I mean, the chances are that there was already some sort of system in place- the one where you just keep telling your boss to tell his boss and assume that someone has to tell the relevant authorities.
I don't imagine anything like this will happen at Penn State again for awhile (if ever) simply because the University's reputation has become stained by this event. But for him to think that there is some sort of magical system that can be installed in such a large institution to keep this horrible tragedy from happening again- it's just not realistic. There are always precautions and measures to be taken. Precautions and measures that are sometimes conflicted by human psychology and organizational structure.
In the end, Goliath did not throw the stone at his own head. What brought Sandusky's horrible actions to a stop was not the system. It wasn't a chain of command. It was a mother, who persisted until there was action. Let this be a warning to all of us- that we need to be active participants in our lives and the lives of those around us. We can't rely on our systems and we can't necessarily rely on others. Don't wait for the cavalry...because chances are, they've been held up by loads and loads of red tape.
As the people involved in this Penn State tragedy move forward and the world tries to learn from this, I hope that you can see that our moral actions do not take place in a textbook or a video game. Life is not as black and white or linear as we try to make it out to be. Yes, we humans have our standards to always live up to our conscience whatever system our morals are based on. Accountability and consequences are an important part of a healthy society in my opinion. But that said, there are forces outside of us, outside of our understanding that can cause us to do things that we might not normally do outside of that context. Therefore we shouldn't be so quick to judge. Who knows- one day we could be the ones answering to the torches and pitchforks.
Information from ESPN was used in this blog.
PIC: http://www.tony5m17h.net/MatrixNet.gif
There isn't much I can add to the discussion of the Penn State sexual abuse scandal that hasn't already been said. And believe me, I looked. I did extensive research on this issue- literally reading more than three articles for over twenty minutes and accumulating at least two pages of notes.
But I'm still going to blog about it anyways. Don't worry- I'm not going to be playing the part of Internet Avenger or Moral Crusader. What I am going to say is that in light of what we know about human psychology and organizational theory, this type of cover-up response is not necessarily indicative of any moral failure- at least, not as we understand morality in our day-to-day lives.
Before I begin, I'm going to tell you what I'll not be saying. I'm not saying it's okay to sexually abuse children. I'm not saying it's okay for people in power positions to abuse their position. I'm not saying that people (Paterno and Spanier specifically) shouldn't lose their jobs. I'm not saying Penn State and Second Mile are blameless in this. I'm not saying that organizations should expect to employ child predators or that it's okay to cover up the transgressions of others. That should cover the list of things that I'm not saying.
Now, to what I am saying. And what I am saying is that the behaviors of Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier (among others) are understandable within the context of organizational theory and our understanding of psychology.
Look, I'm 99% sure we can all agree that there is no place for the abuse of power that happened in this situation, and that people need to be held accountable. And obviously sexual abuse is a moral issue and its perpetrators have what I would consider a moral failing. But I do not agree with those that say Paterno and Spanier (by omission) committed gross moral failure. In fact, statistically speaking, they probably did what a majority of us would have done were we in their same shoes.
Chilling? Maybe. Unbelievable? Most definitely. But that's why you read this blog, right? To be consistently and routinely amazed. Anyways, enough about me. Let's talk about you- what do you think of me?
I'm building my hypothesis with bricks of psychology and macro-sociology.
To start with, check out these human behavior experiments. Ordinarily, Cracked probably wouldn't be the first source of authority I'd send you to to back up my points (Wikipedia would be the first), but these are all legitimate scientific studies that each tell a frightening tale about the depths of common humanity.
The whole article is relevant in that it talks about ways we change our behavior from norms depending on social settings/power/etc. Pay particular attention to #3 (Bystander apathy) and #2 (Stanford prison). Have you read it yet? No. Okay. Go read it, and then come back. And no, I'm not stalling.
My point is this- our ideological morality is not necessarily our pragmatic morality. Most of us have some sort of moral code that we adhere to. It helps us navigate a very grey world by making certain areas black and white. That means we have to spend less time thinking and pondering those situations- we can just process them through our moral filter, make a quick judgment, and move onto the next
The thing is that, as these studies have shown, our moral compasses are not always set to 'stun'. Our behavior is shaped by a multitude of forces other than what we believe to be right and wrong. Sometimes people will do things they would otherwise deem inappropriate because of social setting. Sometimes people will do those things because they are given power. Sometimes people will do things because of peer pressure. But regardless, there are situations that arise that will impact our behavior and cause us to do things that we probably swore we would never ever do.
These statements will make more sense as I awkwardly transition to my second topic, which is organizational theory. But first, another disclaimer!
Again, I am not saying that people shouldn't be held accountable for what happened. I agree with State police commissioner Frank Noonan when he says "somebody has to question about what I would consider the moral requirements for a human being that knows of sexual things that are taking place with a child...I think you have the moral responsibility, anyone...to call us". I just want everybody playing the moral superiority card to tone it down a few notches- because each of us has a unique set of circumstances that could put us in morally compromising situations that we probably would handle pretty damn poorly according to the popular consensus.
Moving on.
Organizations are, anthropomorphically speaking, survivors that form a symbiotic relationship with human beings. They give us power, money, prestige- we give them the ability to survive. Fair trade right? Except for the part about human beings giving them life. That's just asking for a techno-organic cluster-frack.
 |
| This is an example of a non-profit techno-organic cluster frack |
There's a reason that certain people are mandated reporters. I'll give you a hint- it isn't because these people are screw-ups or likely to have indecent moral standards. I'm guessing it's because sticky ethical situations probably arose and the government wanted to have some form of legal recourse (note: I'm sure I could do some research to find out the origin of mandated reporter laws- but you've been flat-out blessed by all the research I've done so far. Don't push it).
In the ESPN article I linked to above (good read, BTW), Bryant says the "special power of an institution lies in it's moral authority". I disagree. I say that institutions (to be fair, he may be talking strictly collegiate institution whereas I am applying it in a broader sense) have power because that power has been given to (or more accurately, not taken away from) them by those we charge with our governance. We tacitly give our stamp of approval by our willing submission to those organizations on a daily basis. Many of them are necessary to run our society- at least, the society that we choose to live in. I mean, when you have cities with hundreds of thousands of people, you pretty much have to turn things over to the Man in order for things to even run with a modicum of precision.
Of course, that precision comes with a price, and unfortunately there are times when the cost is our humanity. Our systems are largely built on chain-of-command communication which can lend itself quite skillfully to breaking down while also providing a wonderful layer of protection. Just make sure to pass on information to your superior (or whoever you are supposed to tell), and you can pretty much cross it off your to-do list- once you've made the proper documentation that is. This sort of thing probably happens way more than you'd think- it's just not usually with serious things like sexual abuse.
Communications breakdowns aside (and there were a crap ton of them with this Penn State debacle), I think there are a couple of reasons why something like this could happen without someone being like 'hey, um, this is pretty...wrong'. Note: I'm not saying that these are legitimate reasons that give a free pass for covering for illegal, immoral activities. I'm just saying that in the context of an organization's desire for survival, these are probably reasons why 'cover-ups' would happen.
1) Protect the organization. There can be a lot of chaos when something like this hits the tabloids. Disruption in the work place and at home. Loss of jobs. Tarnished reputation- both for an individual and the agency/organization they are associated with. It's pretty easy on the outside to say that those things are not more important than people- and in a vacuum, you'd be 100% right. But when it comes down to protecting a living, breathing, known quantity (self, friends, family) or protecting a nameless, possibly faceless statistic...that 100% can come down considerably.
Like a living organism, an organization is going to fight to survive- and it fights for survival through the people it feeds. It will not be consumed. It disguises its intentions behind peoples lives, their jobs, and their financial security. It takes what we have in common and disregards it in favor of what makes us different (namely that you're here and they're not).
2) Protect friends. It's easier to want to cover up and hide people you know and are probably friends with than unknown- which doesn't make it right, but that doesn't make it an ethical slam dunk either. Paterno knew Sandusky for over 40 years. Sandusky played football while Paterno was an assistant coach at Penn State, and became the defensive coordinator the year after JoePa started as head coach. So they worked together for over 30 years. Sandusky started his Second Mile foundation (a non-profit which helped at-risk youth) in 1977. So they knew each other for over 40 years, worked together for over 30, and Sandusky ran a non-profit organization for over 20 years when the 2002 incident happened.
So when a graduate assistant came to his house and told him he had seen Sandusky behaving inappropriately in the shower with a young boy- I'm just assuming that it didn't register as something that was really happening. Obviously he told his superior, which fulfilled his legal requirement. We know the incident was never followed up on. But I imagine there was probably quite a struggle of being confronted with that terrible accusation- a person, a friend that you've known for over 40 years does the absolute most disgusting, horrible, inhumane thing you can imagine.
There's also probably a degree of self-indictment. If you allow yourself to really think on the horrible things that your friend has done while still outwardly appearing like everything is going on like business as usual...it seems like there would be a tremendous overwhelming sensation of 'what else have I been wrong about?'. You probably refuse to believe that you could be deluded, because you have such a strong, alert moral filter. Maybe you live in denial of the event. Maybe you minimize it. Maybe you think 'well, I told my boss, so if this is the real deal, then something will happen and then I will deal with this'.
Of course outside people are quickly accusing the Penn State big wigs of simply passing the buck. They say they absconded from their moral and ethical responsibilities. To which I would say, well of course they did- they live and work in a system that is set up for them to do such a thing.
One of the board members said on Tuesday that they want to put "systems, procedures...in place so this can never happen again". You mean like the ones you have now? I mean, the chances are that there was already some sort of system in place- the one where you just keep telling your boss to tell his boss and assume that someone has to tell the relevant authorities.
I don't imagine anything like this will happen at Penn State again for awhile (if ever) simply because the University's reputation has become stained by this event. But for him to think that there is some sort of magical system that can be installed in such a large institution to keep this horrible tragedy from happening again- it's just not realistic. There are always precautions and measures to be taken. Precautions and measures that are sometimes conflicted by human psychology and organizational structure.
In the end, Goliath did not throw the stone at his own head. What brought Sandusky's horrible actions to a stop was not the system. It wasn't a chain of command. It was a mother, who persisted until there was action. Let this be a warning to all of us- that we need to be active participants in our lives and the lives of those around us. We can't rely on our systems and we can't necessarily rely on others. Don't wait for the cavalry...because chances are, they've been held up by loads and loads of red tape.
As the people involved in this Penn State tragedy move forward and the world tries to learn from this, I hope that you can see that our moral actions do not take place in a textbook or a video game. Life is not as black and white or linear as we try to make it out to be. Yes, we humans have our standards to always live up to our conscience whatever system our morals are based on. Accountability and consequences are an important part of a healthy society in my opinion. But that said, there are forces outside of us, outside of our understanding that can cause us to do things that we might not normally do outside of that context. Therefore we shouldn't be so quick to judge. Who knows- one day we could be the ones answering to the torches and pitchforks.
Information from ESPN was used in this blog.
PIC: http://www.tony5m17h.net/MatrixNet.gif
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)