Sports lovers and bored people alike will be watching the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville's men's basketball teams as they face off in the Final Four in New Orleans this coming Saturday. For most viewers nationwide, this will be an interesting game to watch as both UK and UofL are located in the same state. Those of us who live in Kentucky, however, do not only find it 'interesting'.
We find it a little frightening.
The largest universities in our fair state have never played each other in this tournament, so it's a very big deal. Non-Kentucky residents across the country will be sitting in New Orleans and in front of their televisions, enjoying a game and thinking nothing of the consequences of victory. Yet, because "fan" is short for "fanatic", Bluegrass State residents are nervously preparing for the following:
-Vandalism reports will increase 1200% statewide--from the previous day.
-More health insurance claims will be filed Saturday--than on July 4th.
-Kentucky employers will see increases in verbal altercations in the workplace.
-UK supporters living in Louisville will suffer from societal withdrawal, as will
the three or four UofL supporters residing in Lexington.
This brings me to my point. To those non-Kentucky resident game viewers, this first time ever battle may seem like a normal Final Four skirmish. And they couldn't be further from the truth. This game isn't about the six or seven foot something or-other mammoth guys running around on a floor, dribbling a ball. This game underscores a battle that has been going on for no fewer than two centuries. This, my friends, is the Battle of The City of Lexington vs. The City of Louisville.
Kentucky's two largest cities have never gotten along. Ask lifelong Louisvillians about their neighbor to the east, and they'll imply that she's a whiny, uppity, spoiled-rotten child who wont shut up. Ask lifelong Lexingtonians about their neighbor to the west and they'll imply that she's a loud, trashy skank who can't even pronounce her own name correctly. To some effect, they're both right.
The cities are as different as day and night. I was surprised to learn that, in 1958, Lexington enacted the nation's first ever Urban Growth Boundary, creating an abrupt end to construction and industry where horse pastures and plank fencing begin. Louisville, on the other hand, sprawled out in all directions. Louisville dealt with its congestion in the 1970s and 80s by building and expanding the Gene Snyder Freeway, which makes getting around the city relatively easy. "The Ville" probably learned something from Lexington, whose notorious 1960s New Circle Road construction--was, in my father's words, a "monument to poor urban planning." (A big part of New Circle Road bypasses absolutely nothing.) Lexington/Fayette County's 1974 merger was ahead of its time. The merger of Louisville and Jefferson County didn't happen until a quarter of a century later. Louisville likes to pride itself on its nightlife and often flashy, usually expensive structures and publicly-funded projects, while Lexington prefers you to find a nice glass of sweet tea, look at the horses and enjoy the fact that you're less likely to get murdered or burglarized there. These differences--some small, some large--have made their way onto the basketball court.
If you don't believe me, take into account the public perception of Coach Rick Pitino, who, from 1989-97, coached UK men's basketball. When he coached the Cats, he was Saint Rick to Lexingtonians and an Italian Hitler to Louisvillians. Fast-forward to 2001 when he began coaching at UofL. Suddenly, Pitino was the anti-Christ and no longer welcome in Lexington--while he was practically given the key to the city of Louisville (perhaps he was, I don't know. He was certainly given a nice, secluded booth at one of our local restaurants. Ouch. Moving on...)
On Saturday, this native Kentuckian proudly supports the greatest basketball team in Kentucky: both of them. I am part of an unnoticed but very large group of citizens who likes the fact that for one brief, shining moment, Kentucky gets recognition for something positive, instead of being known for having some of the poorest counties in the U.S. and being one of the fattest, most 'smoky' (and we're not talking barbecue) states in the country. We don't care which team claims victory; we view it as a small victory for Kentucky. Call us a majority of the 'silent' type, if you will.
The die-hard fans of the winning/losing teams on Saturday will be anything but.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Analyzing Super Tuesday...and keeping my day job.
Perhaps you should stick with Politico.com or a well-known poll if you want predictions of correct election results. True, my 58% accurate prediction rate implies that I got more right than wrong, but in school, 58% earns a student an 'F'. Reminds me of high school Algebra classes. Anyway...
My foremost prediction that Super Tuesday wouldn't clear up a darned thing--was absolutely right. No one really came out of last night's ten primaries/caucuses as the winner. On the surface, Mitt Romney picked up six states, Santorum came away with three and Gingrich won his home state of Georgia (which, I must admit--is not Newt's native state like I previously alleged. He was actually born in PA.) Still, the victory margins weren't what they needed to be--especially for front-runner Mitt.
Last night's surprises included Romney's win in Alaska, even if it wasn't by much. Ron Paul garnered 24% of the vote there, compared to Santorum's 29%--and I thought Paul would've fared better in the Last Frontier.
Santorum surprised me by not doing better in Georgia, where I figured his socially conservative message would've held more sway. (Still, he is a Yankee.) Romney came in 2nd place here, but with Gingrich's 21% victory margin, I wouldn't call it a competitive race.
Ohio was a rough call to make, but just as in neighboring Michigan, Romney has no reason to be cocky. He won by 1%. Romney did well with urban/suburban Republicans, but the Buckeye State results add to the trend of his inability to connect with the rural voter.
Yet, I didn't expect Romney to do as well as he did in Tennessee. Sure, he lost 1st place by a 9% margin, but his 2nd place win over Newt's speaks to growing problems for Gingrich. The one Tennessee county that Gingrich won neighbors his former Congressional district in Georgia.
Romney's problems with rural voters extended to western Virginia, where Ron Paul won five counties--some by handy margins. Romney's 60% to Paul's 40% may seem like overwhelming support for Mitt, but I question whether Romney would've won VA at all had Gingrich and Santorum gotten their act together in time to qualify for the ballot. 40% of the vote is a lot for a candidate like Paul, who usually receives 25% at best.
Santorum has demonstrated that he will continue to be a pain in the ass for Front-Runner Mitt and Crusader Gingrich. Both of these candidates--especially Gingrich--should out-maneuver Santorum as much as possible in the upcoming states of Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois and Louisiana. At least one candidate needs to withdraw his candidacy in the next few weeks, or the GOP faces some serious problems. I continue to predict that Newt will be the first to go. If he can't win or do well in any of those states, he'll have no chance for recovery in April, a month dominated by primaries/caucuses in the North and West that will favor Romney or Santorum.
Still, no one wants to be the April Fool.
My foremost prediction that Super Tuesday wouldn't clear up a darned thing--was absolutely right. No one really came out of last night's ten primaries/caucuses as the winner. On the surface, Mitt Romney picked up six states, Santorum came away with three and Gingrich won his home state of Georgia (which, I must admit--is not Newt's native state like I previously alleged. He was actually born in PA.) Still, the victory margins weren't what they needed to be--especially for front-runner Mitt.
Last night's surprises included Romney's win in Alaska, even if it wasn't by much. Ron Paul garnered 24% of the vote there, compared to Santorum's 29%--and I thought Paul would've fared better in the Last Frontier.
Santorum surprised me by not doing better in Georgia, where I figured his socially conservative message would've held more sway. (Still, he is a Yankee.) Romney came in 2nd place here, but with Gingrich's 21% victory margin, I wouldn't call it a competitive race.
Ohio was a rough call to make, but just as in neighboring Michigan, Romney has no reason to be cocky. He won by 1%. Romney did well with urban/suburban Republicans, but the Buckeye State results add to the trend of his inability to connect with the rural voter.
Yet, I didn't expect Romney to do as well as he did in Tennessee. Sure, he lost 1st place by a 9% margin, but his 2nd place win over Newt's speaks to growing problems for Gingrich. The one Tennessee county that Gingrich won neighbors his former Congressional district in Georgia.
Romney's problems with rural voters extended to western Virginia, where Ron Paul won five counties--some by handy margins. Romney's 60% to Paul's 40% may seem like overwhelming support for Mitt, but I question whether Romney would've won VA at all had Gingrich and Santorum gotten their act together in time to qualify for the ballot. 40% of the vote is a lot for a candidate like Paul, who usually receives 25% at best.
Santorum has demonstrated that he will continue to be a pain in the ass for Front-Runner Mitt and Crusader Gingrich. Both of these candidates--especially Gingrich--should out-maneuver Santorum as much as possible in the upcoming states of Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois and Louisiana. At least one candidate needs to withdraw his candidacy in the next few weeks, or the GOP faces some serious problems. I continue to predict that Newt will be the first to go. If he can't win or do well in any of those states, he'll have no chance for recovery in April, a month dominated by primaries/caucuses in the North and West that will favor Romney or Santorum.
Still, no one wants to be the April Fool.
Monday, March 5, 2012
"It's a Newt! It's a Plane! It's Super Tuesday!"
Several weeks ago, I made some predictions on the Republican Presidential primary battle. Most of them proved questionable, at best. For example, if things had gone the way I predicted, Rick Santorum would be writing his memoirs and keeping up with his five kids in Pennsylvania and not criss-crossing the country with growing support. I told you to watch out for Ron Paul. Although the Texas Congressman has yet to win a single primary, some of his recent placement has been respectable. I advised you to monitor the rise of Newt Gingrich, who has nearly disappeared from the race.
Still, I didn't do half-bad at being the Miss Cleo of American presidential politics. I predicted that Romney will be the 'eventual nominee', and he continues to be the front-runner, picking up meaningful endorsements and delegates. I predicted that Rick Perry would do well as long as he kept his mouth shut. Perry turned into an inarticulate yutz and we no longer have to worry about Round Two: Texas Governor in the White House.
Politics is not easy to digest and is even more uncomfortable to predict. As we've seen with the rise and falls of Sarah Palin and Herman Cain: anything can happen (and not happen.) But as long as there are educated, professional politicians, there will be educated, professional advisers, pollsters and psychics.
Super Tuesday is upon us. Since 1984, it has been a climactic, deciding moment in Presidential politics. Unfortunately, no one thinks that the ten states holding Republican caucuses/primaries that day will confirm much of anything this year. Think of Super Tuesday in a Groundhog's Day mentality: unless one nominee does great that day and everyone else eventually drops out, you'll have to put up with six-plus more weeks of crap. Onward with predictions. Do not be afraid: you will not be charged $1.99 per minute:
Alaska just might be the site of a first win for Ron Paul. If not Paul, Santorum wins here.
Georgia loves Newt--and likes Santorum. Look for Romney to do poorly in the Peach State.
Idaho Mormons will support Romney and win the state for him. Paul will do nicely here as well.
Massachusetts will come out in support of ex-Gov. Mitt. Santorum gets a very distant 2nd.
North Dakota gives a shout-out to Santorum. Romney in 2nd place--not sure how distant.
Ohio is a tough, but vital nut to crack. I predict a hair-splitting win for Santorum. Think Iowa.
Oklahoma gives 1st place to Santorum. Gingrich might not be far off here.
Tennessee goes for Santorum with Newt possibly placing 2nd.
Vermont rallies for its New England neighbor Romney. Santorum finishes a distant 2nd.
Virginia unenthusiastically goes for Romney, since Gingrich and Santorum failed to get on the ballot.
"So what does it all mean?", you ask? It means that someone needs to drop the hell out. Romney will have plenty of reasons (namely Idaho, Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia) to crack open a nice bottled water since he theologically can't have any caffeine. Still, victories in other places (North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee) will prompt Santorum to sit back and enjoy a can of Dr. Pepper or whatever he does for fun (I can't imagine.) The only revelations that political junkies like myself will gleam from Tuesday night's results are bigger insights on who needs to drop out and how quickly they need to do it.
Newt's got problems. Santorum is majorly tapping into an electorate that Gingrich has been depending on ever since he declared his candicacy. Newt's second place in Tennessee won't look good and if he places third, his campaign will need to think about calling in a priest to perform the last rites. Newt's performance in Georgia will also be telling: he needs a solid victory to win his native state. If Santorum gets more than 20% of the vote in Georgia, Newt will seriously need to consider calling it quits. After Tuesday, Newt's chances depend solely on the South, and if Santorum wins--or even does well--in the upcoming states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, Newt will be finished by the first of April.
One final prediction: this race will not go to the Convention. Media hype loves to drag it out, but people-in-the-political-know understand that the longer they argue, the more fractured and disorganized they appear. The last time that a fight went all the way to the Convention was in 1976 when incumbent President Ford just barely squeaked by the challenge of then-former California Governor Reagan. The result? Democrat Jimmy Carter's inauguration in 1977.
That should be enough to scare the GOP into figuring this out.
Still, I didn't do half-bad at being the Miss Cleo of American presidential politics. I predicted that Romney will be the 'eventual nominee', and he continues to be the front-runner, picking up meaningful endorsements and delegates. I predicted that Rick Perry would do well as long as he kept his mouth shut. Perry turned into an inarticulate yutz and we no longer have to worry about Round Two: Texas Governor in the White House.
Politics is not easy to digest and is even more uncomfortable to predict. As we've seen with the rise and falls of Sarah Palin and Herman Cain: anything can happen (and not happen.) But as long as there are educated, professional politicians, there will be educated, professional advisers, pollsters and psychics.
Super Tuesday is upon us. Since 1984, it has been a climactic, deciding moment in Presidential politics. Unfortunately, no one thinks that the ten states holding Republican caucuses/primaries that day will confirm much of anything this year. Think of Super Tuesday in a Groundhog's Day mentality: unless one nominee does great that day and everyone else eventually drops out, you'll have to put up with six-plus more weeks of crap. Onward with predictions. Do not be afraid: you will not be charged $1.99 per minute:
Alaska just might be the site of a first win for Ron Paul. If not Paul, Santorum wins here.
Georgia loves Newt--and likes Santorum. Look for Romney to do poorly in the Peach State.
Idaho Mormons will support Romney and win the state for him. Paul will do nicely here as well.
Massachusetts will come out in support of ex-Gov. Mitt. Santorum gets a very distant 2nd.
North Dakota gives a shout-out to Santorum. Romney in 2nd place--not sure how distant.
Ohio is a tough, but vital nut to crack. I predict a hair-splitting win for Santorum. Think Iowa.
Oklahoma gives 1st place to Santorum. Gingrich might not be far off here.
Tennessee goes for Santorum with Newt possibly placing 2nd.
Vermont rallies for its New England neighbor Romney. Santorum finishes a distant 2nd.
Virginia unenthusiastically goes for Romney, since Gingrich and Santorum failed to get on the ballot.
"So what does it all mean?", you ask? It means that someone needs to drop the hell out. Romney will have plenty of reasons (namely Idaho, Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia) to crack open a nice bottled water since he theologically can't have any caffeine. Still, victories in other places (North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Tennessee) will prompt Santorum to sit back and enjoy a can of Dr. Pepper or whatever he does for fun (I can't imagine.) The only revelations that political junkies like myself will gleam from Tuesday night's results are bigger insights on who needs to drop out and how quickly they need to do it.
Newt's got problems. Santorum is majorly tapping into an electorate that Gingrich has been depending on ever since he declared his candicacy. Newt's second place in Tennessee won't look good and if he places third, his campaign will need to think about calling in a priest to perform the last rites. Newt's performance in Georgia will also be telling: he needs a solid victory to win his native state. If Santorum gets more than 20% of the vote in Georgia, Newt will seriously need to consider calling it quits. After Tuesday, Newt's chances depend solely on the South, and if Santorum wins--or even does well--in the upcoming states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, Newt will be finished by the first of April.
One final prediction: this race will not go to the Convention. Media hype loves to drag it out, but people-in-the-political-know understand that the longer they argue, the more fractured and disorganized they appear. The last time that a fight went all the way to the Convention was in 1976 when incumbent President Ford just barely squeaked by the challenge of then-former California Governor Reagan. The result? Democrat Jimmy Carter's inauguration in 1977.
That should be enough to scare the GOP into figuring this out.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Louisville's Got Legs--and Knows How To Use Them.
I have attempted to write this article twice in the last couple
of years. Embarrassment always stopped me. There are some
topics that, when written, tend to confirm a person's outright
nuttiness instead of merely implying lesser eccentricities and
oddities. Yet, you, the gentle readers of this blog, should
already know me by now. I've never shied away from the
different beat of the drum that I tap, so there is no point in
holding back now.
I have a problem. I suffer from OCMPD: Obssessive
Compulsive Musical Preference Disorder. (FYI--that isn't
a clinical term as much as it is a Matthew term.)
Here is a purely hypothetical example of how the affliction
works: for whatever reason, driving on I-75 through downtown
Atlanta always makes you think of a song. In this case, we'll say
that song is the infamous disco hit, "Don't Leave Me This Way"
by Thelma Houston. So, when approaching the full view of the
city's skyline, you stop listening to whatever is currently playing
and start looking for the CD with that song. It dawns on you that
the CD is in the backseat in a difficult-to-access compartment of
your backpack. So you reach in the backseat, almost rear-ending
a Ford Focus in the process, grab the backpack and start
maneuvering through the compartments just to get the damned CD.
You're also doing this while trying to maneuver around eight lanes
of interstate with cars coming in all directions at 75mph. You finally
find the CD and although you're a little frustrated that you've just
missed a beautiful part of the Atlanta skyline, you can enjoy the rest
of the view with the song--but you can't start it at the beginning.
Nooo, you have to fast-forward to the chorus and ending instrumental
refrain to appreciate the moment, because that's the part that you enjoy
the most and because you have OCMPD. Unfortunately, its the same
OCMPD that once attracted police attention while you were speeding
down a road just outside of Jonesboro, Arkansas, just looking for that
friggin' CD with "China Grove" by the Doobie Brothers!
Again: purely hypothetical.
What can I say? Sometimes I am visiting a city for the first time when I
hear a song for the first time--and the song sticks. Every now and then,
I'll have a really great evening out somewhere, hear a song and the place
is forever associated with it. The lyrics or song meaning often have
something to do with why I relate the song to the place or person, but not
always. There is no science to this--but I should probably be studied (or
committed), anyway.
In honor of an upcoming road trip, here are some musical numbers that are
must-haves for me in certain places. Be careful reading these, though...my
song associations may start out in my head, but nothing keeps them from
going into yours...
--Louisville: "Legs" - ZZTop, "Take The Long Way Home" - Supertramp
--Lexington: "Get What You Give" - New Radicals, "Be Near Me"- ABC,
"Don't You Forget About Me" - Simple Minds
--Cincinnati: "WKRP in Cincinnati" - Theme Song
--Columbus: "Panama" - Van Halen
--Arkansas: "Jealousy" - Natalie Merchant, "China Grove" - Doobie Bros.,
--Southern IN: "Don't Give Up On Us" - David Soul
--Texas: "China Grove" - Doobie Bros.
--Alabama: "I Can Only Imagine" - Mercy Me
--Atlanta: "Don't Leave Me This Way" - Thelma Houston,
"You Make Me Feel Mighty Real" - Sylvester
--Georgia: "Driving Miss Daisy" Theme
--Florida: "Overkill" - Men At Work, "Your Love" - The Outfield,
"All The Love" - The Outfield
--Tampa Bay: "Rio" - Duran Duran, "I'm A Slave 4 U" - Britney Spears
"Never Surrender" - Corey Hart, "Cool Change" - Little River Band
--Portland: "100 Years" - Five For Fighting, "Invincible" - Pat Benatar,
"Life In A Northern Town" - Dream Academy, "Give A Little Bit" -
Supertramp, "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" - Steely Dan,
"Don't Talk To Strangers" - Rick Springfield
--Eastern OR: "Life In A Northern Town" - Dream Academy,
"Breathe" - Michelle Branch
--California: "California Dreams" Theme Song, "California Love" - 2Pac
--San Francisco: "San Francisco" - Scott McKenzie, "Lights" - Journey,
"Dance Disco Heat" - Sylvester, "Full House" Theme Song
--Chicago: "Perfect Strangers" Theme Song,
"Club Can't Handle Me" - Flo Rida
--Western KY/TN: "Tiny Dancer" - Elton John,
"Walking In Memphis" - Marc Cohn
--Memphis: "Blame It On The Boogie" - Michael Jackson,
"Walking In Memphis" - Marc Cohn
--Eastern TN: "Who Wouldn't Wanna Be Me?" - Keith Urban, "Big Star" -
Kenny Chesney, "Please Come To Boston" - Dave Loggins
--Eastern KY: "Amie" - Pure Prairie League, "Crazy Love" - Poco
--Washington, DC: "A Thousand Miles" - Vanessa Carlton
--Waddy: "Small Town Saturday Night" - Hal Ketcham,
"Boondocks" - Little Big Town
--West Virginia: quite a few Fleetwood Mac songs
--Virginia Beach: "Sailing" - Christopher Cross
--New York City: "I Know You Want Me" - Pitbull,
"I'm Movin' Out" - Billy Joel
Are these the only songs that I listen to when I drive around these places?
No. But I can guarantee that they'll appear on my playlist at least once.
Although I have done my best to keep this sordid, embarrassing disorder to
myself over the years, I've let the secret slip from time to time. I'll never forget
when I found out that I wasn't alone. This revelation came to me in the form of
a guy I was dating. We were riding in my car one day and The Outfield's hit,
"Your Love" started playing. Without any mention of what the song reminded
me of, my date blurted out, "You know, that song has always reminded me of
driving near the beaches in Florida--especially this instrumental part..."
I thought I was going to wreck the car.
Maybe some of you have this disorder. Or maybe you're placing a call to some
nice, men/women in white clothes who are coming to take me away. Well, don't
bother...
Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to recovery. :)
of years. Embarrassment always stopped me. There are some
topics that, when written, tend to confirm a person's outright
nuttiness instead of merely implying lesser eccentricities and
oddities. Yet, you, the gentle readers of this blog, should
already know me by now. I've never shied away from the
different beat of the drum that I tap, so there is no point in
holding back now.
I have a problem. I suffer from OCMPD: Obssessive
Compulsive Musical Preference Disorder. (FYI--that isn't
a clinical term as much as it is a Matthew term.)
Here is a purely hypothetical example of how the affliction
works: for whatever reason, driving on I-75 through downtown
Atlanta always makes you think of a song. In this case, we'll say
that song is the infamous disco hit, "Don't Leave Me This Way"
by Thelma Houston. So, when approaching the full view of the
city's skyline, you stop listening to whatever is currently playing
and start looking for the CD with that song. It dawns on you that
the CD is in the backseat in a difficult-to-access compartment of
your backpack. So you reach in the backseat, almost rear-ending
a Ford Focus in the process, grab the backpack and start
maneuvering through the compartments just to get the damned CD.
You're also doing this while trying to maneuver around eight lanes
of interstate with cars coming in all directions at 75mph. You finally
find the CD and although you're a little frustrated that you've just
missed a beautiful part of the Atlanta skyline, you can enjoy the rest
of the view with the song--but you can't start it at the beginning.
Nooo, you have to fast-forward to the chorus and ending instrumental
refrain to appreciate the moment, because that's the part that you enjoy
the most and because you have OCMPD. Unfortunately, its the same
OCMPD that once attracted police attention while you were speeding
down a road just outside of Jonesboro, Arkansas, just looking for that
friggin' CD with "China Grove" by the Doobie Brothers!
Again: purely hypothetical.
What can I say? Sometimes I am visiting a city for the first time when I
hear a song for the first time--and the song sticks. Every now and then,
I'll have a really great evening out somewhere, hear a song and the place
is forever associated with it. The lyrics or song meaning often have
something to do with why I relate the song to the place or person, but not
always. There is no science to this--but I should probably be studied (or
committed), anyway.
In honor of an upcoming road trip, here are some musical numbers that are
must-haves for me in certain places. Be careful reading these, though...my
song associations may start out in my head, but nothing keeps them from
going into yours...
--Louisville: "Legs" - ZZTop, "Take The Long Way Home" - Supertramp
--Lexington: "Get What You Give" - New Radicals, "Be Near Me"- ABC,
"Don't You Forget About Me" - Simple Minds
--Cincinnati: "WKRP in Cincinnati" - Theme Song
--Columbus: "Panama" - Van Halen
--Arkansas: "Jealousy" - Natalie Merchant, "China Grove" - Doobie Bros.,
--Southern IN: "Don't Give Up On Us" - David Soul
--Texas: "China Grove" - Doobie Bros.
--Alabama: "I Can Only Imagine" - Mercy Me
--Atlanta: "Don't Leave Me This Way" - Thelma Houston,
"You Make Me Feel Mighty Real" - Sylvester
--Georgia: "Driving Miss Daisy" Theme
--Florida: "Overkill" - Men At Work, "Your Love" - The Outfield,
"All The Love" - The Outfield
--Tampa Bay: "Rio" - Duran Duran, "I'm A Slave 4 U" - Britney Spears
"Never Surrender" - Corey Hart, "Cool Change" - Little River Band
--Portland: "100 Years" - Five For Fighting, "Invincible" - Pat Benatar,
"Life In A Northern Town" - Dream Academy, "Give A Little Bit" -
Supertramp, "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" - Steely Dan,
"Don't Talk To Strangers" - Rick Springfield
--Eastern OR: "Life In A Northern Town" - Dream Academy,
"Breathe" - Michelle Branch
--California: "California Dreams" Theme Song, "California Love" - 2Pac
--San Francisco: "San Francisco" - Scott McKenzie, "Lights" - Journey,
"Dance Disco Heat" - Sylvester, "Full House" Theme Song
--Chicago: "Perfect Strangers" Theme Song,
"Club Can't Handle Me" - Flo Rida
--Western KY/TN: "Tiny Dancer" - Elton John,
"Walking In Memphis" - Marc Cohn
--Memphis: "Blame It On The Boogie" - Michael Jackson,
"Walking In Memphis" - Marc Cohn
--Eastern TN: "Who Wouldn't Wanna Be Me?" - Keith Urban, "Big Star" -
Kenny Chesney, "Please Come To Boston" - Dave Loggins
--Eastern KY: "Amie" - Pure Prairie League, "Crazy Love" - Poco
--Washington, DC: "A Thousand Miles" - Vanessa Carlton
--Waddy: "Small Town Saturday Night" - Hal Ketcham,
"Boondocks" - Little Big Town
--West Virginia: quite a few Fleetwood Mac songs
--Virginia Beach: "Sailing" - Christopher Cross
--New York City: "I Know You Want Me" - Pitbull,
"I'm Movin' Out" - Billy Joel
Are these the only songs that I listen to when I drive around these places?
No. But I can guarantee that they'll appear on my playlist at least once.
Although I have done my best to keep this sordid, embarrassing disorder to
myself over the years, I've let the secret slip from time to time. I'll never forget
when I found out that I wasn't alone. This revelation came to me in the form of
a guy I was dating. We were riding in my car one day and The Outfield's hit,
"Your Love" started playing. Without any mention of what the song reminded
me of, my date blurted out, "You know, that song has always reminded me of
driving near the beaches in Florida--especially this instrumental part..."
I thought I was going to wreck the car.
Maybe some of you have this disorder. Or maybe you're placing a call to some
nice, men/women in white clothes who are coming to take me away. Well, don't
bother...
Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to recovery. :)
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Buying Accountability--Telling US "No."
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/mortgage_settlement/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
Since three days prior to graduating from high school twelve years ago, I have been a renter and have lived alone close to 90% of that time. My finances have been mine and usually mine alone to navigate. I can count on both hands the number of times that I have requested financial assistance from my parents in the last eight years that I have supported myself. And when I say I'll pay them back, my word is as good as gold. I toot my own horn, pat myself on the back and give a self-round of applause for all of that. Struggling alone has never been easy, but when you do it, you respect yourself more. In a way, I thank a Higher Power that I dropped out of college when I did. At that point, my parents politely (and justly) stopped inserting the silver spoon into this well-fed mouth. It forced me to grow up. Although I always knew and continue to know that I can rely on them if absolutely necessary, I receive tremendous satisfaction from knowing that I can pay my own way.
The subject of the above article has me thinking about the way in which I conduct myself financially. I have made poor monetary decisions for years. I remember being around eleven years old and finding out about a raffle. When someone explained to me how the raffle worked, I got excited at the prospect of winning money. I walked one mile home to get my tiny safe, then full of dozens of coins and dollars. My Mom took me back to get a ticket for the raffle, at which point I handed over what must have been months of savings. We stayed around for the raffle drawing with my sure-to-be winning ticket in hand. Other than saying, "You know that you might not win?", my Mom said little. She knew what she was doing. Needless to say, I was devastated when someone else won the jackpot, which was well over $100. To this day, I cringe when I think of putting any substantial amount into a slot machine, lottery or trip to the bingo hall. That teachable moment at eleven years of age takes the credit.
Credit has been quite the learning experience as well. When I was first on my own, I made purchases on my credit card and would get so annoyed at the balance that I would make an exhorbitant payment to cover them. At the end of the month, I would be using my card again because I had--yep, you guessed it--spent too much (or all) of my cash flow on the credit card payment. It took me entirely too long to figure out that one. I then went into reverse and started paying just over the minimum balance until it dawned on me that I was covering the accrued interest--and barely touching the principal. Years of leaning on credit finally took its toll and just eighteen months ago, I was forced to face the financial music. It wasn't pretty, but after months of budgeting, strategizing and taking advantage of good advice from my parents and my ex, the reward is about to be sweet: I will soon be credit card debt-free for the first time in seven years.
Some lessons are part of growing up, and some come with experience.
I think that I started growing up financially in the spring of 2009 when I decided that I wanted a condo. $8,000 was a great incentive for a first-time homeowner, right? I needed to jump 'now', right? Hey, I had a stable job and a decent income--why not?! So, I got myself a realtor, who, in turn, helped me find a mortgage broker. Within weeks, we had found a gem: a gorgeous, spotless place in a great part of town. There was only one problem: it was on the high end of what I thought I could afford and the seller didn't want to come down much on the asking price. Fortunately, my realtor wasn't too pushy. He could've made life hell for me since I was seeing the condo with stars in my eyes--and not the necessary objective realism. But when the mortgage broker and I sat down over coffee to look at what few assets I had and how it would all play out, the stars came crashing down--hard.
My mortgage payment would be significantly higher than what I was paying in rent. There was an earnest fee, PMI, the works--not to mention nightmarish property taxes. My home loan would be at least three times my salary--and that didn't include the monthly Homeowner's Association fee. Basically, by going through with it, I wasn't just going to be house-poor like most others. I was about to walk the plank--and jump. I would have been so financially maxed out that something as small as a broken water heater would have likely put me into default. I told the broker and my realtor that I needed time to think about it. Three years later, I'm still just thinking.
This "housing crisis" has shown us that renting and its usual negative stigmas ("I don't own it so I can't do what I want", "you're paying someone else's mortgage", "you're throwing your money away") must be fairly countered by highlighting negative stigmas to buying ("This house is so expensive to maintain", "my interest rate keeps changing", "I can't live my life the way I want because I'm broke.") It does not matter that your property taxes and what-not are "thrown into the mortgage." It does not matter that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes. It doesn't matter how good the rates are or how little is required for a down payment. What matters is that if you don't read and heed the volumes of fine print, take time to budget and think about how you want to live your life, you have no business owning a home.
I have blogged about this before, but in light of the settlement, it bears repeating: people are quick to blame the greedy mortgage lenders. People are also ready to apply part of this crisis to Reagan's claim that "government is the problem." But on the issue of personal, financial accountability, most of the blame usually lies elsewhere.
It's in the mirror.
Since three days prior to graduating from high school twelve years ago, I have been a renter and have lived alone close to 90% of that time. My finances have been mine and usually mine alone to navigate. I can count on both hands the number of times that I have requested financial assistance from my parents in the last eight years that I have supported myself. And when I say I'll pay them back, my word is as good as gold. I toot my own horn, pat myself on the back and give a self-round of applause for all of that. Struggling alone has never been easy, but when you do it, you respect yourself more. In a way, I thank a Higher Power that I dropped out of college when I did. At that point, my parents politely (and justly) stopped inserting the silver spoon into this well-fed mouth. It forced me to grow up. Although I always knew and continue to know that I can rely on them if absolutely necessary, I receive tremendous satisfaction from knowing that I can pay my own way.
The subject of the above article has me thinking about the way in which I conduct myself financially. I have made poor monetary decisions for years. I remember being around eleven years old and finding out about a raffle. When someone explained to me how the raffle worked, I got excited at the prospect of winning money. I walked one mile home to get my tiny safe, then full of dozens of coins and dollars. My Mom took me back to get a ticket for the raffle, at which point I handed over what must have been months of savings. We stayed around for the raffle drawing with my sure-to-be winning ticket in hand. Other than saying, "You know that you might not win?", my Mom said little. She knew what she was doing. Needless to say, I was devastated when someone else won the jackpot, which was well over $100. To this day, I cringe when I think of putting any substantial amount into a slot machine, lottery or trip to the bingo hall. That teachable moment at eleven years of age takes the credit.
Credit has been quite the learning experience as well. When I was first on my own, I made purchases on my credit card and would get so annoyed at the balance that I would make an exhorbitant payment to cover them. At the end of the month, I would be using my card again because I had--yep, you guessed it--spent too much (or all) of my cash flow on the credit card payment. It took me entirely too long to figure out that one. I then went into reverse and started paying just over the minimum balance until it dawned on me that I was covering the accrued interest--and barely touching the principal. Years of leaning on credit finally took its toll and just eighteen months ago, I was forced to face the financial music. It wasn't pretty, but after months of budgeting, strategizing and taking advantage of good advice from my parents and my ex, the reward is about to be sweet: I will soon be credit card debt-free for the first time in seven years.
Some lessons are part of growing up, and some come with experience.
I think that I started growing up financially in the spring of 2009 when I decided that I wanted a condo. $8,000 was a great incentive for a first-time homeowner, right? I needed to jump 'now', right? Hey, I had a stable job and a decent income--why not?! So, I got myself a realtor, who, in turn, helped me find a mortgage broker. Within weeks, we had found a gem: a gorgeous, spotless place in a great part of town. There was only one problem: it was on the high end of what I thought I could afford and the seller didn't want to come down much on the asking price. Fortunately, my realtor wasn't too pushy. He could've made life hell for me since I was seeing the condo with stars in my eyes--and not the necessary objective realism. But when the mortgage broker and I sat down over coffee to look at what few assets I had and how it would all play out, the stars came crashing down--hard.
My mortgage payment would be significantly higher than what I was paying in rent. There was an earnest fee, PMI, the works--not to mention nightmarish property taxes. My home loan would be at least three times my salary--and that didn't include the monthly Homeowner's Association fee. Basically, by going through with it, I wasn't just going to be house-poor like most others. I was about to walk the plank--and jump. I would have been so financially maxed out that something as small as a broken water heater would have likely put me into default. I told the broker and my realtor that I needed time to think about it. Three years later, I'm still just thinking.
This "housing crisis" has shown us that renting and its usual negative stigmas ("I don't own it so I can't do what I want", "you're paying someone else's mortgage", "you're throwing your money away") must be fairly countered by highlighting negative stigmas to buying ("This house is so expensive to maintain", "my interest rate keeps changing", "I can't live my life the way I want because I'm broke.") It does not matter that your property taxes and what-not are "thrown into the mortgage." It does not matter that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes. It doesn't matter how good the rates are or how little is required for a down payment. What matters is that if you don't read and heed the volumes of fine print, take time to budget and think about how you want to live your life, you have no business owning a home.
I have blogged about this before, but in light of the settlement, it bears repeating: people are quick to blame the greedy mortgage lenders. People are also ready to apply part of this crisis to Reagan's claim that "government is the problem." But on the issue of personal, financial accountability, most of the blame usually lies elsewhere.
It's in the mirror.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Why We Need Rick Santorum *wink wink*
No, I haven't drank any acid-laced moonshine (that's what it means when someone refers to 'drinking the Kool-Aid' in my native-state.)The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary caused such a stir (okay, just with the media) that I can't help but trot out some thoughts and predictions. Keep in mind that although I consider myself a Liberal Progressive Socialistic Democrat (and any other choice descriptions that annoy Conservative Republicans) and that these GOP candidates have zero chance of getting my vote, I am objective enough to give the contenders a fair assessment. You may not always agree with the beliefs and record of a candidate, but that doesn't mean that you can't judge them on their electability and general candidacy. So, from the next dropout to the man who might be occupying the White House, here goes:
Rick Santorum, the testy, family-focused, ultra-conservative from Pennsylvania, needs to pack his bags. He'll do alright in South Carolina with the gospel-according-to-Rick that people in the Palmetto State like to hear. Although he was eight votes shy of stealing Iowa from "The Mittiest" of former Massachusetts governors, his showing in New Hampshire was poor since he didn't bother to campaign there. Unfortunately, the Rickster's fundraising has yielded terrible results and he is quickly running out of cash. Santorum must have a 2nd place finish in South Carolina to continue to Florida. Good riddance.
Perhaps Jon Huntsman and Santorum should hop the next plane together. Although Huntsman's finances aren't as nightmarish as Santorum's, Conservatives just don't trust the guy--as they shouldn't. His job as
Ambassador to China came courtesy of President Obama and his governorship of Utah could be viewed as moderate in many ways. While his horrendous 1% showing in Iowa (he didn't bother to campaign there) was dismal, his 17%, 3rd place in New Hampshire was respectable. Unfortunately, he should've beat Ron Paul to be viewed as a serious contender. South Carolinians will smell a rat and he'll do poorly there. Anything less than 3rd place in the Palmetto State will send him packing, which is sad, since he's the one out of the bunch that I like best. Huntsman's probably the most genuine, sensible guy on the platform.
I'm a little nervous to say anything about Newt Gingrich. I think that the former Speaker will survive nicely in South Carolina; 2nd or maybe 3rd place. SC is around Newt's "neck of the woods" and he is well-liked there. He will go on to Florida, which is a very crucial state for him. He'll resonate with Conservative, Jeb Bush-old-guard followers there but I don't know how he'll fare against Romney or Ron Paul. Newt is one smart S.O.B. but his arrogance is a major turn-off and I think that my thoughts must be shared by others since his cash-flow isn't where it needs to be these days. Still, stay tuned...
Rick Perry, while close to being viewed in the same light of the R.I.P.-just-drowned candidacy of Michelle Bachmann, should certainly not be discounted. Not only will he do well in South Carolina, but he just might take 1st prize (remember: Romney is the front-runner but Romney is also a Yankee.) Perry's future in Florida looks a lot less certain, but his war chest is large, his debts are comparatively small and Southern states will be sympathetic to his rhetoric and folksy approach. If he could only shut his mouth and appear less confused on the stage. It's a question from a moderator, Governor. No one is expecting you to deciphyer ancient Egyptian code...
In any other election year, Ron Paul wouldn't have made it past New Hampshire. A 76 year-old Texas Congressman who isn't the moral preacher of the party, shoots off the hip, doesn't always vote with the posse, and spouts all sorts of Libertarian views that both confuse (and sometimes frighten) mainstream Republicans, shouldn't have this kind of traction. But 2012 isn't a normal election year, folks. And I think that Paul's candidacy is seen by many as a godsend. His views and ideas, many of which sound downright insane to Liberals, are growing on the GOP. His often-calm, grandfatherly manner appeal to many at a time when the Extreme Right predicts Armageddon should the President be re-elected. His 2nd place finish in New Hampshire wasn't necessarily close but that, combined with the strong percentage of his Iowa showing renders him formidable. I expect him to place in the top three in South Carolina and in Florida as well. Paul might be a senior who has spent twenty-plus years in Congress, but he has Obamaesque youth support and a considerable chunk of change. Watch out for this guy...
Mitt Romney is not exciting, and that's why there are so many Democratic Party-like fractions within the Republican Party. Helpful endorsements from "establishment Republicans" and popular figures such as Gov. Chris Christie have helped the GOP get over "the Mormon thing" and make him seen more electable. Although Romney's undeniably moderate tenure as Massachusetts Governor and noticeable flip-flops are troublesome, he seems a safe, stable bet to a growing segment of Republicans. Comparatively speaking, Romney, his espoused beliefs, and bland, parsley-like personality seem reliable when other GOP candidates should be on "Jerry Springer" or "Girls Gone Wild". Mitt is a step above John McCain: not totally Conservative but not totally nuts, either. South Carolinians wont yell "Mitttt!" when he walks into rooms down there (think "Cheers") but he'll do much better in Florida. As long as he doesn't place fifth or six in either state, the Republican Party will settle on him. Depending on who he picks as a running mate, he may very well be the guest of honor at a few inaugural balls on January 20, 2013.
I don't rule out a thing.
Rick Santorum, the testy, family-focused, ultra-conservative from Pennsylvania, needs to pack his bags. He'll do alright in South Carolina with the gospel-according-to-Rick that people in the Palmetto State like to hear. Although he was eight votes shy of stealing Iowa from "The Mittiest" of former Massachusetts governors, his showing in New Hampshire was poor since he didn't bother to campaign there. Unfortunately, the Rickster's fundraising has yielded terrible results and he is quickly running out of cash. Santorum must have a 2nd place finish in South Carolina to continue to Florida. Good riddance.
Perhaps Jon Huntsman and Santorum should hop the next plane together. Although Huntsman's finances aren't as nightmarish as Santorum's, Conservatives just don't trust the guy--as they shouldn't. His job as
Ambassador to China came courtesy of President Obama and his governorship of Utah could be viewed as moderate in many ways. While his horrendous 1% showing in Iowa (he didn't bother to campaign there) was dismal, his 17%, 3rd place in New Hampshire was respectable. Unfortunately, he should've beat Ron Paul to be viewed as a serious contender. South Carolinians will smell a rat and he'll do poorly there. Anything less than 3rd place in the Palmetto State will send him packing, which is sad, since he's the one out of the bunch that I like best. Huntsman's probably the most genuine, sensible guy on the platform.
I'm a little nervous to say anything about Newt Gingrich. I think that the former Speaker will survive nicely in South Carolina; 2nd or maybe 3rd place. SC is around Newt's "neck of the woods" and he is well-liked there. He will go on to Florida, which is a very crucial state for him. He'll resonate with Conservative, Jeb Bush-old-guard followers there but I don't know how he'll fare against Romney or Ron Paul. Newt is one smart S.O.B. but his arrogance is a major turn-off and I think that my thoughts must be shared by others since his cash-flow isn't where it needs to be these days. Still, stay tuned...
Rick Perry, while close to being viewed in the same light of the R.I.P.-just-drowned candidacy of Michelle Bachmann, should certainly not be discounted. Not only will he do well in South Carolina, but he just might take 1st prize (remember: Romney is the front-runner but Romney is also a Yankee.) Perry's future in Florida looks a lot less certain, but his war chest is large, his debts are comparatively small and Southern states will be sympathetic to his rhetoric and folksy approach. If he could only shut his mouth and appear less confused on the stage. It's a question from a moderator, Governor. No one is expecting you to deciphyer ancient Egyptian code...
In any other election year, Ron Paul wouldn't have made it past New Hampshire. A 76 year-old Texas Congressman who isn't the moral preacher of the party, shoots off the hip, doesn't always vote with the posse, and spouts all sorts of Libertarian views that both confuse (and sometimes frighten) mainstream Republicans, shouldn't have this kind of traction. But 2012 isn't a normal election year, folks. And I think that Paul's candidacy is seen by many as a godsend. His views and ideas, many of which sound downright insane to Liberals, are growing on the GOP. His often-calm, grandfatherly manner appeal to many at a time when the Extreme Right predicts Armageddon should the President be re-elected. His 2nd place finish in New Hampshire wasn't necessarily close but that, combined with the strong percentage of his Iowa showing renders him formidable. I expect him to place in the top three in South Carolina and in Florida as well. Paul might be a senior who has spent twenty-plus years in Congress, but he has Obamaesque youth support and a considerable chunk of change. Watch out for this guy...
Mitt Romney is not exciting, and that's why there are so many Democratic Party-like fractions within the Republican Party. Helpful endorsements from "establishment Republicans" and popular figures such as Gov. Chris Christie have helped the GOP get over "the Mormon thing" and make him seen more electable. Although Romney's undeniably moderate tenure as Massachusetts Governor and noticeable flip-flops are troublesome, he seems a safe, stable bet to a growing segment of Republicans. Comparatively speaking, Romney, his espoused beliefs, and bland, parsley-like personality seem reliable when other GOP candidates should be on "Jerry Springer" or "Girls Gone Wild". Mitt is a step above John McCain: not totally Conservative but not totally nuts, either. South Carolinians wont yell "Mitttt!" when he walks into rooms down there (think "Cheers") but he'll do much better in Florida. As long as he doesn't place fifth or six in either state, the Republican Party will settle on him. Depending on who he picks as a running mate, he may very well be the guest of honor at a few inaugural balls on January 20, 2013.
I don't rule out a thing.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Gays, The President and AK-47s on Sundays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA
You watched that, right? I'm sorry, but did I miss something? Are
children no longer allowed to "openly celebrate Christmas"?! Governor
Perry, are you telling me that the yearly children's Christmas concerts
have been outlawed? And those gift exchanges-do they get jail time for
doing that?! Will they even be tried as children for such a heinous act?!
Horrors.
Welcome to yet another pre-nomination, desperate campaign ad from
someone whose recent polling suggests that he needs your Benjamin
Franklins more than your prayerful support. With its lovely fall foilage
and background soothing flute melody, this ad initially leads one to think
that Rick Perry is getting ready to audition for the "Sound of Music." The
soft atmosphere doesn't match his real message: The President is the Anti-
Christ. He hates you, and The Gays and Liberals are to blame for every
single problem you have--every single one!
Oh, those damned Gays. They've been ruining your heterosexual marriages
with their public expressions of commitment for over a decade now (haven't
they??) They've been moving into your fledgling, just-above-Skid-Row-
neighborhoods and raising your property values with their pastel colors,
beautiful lawns, flower beds and--worse--track lighting! And they're doing
all of that while continuing to cut and style your hair, preparing those tiny
bouquets that you buy instead of spending more on the Mrs., and telling you,
during your visit to Macy's, that if you try to match that tie with that shirt,
they will personally call security. That's not all, though: we can't call out The
Gays without calling out what they do in the bedroom! Folks, these acts have
penetrated (no pun, I swear) sacred, time-honored Heterosexual pornography
and from our research, it seems that these porn actors and actresses are
attempting to--cover your eyes/ears--MIMIC what The Gays do in the
bedroom! Heterosexuals do not do these things at all, and this mimicry of Gay
Physical Behavior must stop! It is devaluing our currency, ruining our social
fabric and becoming detrimental to birth control manufacturers' profit margins!
Rick Perry says so.
And then there's Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. The nerve of that man for
trying to improve our economy with stimulus packages, long and short-term
job solutions and rebuilding a badly deteriorating infrastructure. What kind of
sleezeball would spend our taxpayer dollars so that a few (just thirty-some
million) people could get health insurance?! And now he's apparently waging a
"war against religion." Well, I guess that explains why we've switched focus
from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Southern Baptist Convention. And it must
be the sole reason why the Christian flag has been stripped from all worship
places and the American flag has been draped over all crosses. To be fair,
though, this "war against religion" really can't be blamed on the President,
folks. Unless a certain centuries-old document has suddenly changed, doesn't
the President still have to obtain Congressional approval for declarations of
war? Perhaps that's why Congress' approval rating is so low. Damned
warmongerers. Congress & Mr. President, leave Sunday School and
Communion ALONE!
Rick Perry says so.
Okay. Now that I have exceeded my daily dose of allotted sarcasm, I'd like
to give Gov. Perry, Newt Gingrich and all of the other potential and not-a-
chance candidates some advice: this stuff is a major turn-off, and not just to
moderate voters who don't factor their religious beliefs when voting; it's also
appears a little sketchy to religious voters of the non-hardcore-right-winged
variety who tend to think on their own.
For starters, Barack Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that in
1962 and 1963, the Supreme Court judged school-sponsored prayers unconstitutional. Unless the future President was arguing court cases at age
two, Barack Obama cannot be blamed for this. And unless I've missed some
headlines, he hasn't issued any Executive Orders banning children from
individually praying that time-honored prayer, "God, I hope I pass this
stupid test..." Many Americans know that the President isn't to blame for
any of that--and that he isn't waging any "religious wars". The other thing
that thinking Americans know is how certain words send out red flags.
When George-"Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation
Forever"-Wallace ran for President in 1968, he received almost ten million
votes, carrying all of the electoral votes of five states. Very impressive,
considering that Wallace didn't run on either of the standard two-party
tickets. Wallace got all of those votes (all from the South) because he was a
bully and used scare tactics.
Being a bully in 2012 isn't cool, folks. And after years of racial inequality
and discrimination towards minorities, Americans are slowly, finally
starting to pick up on the fact that people who bully and scare usually have
something that they need to prove. As my pal Sean stated, America "is
statistically 76% Christian." So why tell us that you're "not afraid to admit
that I'm a Christian", Governor Perry--and continue with an infactual,
bullying crusade?! Shouldn't you be comfortable with your own religion!?
In a year that finds governing bodies considering Anti-Bullying legislation,
it probably isn't very wise to start picking on others. People who bully tend
to do so because it's their only way to be relevant and popular.
So, back off, Governor Perry and the rest of the "Party of NO". Is our
economy still struggling? Yes. Is the President the most popular rooster in
the barnyard? No. But unless you're ready to have a serious conversation
and solutions for how to fix our problems and unless you've got more
substance than what is demonstrated with these tired, trivial, ages-old
attacks, just stay out of it. Go hug your money. Become a lobbyist. Join a
church if you have a conversion and want to remove yourself from the
dirtiness of politics.
Just beware of machine guns at the altar.
Rick Perry says so.
You watched that, right? I'm sorry, but did I miss something? Are
children no longer allowed to "openly celebrate Christmas"?! Governor
Perry, are you telling me that the yearly children's Christmas concerts
have been outlawed? And those gift exchanges-do they get jail time for
doing that?! Will they even be tried as children for such a heinous act?!
Horrors.
Welcome to yet another pre-nomination, desperate campaign ad from
someone whose recent polling suggests that he needs your Benjamin
Franklins more than your prayerful support. With its lovely fall foilage
and background soothing flute melody, this ad initially leads one to think
that Rick Perry is getting ready to audition for the "Sound of Music." The
soft atmosphere doesn't match his real message: The President is the Anti-
Christ. He hates you, and The Gays and Liberals are to blame for every
single problem you have--every single one!
Oh, those damned Gays. They've been ruining your heterosexual marriages
with their public expressions of commitment for over a decade now (haven't
they??) They've been moving into your fledgling, just-above-Skid-Row-
neighborhoods and raising your property values with their pastel colors,
beautiful lawns, flower beds and--worse--track lighting! And they're doing
all of that while continuing to cut and style your hair, preparing those tiny
bouquets that you buy instead of spending more on the Mrs., and telling you,
during your visit to Macy's, that if you try to match that tie with that shirt,
they will personally call security. That's not all, though: we can't call out The
Gays without calling out what they do in the bedroom! Folks, these acts have
penetrated (no pun, I swear) sacred, time-honored Heterosexual pornography
and from our research, it seems that these porn actors and actresses are
attempting to--cover your eyes/ears--MIMIC what The Gays do in the
bedroom! Heterosexuals do not do these things at all, and this mimicry of Gay
Physical Behavior must stop! It is devaluing our currency, ruining our social
fabric and becoming detrimental to birth control manufacturers' profit margins!
Rick Perry says so.
And then there's Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. The nerve of that man for
trying to improve our economy with stimulus packages, long and short-term
job solutions and rebuilding a badly deteriorating infrastructure. What kind of
sleezeball would spend our taxpayer dollars so that a few (just thirty-some
million) people could get health insurance?! And now he's apparently waging a
"war against religion." Well, I guess that explains why we've switched focus
from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Southern Baptist Convention. And it must
be the sole reason why the Christian flag has been stripped from all worship
places and the American flag has been draped over all crosses. To be fair,
though, this "war against religion" really can't be blamed on the President,
folks. Unless a certain centuries-old document has suddenly changed, doesn't
the President still have to obtain Congressional approval for declarations of
war? Perhaps that's why Congress' approval rating is so low. Damned
warmongerers. Congress & Mr. President, leave Sunday School and
Communion ALONE!
Rick Perry says so.
Okay. Now that I have exceeded my daily dose of allotted sarcasm, I'd like
to give Gov. Perry, Newt Gingrich and all of the other potential and not-a-
chance candidates some advice: this stuff is a major turn-off, and not just to
moderate voters who don't factor their religious beliefs when voting; it's also
appears a little sketchy to religious voters of the non-hardcore-right-winged
variety who tend to think on their own.
For starters, Barack Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that in
1962 and 1963, the Supreme Court judged school-sponsored prayers unconstitutional. Unless the future President was arguing court cases at age
two, Barack Obama cannot be blamed for this. And unless I've missed some
headlines, he hasn't issued any Executive Orders banning children from
individually praying that time-honored prayer, "God, I hope I pass this
stupid test..." Many Americans know that the President isn't to blame for
any of that--and that he isn't waging any "religious wars". The other thing
that thinking Americans know is how certain words send out red flags.
When George-"Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation
Forever"-Wallace ran for President in 1968, he received almost ten million
votes, carrying all of the electoral votes of five states. Very impressive,
considering that Wallace didn't run on either of the standard two-party
tickets. Wallace got all of those votes (all from the South) because he was a
bully and used scare tactics.
Being a bully in 2012 isn't cool, folks. And after years of racial inequality
and discrimination towards minorities, Americans are slowly, finally
starting to pick up on the fact that people who bully and scare usually have
something that they need to prove. As my pal Sean stated, America "is
statistically 76% Christian." So why tell us that you're "not afraid to admit
that I'm a Christian", Governor Perry--and continue with an infactual,
bullying crusade?! Shouldn't you be comfortable with your own religion!?
In a year that finds governing bodies considering Anti-Bullying legislation,
it probably isn't very wise to start picking on others. People who bully tend
to do so because it's their only way to be relevant and popular.
So, back off, Governor Perry and the rest of the "Party of NO". Is our
economy still struggling? Yes. Is the President the most popular rooster in
the barnyard? No. But unless you're ready to have a serious conversation
and solutions for how to fix our problems and unless you've got more
substance than what is demonstrated with these tired, trivial, ages-old
attacks, just stay out of it. Go hug your money. Become a lobbyist. Join a
church if you have a conversion and want to remove yourself from the
dirtiness of politics.
Just beware of machine guns at the altar.
Rick Perry says so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)