Rival Friends

Clemson Fan: ON THIS, THE OPENING DAY OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL SEASON, I HOPE THE FOLLOWING COME TRUE: (I) YOU LOSE BY 50, (II) LATTIMORE HAS HIS LEG AMPUTATED AT HALFTIME AND HAS IT REPLACED WITH A FLACCID BABY ARM, (III) CLOWNEY AND TAYLOR WILL RUN INTO EACH OTHER AND SIMULTANEOUSLY IMPLODE, AND (IV) SPURRIER CRIES AT THE POSTGAME PRESS CONFERENCE AND ANNOUNCES THAT HE WAS IN CAHOOTS WITH SANDUSKY, THEREBY FORCING YOUR SHITTY SCHOOL TO CHANGE ITS MASCOT DUE TO THE DEBILITATING EFFECT THE CHANT "GO COCKS" WILL HAVE ON ALL THE VICTIMS.

 I hate you. I hate your school. I hate everything about you and your wasteland of a   school. And, more specifically, I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, the chickens.

 Go Tigers.

  and Go Vandy!

 me: I can appreciate all of that

  Enjoy you 8-4 season

 Clemson Fan: I will. Enjoy NEVER winning your conference. EVER.

  Wait, did I mention "EVER"?

 me: I do worry about your well-being when it goes to four in a row

 Clemson Fan: it's something I've personally experienced... you, not so much.

  I worry more about how you'll handle it.

 it'll be like the first time you figured out how to jackoff

 me: I plan on being insufferable

 Clemson Fan: (also known as the first time you were left alone with Uncle Larry)

 me: Prepare yourself

 Clemson Fan: I actually think we'll win this year

  not sure much the past three years

  but I like our chances this year

me: You think tha every year

 Clemson Fan: in fact, I am planning on going to the game

  which I haven't done since college

 me: As am I

 Clemson Fan: then I know we'll win

  b/c I'm bringing my golden horseshoe

  and you're bringing your... well, whatever it is that's stuck up your ass

God I hope you lose tonight.

 me: Nah. Now that you're a Carolina alum, the Cocks haven't lost to Clemsux

  Thanks, bud

 Clemson Fan: Then I'll burn my diploma.

  I may do that anyway.

me: It will go up in flames. Like your season

 Clemson Fan: I'm gonna go by Seanachai after work and steal one of those chickens so that I can slaughter it in your living room.

me: Those are hard to catch

Clemson Fan: Is that their only redeeming quality?

me: Just ask Dabo

Clemson Fan: other than being a food source to everyone else

me: He's always coming up short.

Wait. Did WV just score again!?!?

Clemson Fan: your day of reckoning is nigh, Carpenter
me: I just hope the nearly nine months was enough for your asses to heal after that.

Clemson Fan: You don't hope that

and neither do I

I hope they never forget because that sucked goat nutts

me: No. No, I don't.

Clemson Fan: anyways...tootles. I gotta do some work.

I suggest you cover your living room in plastic

me: I love the part where you were there in person

Clemson Fan: because that chicken is gonna get splattered

me: sure

Clemson Fan: that was my favorite part too

that and the fact I spend $2k to watch

It. Was. Awesome.

me: Yes! C.L.E.M.S.U.X.

Clemson Fan: also, go F yourself

me: Go Cocks

end of chat

Unending Life Mandate Upheld

The United States Supreme Court upholds the controversial "Unending Life Mandate" on the principle that anyone who violated it and died in contravention was subject to fines under the taxing power and not the Commerce Clause. The decision is hailed as finally ending the needless scourge of mortality that, supporters argued, was affecting far larger numbers of poor than the rich. "Now that extra layers of poorly qualified bureaucrats are involved, Americans, black or white, 1% or 99%, are no longer forced to die when they just want to live forever, which is a basic human right, like being tall and good looking, and, most basic of all, only having good things happen," proclaimed the President. No word was given on funding as bureaucratic oversight of the mandate is set to exceed the global GDP.

All Grown Up

When my roommates, Harry and Tom (lawyers both), and I come back from trivia, particularly if we've managed to win, a peculiar tradition has developed.  Harry will walk directly into his room and emerge with his guitar.  He will set the guitar down on the center couch of the den/TV/living room, and, having poured himself a drink, will sit down on the couch (Tom's place is on the smaller love seat on one side of the room and mine is on a barcalounger on the other) and begin to fiddle with the guitar.

To be clear, Harry is an excellent guitar player.

The problem with his guitar playing, much like guitar playing of other excellent guitar players, is that he likes to play the difficult or interesting part of songs, which only last 30-45 seconds, at most.  In a band, he'd be forced to play a refrain or something for the lyrics to go over, but since it's just him doing his thing, he shifts to the next song he feels like going to town on.

This produces a level of frustration, at least on my part, because, while I tend to like every single thing he chooses to play, I hate only hearing 30-45 seconds of it before he moves on.  Eventually, this will cause me to ask him a question about something he's playing, partly because, well, I'm curious, but also because I want him to pause a second so I'm not getting more annoyed.

I should mention that after trivia, particularly if we've managed to win, we happen to be somewhat loosey-goosey vis-a-vis alcohol and its effects.

As I ask a question about music, a subject I know so painfully little about and which he knows far more, that gives Harry a chance to lecture somewhat pompously and disdainfully.  I'm not sure there's a thing Harry loves more than the opportunity to simultaneously teach you something you don't know about while chuckling at your abject foolishness at not knowing it in the first place.

Honestly, that sounds shitty of me to say about him, but we've been friends and roommates for a while now and it's just one of his things and it's by turns amusing and annoying. 

One of my things that's amusing and annoying is that, as he's somewhat loosey-goosey vis-a-vis alcohol and its effects and he's mock-contemptuously talking down to me, when he does venture into something I do know about and I catch him overreaching, I will annihilate him and needle him relentlessly.

Tom, meanwhile, curls himself on the loveseat and watches us with bemusement and annoyance and laughs at us.

At any rate, so it was last night, when the subject of The Beatles came up and Harry asserted that they were not "artists" but simply "technicians" who had only "found the formula for pop songs."  I won't need to tell you (but will, of course) that even when I've had a sip or two a) I am an argumentative bastard and b) I can still happen to recall a whole bunch of disjointed trivia.  I therefore threw out a wall of tidbits and facts about the Beatles, going from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to "Harry, you're also the same jackass who says that Ray Charles is more influential than James Brown."

My supreme amusing and annoying fall back is to shift the conversation to things he doesn't know and then teach him and talk down to him.

Turnabout's fair play.

The tradition then devolves into him loudly proclaiming that he's the most educated person in the room (he has a legal masters in International Taxation) and my proclaiming that he doesn't know shit if he says the Beatles aren't artists, and that James Brown is definitely more influential, hell, just flat out better, than Ray Charles.

Tom, meanwhile, went to a much better undergrad, Wake Forest, than either of us, and I think maxed the math portion of the SAT.  That smug bastard is a bastard for not being smug at all.  His annoying (and not amusing) habit is to not ever jump into the fray to explain that he's smarter than us.  It's a crappy thing for a roommate not to have the courtesy to demean himself in front of the others so they can have something on him.  Tom is also the funniest of us.  That smug bastard.

Usually, there's good-natured cussing and then more drinks and we figure out the next topic for argument.  Last night, while in the kitchen making a drink, Harry stepped it up a notch in a fashion I was not prepared for at all.

He snatched my half-loaf of bread from off the top of the fridge, held it in one hand while he punched it to mulch in the other, placed it in the trash, laughed, and then went and sat back down in his spot.

That particular rhetorical device had not been taught in law school.

It was sorta brilliant.  I can't really argue with crushed bread.

So I said, "Um. Well..."

Tom laughed. Harry laughed.

We went back to the den/TV room/living room and that was the end of it.

So they thought.

NO ONE CRUSHES/PUNCHES MY DOUBLE FIBER WHEAT BREAD, DAMMIT!!!!

The key to getting proper revenge is patience.

After an hour of stewing on the inside and placidly smiling on the out, it was time for me to go to bed.  I bid them adieu.  To get to my room, I have to walk through the kitchen and then through Harry's room (old Charleston apartments have crap layouts).  Of course (OF COURSE), I took the bread out of the trash.

Then I hid the bread around his room like Easter Eggs.  I took photos with my phone and texted them to Tom, asking if he wanted to lay bets on how long it would take Harry to find them.  I heard Harry wobble into his room and go to bed about thirty minutes later.

As of this morning, he still hadn't found them.

Requiem Aeternam Dona Eis, Domine

You spin; you twirl; you flit about,

possessed of trenchant style.

You dance the dance the others do,

far better by a mile.

And as you blithely dominate,

you condescend to smile

upon the fellow revelers you've

enchanted and beguiled.

They do not know; they cannot know;

and you are in denial:

For all your skill, and all your might,

your soul's been scarred by bile.

The tune once called, the others step,
so you quick to the tile.

Why is it that you've never asked

if dancing is worthwhile?

Sucked In: Women to Ranger School

"The U.S. Army is considering putting female soldiers through Ranger School"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-women-rangers-idUSBRE84G00820120517?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

With that, my "I don't talk politics; it's pointless" went right out the window.  I'm a hypocrite.  I've had several discussions/postings about the topic.

One such commenter, against the grain of "This is idiotic", stated:

"...that is the responce every time a system or program is considered for change to allow the entry of women. It is a position designed to bet on failure. I think that there are a few capable women who would prefer to bet on success.
With the military the way that it is today the roles of women are already blured. Women can command any number of units in combat areas and the current wars and number of women killed and wounded in combat demonstrate that the line has already been crossed. If a female MP goes to Ranger school and passes out she will be a better leader and the MP unit will benefit.
You use boxing as an example of a skill that will have to change. There are any number of martial arts other than boxing. I took classes for years and am a pretty big guy. One of my instructors, and co-owner of the school was a woman who could whup ass with the best of them.
BTW, I can assure you that when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up. Is there a rule in the NBA, MLB, or NFL that bars women?"

Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who argues with him?  I get it. I'm aware.  That's my typical position.

But, however

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his."  

For which I found the rather brilliant paraphrase "So: It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence."  http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/bible.show/sVerseID/17146/eVerseID/17147#ixzz1vDhpoANc

So off I went:

"...that is a beautiful, lofty position and one that has been propounded by such heralded minds as Plato. The problem is that it's beautiful in theory and not reality. You speak of the Righteous Amazon [let's call her Camilla (Virgil's Aeneid) to keep with classical concept since the idea is nearly two thousand years old] who will break the mold and not only be on the same field as men but lead and possibly dominate. You say "when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up". Quite right, but I wouldn't bet my paycheck on that being likely.

To keep with the metaphor, I say that there are 32 teams in the NFL and there are 53 roster spots. That's 1696 possible positions. If she made a team she would represent, of course, not the vanguard of an onslaught of dominant women players, but an oddity, a statistical aberration, a commendable and impressive one to be sure, but an outlier nonetheless. She, alone, would be not 1% of the NFL, nor a tenth of 1%. She would represent .05%.

And that's saying she plays the premier position (QB). Little girls can play football, and have. The crucible of reality has, and will, dictate that no, they will not be quarterbacks. When they have played against men, and they have, they play kickers typically. Why? That's where their obvious physical limitations hold them back least. IF a woman made an NFL team, I'd bet solid money she will be a kicker or punter.

IF that woman punter or kicker achieves the highest level (NFL) she will be a specimen and a sight to see, but she'll still be a kicker or punter and still represent .05%. No one, and I mean NO ONE with any sense is gonna tell you the kicker is the Acme of NFL Athletes. A kicker can be a hell of an athlete, yes. He/she can do a billionty pushups and walk on his/her hands for hours and at the end of the day he's/she's a sight to see at 195lbs. And yet football requires so, so, so much more. That's why kickers and punters don't get drafted first (other than Sebastian Janikowski, who looks like a lineman, coincidentally). Merely being an impressive specimen ain't enough. You need to also fit in the game.

THEREIN lies the problem with your Camilla theory. The NFL, of course, is not the Army, but it's an easier stand-in. Instead of a spectator sport that ultimately can vanish and not truly cause a problem, we're talking about the Army. The Army that is not a social concept. The Army that is not a "We Can Do It!" jingo-istic application.

We're talking about the people, men, who will face death and deal in it. The army, men, who protect the rest of us so that we can watch silly spectator sports that might one day, theoretically, have a woman compete with hundreds of men. This is not to be considered intellectually. Killing is not an intellectual exercise. Viscera, guts, brains, severed limbs, intestines, feces, urine, screaming agony. That's the bottom line of the Army. Common sense, reality, and history, not beautiful, lofty theory, have proven as much.

And yet, women have and will continue to face combat and succeed. This is not to be ignored or played down. We do have female warriors and thank God we do. With non-linear combat now a part of modern combat and one that will be for the foreseeable future, we will see a female Medal of Honor recipient (and not a PC one, but a deserved one). I stand by that.

When women have been in combat in the US, it has not been on purpose. It has been a coincidence of circumstance. "Our supply convoy got ambushed and the female driver exited her vehicle, laid down suppressive fire while her fellow soldiers found cover, and..." That story and it's ilk have happened repeatedly during the War on Terror. That's not to take away from what women have achieved. Well done. But it doesn't change the fact that it was unintended.

Rangers and infantry are not about coincidence, nor should they be. We don't put weaklings in the infantry (well we do, but that's because the Army is a bureaucratic machine and has problems...the weak typically wash out). They're the tip of the spear, as it were, and we need/want/require the best. The Rangers represent the best of the best. No, they're not Special Forces (I think women much better, if still unlikely or unnecessary, candidates for Special Operations). They are Elite Infantry.

"Rangers lead the way." They are symbols. They are also a very real force. Outside of Ranger Qualified soldiers and officers, there are Ranger Battalions and/in the Ranger Regiment (75th). When we need the best of the best, we use them.

Ranger School is a gauntlet of physical hell. Men die at Ranger School. (My cousin's) case of losing 55lbs in just over 2 months isn't an outlier. That's about the norm. Ranger School is designed to break men, to push them past their limits. The men who get sent to Ranger School aren't plucked from the street. They are tough to begin with. I was an artilleryman. I tried to go to Ranger School and got hurt just doing the training to qualify for a slot (Caveat: I am in NO way pulling the "I'd have been a Ranger if I hadn't blown out my knee" excuse/lie that one will hear from time to time; I sincerely doubt I could have made it through had I even gotten there). I was a 22yo LT (6'2", 195lbs) in the best shape of my life and could not hack it.

For us, the United States, to upend our system of selecting those Titans for an implausible, hypothetical, truly miniscule number of women (probably singular, woman) is nothing short of abject foolishness.

To keep with your NFL metaphor it would be like saying that hypothetical female kicker should be able to compete for a Pro Bowl Middle Linebacker slot.

Of course (OF COURSE) the gentleman could not let that go as the final word.

"I have no problem being in league with Plato. You do know that my use of QB was just an example. The question remains: is there a rule in the NBA, NHL, MLB or NFL that bars women? I don't think so, and a woman who can cut the mustard will make the team. The ham-fisted analogy, was in response to Bill's reference to pro sports. It is a meritocracy and entertainment. The sport and the crowd must be fed.
I have heard your arguments and Bill's arguments that women were not capable in reference to the inclusion of all "minorities." I say, let them try and let them succeed or let them fail just like the significant percentage of men who don't make it. "

This time I kept it short:

"I say that just because one man might be able to run around the bases faster than a horse (might), you don't therefore put him in the Kentucky Derby."  

 

Goddam Politics (Us v. Them Is @#$!ing Childish)

A relative emailed me this recently:

"AJAX'S KIN"	7:49 PM (45 minutes ago)
to AJAX, "ANOTHER KINSMAN"

I don't usually pass political stuff on but this is alarming!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "POLITICO"
Date: Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Fw: New law just signed by the President
To:

Subject: New law just signed by the President

 YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT ON SNOPES - IT MADE FOX NEWS WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE VIDEO BY CLICKING ON BELOW!  PRETTY SCARY FOLKS!!! 

This is really frightening.  Why did I not know about this?   sneaked another one in on us.

New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence

This  means that, wherever Obama is, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for  more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?   

WATCH  AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKEOVER OF  AMERICA ...

Guess  you’ve probably heard about this, but sending it on anyway. It’s probably the  scariest thing this guy has done yet.

 Are you aware of this new law, signed by “Obama” in early March  2012?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium

 
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

My (Ajax's) response:

It's only alarming if you take the news at face value, which I don't.  Here's the Library of Congress text of the bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

In order to protest, it has long been established that you may need a permit and that those permits are typically freely given though with minor restrictions to location for security purposes.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit)  That's to ensure "orderly" protest and so police and officials don't consider you a threat.  On the face of it, this bill does not violate that.

We'll go line by line by this bill for the relevant parts:

(a)Whoever,
(1)  knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so

 "restricted buildings or ground without lawful authority to do so".  Think about that couple who purposely crashed a White House dinner a few years ago for a publicity stunt.  They knew they were entering the White House and knew they weren't supposed to be there (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Salahi-Special-78131427.html).  Surely, you can understand why the government wants to criminalize things like that.  Fines may not stop attention whores; time in prison will.  If you think those people are harmless, think about the distraction they can cause for the Secret Service that could open up the President or VP to assassins/danger.

(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

This the one that journalists are using to play up the "Obama is EVIL and taking away our right to protest just because he doesn't want to hear dissent!" angle.  The only problem is that it has nothing to do with people disagreeing with the President.  It has to do with people making a scene at events where the President is.  At a town hall meeting, if someone wants to hold the President's feet to the fire when they are given the microphone, they are in no way "in fact" impeding or disrupting the function.  If the President's at a townhall meeting though, and someone who hasn't been given the microphone suddenly stands up and starts shouting at the President and his conduct is so egregious that the Secret Service has to intervene, well, yes, that person would be violating.  Free Speech does not allow you to endanger the President or VP.  Causing a scene out of context, again, would distract the Secret Service and open up the President or VP to assassins/danger.

(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds

What this will prevent is people knowingly blocking the president's (and VP's) ability to enter and exit his residence, which I'm fairly certain is illegal as it is (and should be), or places where he is speaking.  If our nations' enemies were able to foment protests that blocked evacuation or entry of the Pres or VP, then they would be easier targets for assassination.  Regardless of party, this is unacceptable.

or (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided

Surely this is straightforward.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

There are only a handful of people that I've ever discussed my political affiliation with so this isn't a matter of me "siding" with the President.  Outside of Republican or Democrat, this bill is not akin to "Hitler" ramming anti-dissent legislation through.  The Republicans control the House.  They don't help Obama with squat if they don't want to.  This got passed because it's common damn sense and reasonable. 

If you hate Obama or hated Bush, good for you.  Stick with "@#$! that guy"; that's enough; people get that.  The only thing that happens when you try to pump up stuff like this to justify/class up your "@#$! that guy" and manufacture a controversy where there isn't one is that you're showing you don't really have any idea what you're talking about.

But then you'd be like most people I've met who are into politics, so what do I know?

Self-Assessment Time (For You Beautiful People, Not Me)

There's only one rule: Be honest. 

Suggested Time: As long as it takes.

If a blind man wouldn't enjoy being around you or like you as a human being, it's time to tone down the "I know I'm hot!" or take a shower (hell, maybe both just to be safe) and then shut the hell up and think of something actually intelligent or interesting to say other than the prodigious amounts of useless drivel that lazily falls out of your face.

I'm not blind, but what I would say to you, if I saw you out and about making an inadvertent ass out of yourself and being a walking advertisement for why I sometimes (just sometimes) fervently pray for zombie apocalypse or planet-wide sterility, is this:

"Hi, 'The Sexiest/Most Ripped Person Here!,' I'm 'The Smartest Guy in the Room!.'  However, because I'm relatively smart, I know I'm one of many 'The Smartest Guy(s) in the Room!' and probably not the only one in this particular room. What I'm saying is...tone down the arrogance. It's great that you're pretty/strong/tanned/particularly hump-worthy.  Go about your business, hang out with your friends, make them laugh by actually being funny, and stop dressing and strutting like an attention whore. 

"I promise, promise!, PROMISE! that human beings are not peacocks.  If you're not so bright, or super clever, that's okay; work on being nice.  Everyone likes nice (except weirdos).  We'll still see that you're hot.  If a hot person in normal clothes not making a scene is in a room of not-hot people also not making a scene, trust me, all the not-hot people will be aware of the one hottie. Painfully aware. Other hotties will too. 

"But get this...it works better for you to tone it down.  Really. 

"The people you're attracting with that aggravating, ignorant crap?  Complete and utter shitheads.  So if you're a hot guy wondering why you can't find a nice girl or you're hot chick who always seems to be attracting jerks, put two and two together.  There's a reason why annoying-ass, beautiful celebrities marry and divorce in record time. Think about it.

"Or, you know, remain completely and utterly un-self-aware.  Perhaps life will be roses for you in your obnoxious obliviousness.

"But I'll be rolling my eyes and wishing hateful things upon you and taking some small solace in the fact that, eventually, hot goes away and you'll be stuck having to put up with yourself, because no one else will."