Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Monday, August 27, 2007
If you're trying to get some cock in a bathroom stall...
...there are probably worse times to admit it than the day Vick pleads guilty, the Attorney General resigns, the housing market continues to spiral into hell, baseball pennant races heat up and college football is only a few days away.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Back to school shopping and love games
Interesting article on back to school shopping for girls over on Slate. While there is no "fault" in a true free-market economy -- companies can manufacture and market whatever they want, and consumers can select and purchase whatever they want -- it is sad that the options mentioned in the article are viable for a large portion of the population. Obviously, there's a middle ground between dressing in head to toe "prairie wear" like Nikki Henrickson and auditioning to be the next Pussycat hooker, but impressionable teens and tweens get their cues from the pop culture media, and hopefully, from their parents.
Scan the headlines of any pop/gossip website and you'll see all you need to know about examples set by Lindsay, Britney, Paris and their ilk. And it probably doesn't help if mom makes those tarts all look like Elizabeth I. I'm sure some of these back to school shopping questions have arisen in suburbs all across the country, like this one, for example. However, it's probably hard to have any parental moral authority on the subject when mom's own "wardrobe" was frequently found wadded up the next morning on the floor of random apartments, trailers and backseats, ostensibly for business ("pay for play"), pleasure ("I'm sorry, your name was....?") or economic security (Two Step Financial Planning for college flunk outs: 1. Lie. 2. Open knees).
On a quasi-related note, too bad I didn't know there were "simulations" like this a couple of years ago. Hell, even the Sims would have been smarter than I was.
Scan the headlines of any pop/gossip website and you'll see all you need to know about examples set by Lindsay, Britney, Paris and their ilk. And it probably doesn't help if mom makes those tarts all look like Elizabeth I. I'm sure some of these back to school shopping questions have arisen in suburbs all across the country, like this one, for example. However, it's probably hard to have any parental moral authority on the subject when mom's own "wardrobe" was frequently found wadded up the next morning on the floor of random apartments, trailers and backseats, ostensibly for business ("pay for play"), pleasure ("I'm sorry, your name was....?") or economic security (Two Step Financial Planning for college flunk outs: 1. Lie. 2. Open knees).
On a quasi-related note, too bad I didn't know there were "simulations" like this a couple of years ago. Hell, even the Sims would have been smarter than I was.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Prejudice is okay. As long as it's only about skin color. Or gender.
Intolerant douchebag Tony Dungy has stepped in the hypocritical bullshit once again. When he and other black NFL coaches were asked to comment about the Don Imus situation, Dungy condemned the "racist" and "sexist" remarks made by the talk show host, calling them "inappropriate" and "not acceptable." He also added " . . . We need to move toward a more civil society built on respect, not degradation, built on thoughtfulness, not carelessness. We can do it if we put our minds to it."
This, coming from a man who campaigns for and is associated with a group that is actively prejudiced against (and seeks to limit the civil rights of) a segment of our population. Of course, this is okay because the group he discriminates against is gay, and not black or female, and because his mythological creator "tells" him that this demographic is immoral and therefore deserving of derision, scorn and oppression. (Odd, that I didn't see Dungy preaching "respect" and "thoughtfulness" when Isaiah Washington and Ann Coulter were mouthing off about "faggots." I guess Rutgers women basketball players enjoy "favored nation" status with his lord more than T.R. Knight).
Last year, I had a great deal of respect for the man. He got a raw deal in Tampa only to resurface with the Colts, and handled the questions about his inability to win the big game with either team with grace and class. Then, as his team was challenging the Dolphins record as an undefeated team, he suffered a horrible loss with his son's suicide and comported himself in the public eye with dignity and quiet character. He (and Lovie Smith) also addressed the issues surrounding minority coaches with sensitivity and reason at this year's Super Bowl. However, when he immediately started blathering on at the presentation of the Lombardi trophy about how it was god, and not Rex Grossman's ineptitude nor Peyton Manning's execution, that won the game, I started to lose respect for him (although some in Knoxville might argue that Peyton and the almighty are one in the same. At least I can verify that one exists, because I've seen Mastercard commercials). Now, he's denigrated an entire group of human beings and visibly and actively worked to restrict their basic freedoms, while hypocritically lambasting a shock jock who thoughtlessly maligned a different group (of course it should be noted that while Imus's comments were deplorable and insensitive, he didn't show up as a featured speaker to raise money to keep blacks, women or basketball players from getting married). I guess when the lord gives you a Super Bowl ring, you're entitled to bigotry without reproach.
This, coming from a man who campaigns for and is associated with a group that is actively prejudiced against (and seeks to limit the civil rights of) a segment of our population. Of course, this is okay because the group he discriminates against is gay, and not black or female, and because his mythological creator "tells" him that this demographic is immoral and therefore deserving of derision, scorn and oppression. (Odd, that I didn't see Dungy preaching "respect" and "thoughtfulness" when Isaiah Washington and Ann Coulter were mouthing off about "faggots." I guess Rutgers women basketball players enjoy "favored nation" status with his lord more than T.R. Knight).
Last year, I had a great deal of respect for the man. He got a raw deal in Tampa only to resurface with the Colts, and handled the questions about his inability to win the big game with either team with grace and class. Then, as his team was challenging the Dolphins record as an undefeated team, he suffered a horrible loss with his son's suicide and comported himself in the public eye with dignity and quiet character. He (and Lovie Smith) also addressed the issues surrounding minority coaches with sensitivity and reason at this year's Super Bowl. However, when he immediately started blathering on at the presentation of the Lombardi trophy about how it was god, and not Rex Grossman's ineptitude nor Peyton Manning's execution, that won the game, I started to lose respect for him (although some in Knoxville might argue that Peyton and the almighty are one in the same. At least I can verify that one exists, because I've seen Mastercard commercials). Now, he's denigrated an entire group of human beings and visibly and actively worked to restrict their basic freedoms, while hypocritically lambasting a shock jock who thoughtlessly maligned a different group (of course it should be noted that while Imus's comments were deplorable and insensitive, he didn't show up as a featured speaker to raise money to keep blacks, women or basketball players from getting married). I guess when the lord gives you a Super Bowl ring, you're entitled to bigotry without reproach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
