Fucking Christmas Parties

"Nephew," returned the uncle sternly, "keep Christmas in your own way, and let me keep it in mine."
"Keep it!" repeated Scrooge's nephew. "But you don't keep it."

"Let me leave it alone, then," said Scrooge.

-"A Christmas Carol", Charles Dickens

Currently, my place of employment is down the hall having their annual Christmas Party. I volunteered to cover the front desk on the off chance that somebody actually comes in this week and needs something (the week before Christmas means this place is typically a ghost town for non-employees).

Mostly, I volunteered because I don't want to go to the fucking party.

I like most of my co-workers, I suppose, but that doesn't mean I want to necessarily "hang-out." For a variety of reasons, I have stopped making much of an effort to make friends with co-workers because I really don't need more relationships to try and cultivate, especially since I have enough trouble maintaining the long time relationships I already have and also because the odds are that we won't be co-workers for a long period of time.

So, I am choosing to not go mingle with people. There are plenty of reasons for that, too. Depending on what day it is, I might be fairly extroverted, although it's more likely it will be an introvert kind of day. Part of this stems from having a certain level of social anxiety stemming from depression that I'm much more comfortable in small groups of close friends if I can't be alone.

And, then there's the whole Christmas aspect. I don't enjoy Christmas, at least, not enough to make a big deal out of it. It is a whole bunch of added stress and expectations and work that people claim results in fun. Yeah, well, for me, it's a whole bunch of requests and demands from other people who apparently can't have a good time unless I'm doing things their way. Every year, I hope to be left alone so I can find fun and enjoyment in some way that actually enables me to have fun and enjoy whatever it is I want to enjoy, but inevitably, it is a whole bunch of decorating, socializing, and "getting ready for" that sucks all the enjoyment out of the thing.

And here's the best part: the people that try and make you feel bad (or worse, act like you are some sort of monster that wants to shit all over their fun). I tell my co-workers I don't really want to go to the party and I get these looks of utter confusion mixed with pity, sometimes tinged with disapproval. And the pleas of "It won't be the same without you!" Well, yeah, okay... it should, in reality, be better without me because I won't be there visibly not having a good time.

Meanwhile, apparently it's a departmental thing to exchange gifts or at least cards. Pretty much everybody has given me something, I didn't return the gesture for anyone. I really don't like receiving gifts. Why? Because 1) for some reason that I have never really determined, getting gifts makes me incredibly uncomfortable and 2) I generally like to pick out my own things as I have a long history of getting not what I really would have wanted.

I actually don't mind GIVING gifts, but the catch there is that I don't like giving gifts just to give gifts or worse, feeling obligated to give a gift. If I see something that I think somebody I like would really enjoy, I like to get it for them if I can. But I don't really want to be under some obligation to give it to them at a arbitrarily  predetermined time.

Anyway, fuck off Christmas Nazis.

Idiots

I'm not sure I actually have much to say about the "Government Shutdown." Let's find out as bullet point my randomly expressed thoughts:

• To the government employees not getting paid. That sucks.
• To all the people bitching about it - shut the fuck up. All of you morons that keep voting for these people need to just shut it. You empower these fucktards and in turn cause the country to become more and more reliant on the government for existence. You played the "whose party can squeeze our balls the hardest" and this is ultimately the end result.
• To the Republicans - you have reached a new low... and short of actual violence on citizens, I'm not sure you can get much  lower. Hey, I don't like Obamacare either, but rather than using the typical and usually safer political ploy of waiting for the legislation you hate to fail after being enacted, you took the stupid bus down to Dumbass Town and let a fringe group of your party that might be too ridiculous for a Monty Python Election Night Special paint you into a corner... and then shit in the corner. Ted "Cuban-Canadian-American" Cruz managed to lead what amounts to a coup that has no plan, solutions, or brains and allowed him and his playmates to make you all look like asshole villains. Guess what, the Tea Party does not represent a) the majority of Americans and probably not even b) the majority of Republicans. They have peaked. There is no chance that anybody screaming Tea Party propaganda will ever inhabit the White House and you would be wise to tell them to get the fuck out. If they believe they have the backing, let 'em start their own completely separate party. Meanwhile, the last few rational members of your party are throwing their hands in the air. The GOP needs a massive house cleaning or you will become irrelevant by the end of the decade.

• To the Democrats - while the Republicans can be blamed directly for the actual shutdown, you fucks have plenty to accept blame for your own damn selves. As petty and uncooperative as the GOP has been, you have actually been worse by publicly admitting you have no interest in discussing anything until the GOP gives in to EVERYTHING YOU DEMAND. So yeah, in the face of that, why not just one up you on the shitbag-o-meter and take the option that doesn't give you anything. What the fuck did you expect... "Give us everything or... um... oh... wait... I guess you'll choose the other option which is to not do that and shut down the government." You ramrodded a healthcare plan down our throats that nobody knows for sure how it's going to turn out (which usually means you spent zero time on possible consequences which will rear their ugly heads at some point). But hey, that's cool. You so badly want to be seen as saviors of everybody in your largely undefined and ever changing "poor" class that you will just come up with some bullshit that sounds awesome in much the same way that a five-year-old draws a picture of a white guy and a black guy holding hands and thinks this will somehow end racism.Also, see my second point as you are primarily responsible for that.

Hey folks, just keep on voting for these turds. Eventually, you'll have a government that doesn't do anything at all... but those tools will still get paid. And don't start the asinine "Vote 'em out" nonsense. Because we all know that all that really means is that you'll replace the idiot in office now with either an idiot from the same party's candidate pool or an idiot from the opposing party's candidate pool. That is pointless. That's like deciding that eating your poodle's shit is gross and expecting your German shepherd's crap to be an improvement.

Casey Pachall Is a Selfish Douchebag (a 12 month manifesto)

*In progress, started in October 2012*
*some of the 2013 additions were before Pachall's injury, some after*


I guess I'm a TCU fan. It's hard for me to tell anymore because over the last year they've done a lot to piss me off.
Now sure, I don't go there, I'm just a fan and alumni, and so why should I really care what they do. Well, I'll tell you:
!) As an alum, they keep asking me to give them money, which means I apparently have some value to them, even if it is just as a wallet.
@) When they fuck up, it reflects on all alumni. When your college does something incredibly stupid that shows up in the news, are you often greeted with snide comments and disparaging remarks about your educational home? Think Penn State people are sometimes reluctant to say where they went right now?
#) Since I have, in the past, gone to many athletic events and worn their colors and praised and defended the good name of the university, it makes it harder to not look like a dumbass when something goes bad.

In a horrible case of "be careful what you wish for", TCU joined the "big boy" conference called the Big12, which has 10 teams (because quite honestly, college football has reached a point that is so ludicrous that it's embarrassing that to be associated with institutions of higher learning). Apparently, one of the rules of being in a BB conference is that you must have student athletes and/or staff do idiotic, disgraceful, and sometimes horrifically illegal from time to time.
TCU wasted no time in making headlines back in February when a bunch of students, including 4 football players, were busted by authorities for dealing drugs (and maybe some other stuff, I'm not sure and I stopped caring). Weed was definitely involved, as well as cocaine, ecstasy, and some prescription stuff. The students arrested, including the football players (Tanner Brock, Devin Johnson, DJ Yendrey, and Tyler "Ty" Horn) were expelled almost immediately. You caught that, right? Expelled. No trial or anything, but expelled almost as soon as the public found out.
I agreed with it then and I agree with it now, although, as I'll get to, I also think these guys were treated unfairly.

 *Note: It took me several days to get all of this written, so things happened as the story progressed.*

So, in August when it was discovered that Pachall failed the drug test that was administered to the entire team around the time of the drug bust, there was a collective facepalm by the TCU community. Now, initially, it seemed like it was just weed... that's all they found in his system. And despite being the roommate of Tanner Brock, there wasn't a huge amount of anger because... well... a college kid doing weed? Oh gosh! It's weed... big fucking deal. It's the opposite of a performance enhancing drug so really... who cares. Except Pachall had to open his troglodyte mouth and apologize and then admit to ALSO DOING COCAINE AND ECSTASY!
That, my friends, is a horse of a different color. Now, those guys that were dealing were immediately expelled because TCU is gonna be tough on bad behavior. So, Pachall was probably going to get some punishment, right? Suspended for a game or two maybe? Seems fair... might send a good message that even the star QB is not above punishment.
Except that they didn't do shit. Patterson apparently considered a suspension, but then opted to not do anything. There are various thoughts about this. Patterson and AD Del Conte said there was nothing in the code of conduct that said Pachall must be punished, so they decided not to. Wouldn't be surprised of there might have been some booster influence or something, but either way, doesn't really send a strong message about drug use does it. For god's sake, DON'T SELL THAT SHIT! But hey, if you get some in your hands, might as well use it, amiright?
Not to suggest that any of this is equal to what happened at Penn State, but the decision to not do anything about Pachall in August because they weren't mandated or obligated to do anything based on rules or laws is basically the same defense used by Joe Pa supporters as to why he didn't do anything wrong.

*Resumed on September 3, 2013*

Okay, so recap: Casey Pachall got busted for drunk driving in October 2012. It made the news so TCU was unable to sweep it under the rug and protect him like they had in the past. So, they "suspended" him and he "de-enrolled" and checked himself into treatment or something. And then about three months later, he was back in school (or at least enrolled... hell if I know whether he attends classes) and practicing with the team.
As we got closer to the start of the football season, the speculation about Pachall starting at the QB position really started to heat up. Of course, let's be honest... we all knew it was going to be Pachall over Boykin. Patterson acted all coy, but he all but admitted to it when he said that if they were equal, the most experienced would start. Whatever... everybody knew it was gonna be Pachall. Hell, everybody was talking about how amazing Pachall was gonna be and how he was gonna be a major player this year.

Now, before we go into Game 1, let me just say that Treyvone Boykin should have been the starter. He should have been named the starter weeks ago. I don't know what they looked like in practice, but if Pachall and Boykin were really that close together, Boykin was the correct choice.
Last year, Casey Pachall was the guy. He was always gonna be the guy. He and everybody else on that team knew he was the guy, The coaches knew it, the fans knew it, the media knew it. Barring an injury, there was no reason to think Boykin would ever be put into the position of being the guy. And yet, Pachall, despite knowing the responsibility he had to everyone, allowed the event to occur. And so, amidst all of the confusion and chaos, Freshman Treyvone Boykin was thrust into the position of being The Guy and being The Guy that had to lead TCU through their first Big12 campaign. Pachall fucked up royally and when he fucked up, it affected a whole bunch of people. He let down his teammates, his coaches, his fellow students, alumni, and fans. And Boykin came in and did remarkably well. Seriously, he salvaged a season that had suddenly become bleak looking.
And that's why Boykin should have been the starter.
Boykin, unless he was just blown out of the water by Pachall in practice, earned the starting position by stepping up and rescuing his team last year... rescuing them from the terrible position they were put in by Pachall.
But of course, that isn't what happened.
Last Saturday in whatever-the-fuck-they-are-calling-the-place-where-the-Dallas-Cowboys-play-now Stadium, Gary Patterson made Pachall & Boykin co-Captains and they both started the first offensive play... except that Boykin was a receiver. Pachall was the QB. Yeah, I guess they threw Boykin a bone by letting him be on the field to start, but not as QB.
I suppose there is the possibility that Boykin doesn't WANT to be the starting QB and would rather be a receiver, but I don't see how. And if that were the case, there are other QBs waiting in the wings and they would have been vying for the back-up job instead of this pretend QB battle that we had.
But anyway, Pachall got the call. And effectively, Patterson told Boykin, "Hey, thanks for bailing us out last year after that other guy that we did a shitty job of controlling nearly destroyed our season, but even though you appear to be about as good, we're gonna give the other guy his job back."
And then the best part? Pachall sucked and was benched in the 3rd quarter. Boykin came in and once again, gave the team some hope. Granted, he wasn't able to pull off a victory, but the offense showed more life than it had previously.
So why has Patterson already said that Pachall will be back as the starter for the next game? Seriously... what is the deal? Has the "Pachall Redemption Story" become so important that they are just going to keep putting him out there until he gets it right? Does Patterson & co now feel that if Pachall doesn't achieve great success that this whole affair will look even worse?
I have to wonder what the locker room feeling is towards each QB. Judging by how the LSU game played out, I have to wonder if the rest of the team would prefer to have Boykin playing.
TCU has done such a shitty job in all of this. They really have.
Pachall has been a problem for awhile. Apologists (re: people who think that somebody that can play a game really well should be cut some slack) will say everybody deserves a second chance. Yeah, maybe so, but this isn't Pachall's second chance. Hell it isn't even his third chance. This is at least his 4th chance. There was failing the drug test during the sting, then there was publicly admitting that he did more than just weed (i.e. yeah, I admit I did more than what you found out), and THEN comes the drunk driving thing.
Now, I can perhaps consider the drug test and admission of drug use (6 months later) as 1 offense, although that still means this is his 3rd chance. But there was also this other incident that happened :

This happened back in Summer 2011. Every Day Should Be Saturday posted a "story" that featured this picture. At the time, it was mostly about his tattoos but the whole thing went wonky pretty quick. Apparently Casey's mom requested that EDSBS (and some other websites) remove the photos because they were embarrassing (you can also see some of the other pics at various websites by doing a google search). Supposedly, according to one source that nobody had ever heard of, this was Casey and his girlfriend and some of their friends and Casey's FAMILY out at the lake. I have my doubts.

Now, Casey was under 21 when these pictures were taken. Supposedly, there was no alcohol involved. Again, I have my doubts.
I'm not a prude. I really don't give a shit what these guys do in their own time. I honestly don't care if they drink, have orgies, do drugs, snort ants, or punch hippies. However, if anything they do is illegal and they get caught, I do have a problem with that. See, that goes back to the "representing the university" thing.
Really, though, I'm not sure that there is anything particularly bad going on here. Stupid, yes, but bad? Nah. Well... except..
I don't know everything going on here but I DO know that the girl in this picture, Casey's girlfriend, was suspended from the TCU Women's Soccer Team after these came out and that effectively ended her career. It was probably the soccer coach's decision to punish her, and, full disclosure, he was a dick who played favorites anyway, as opposed to the school or athletic department. But then again... what happened here that one coach felt was suspension worthy and another (Patterson) didn't? She doesn't even have a cup and doesn't appear to be doing anything worse than Pachall. Either Patterson, supposedly a strict disciplinarian and strong supporter of character, let his star QB slide or the soccer coach was a fucking asshole. Honestly, I tend to think it was the latter, but it would still seem to me that the athletic department could have stepped and in and said, "Hey Coach Asshole, what's with the iron fist? There wasn't much going on here?"
I have to wonder what the whole story is and why there is a smell of double standard.
Additionally, Girlfriend is still (at last check) Pachall's girlfriend and has stuck by him through all of this. She's either incredibly noble or incredibly stupid. Not sure which. Especially since friends of mine who also played soccer with her and also some other folks that have history in TCU athletics have said that Pachall is a douchebag that would cheat on her while she was right there. Casey is not universally loved by those that know him.
So, that brings me to the heart of the matter.
Pachall has done stupid things or just flat out fucked up more than once. In that same time span, his girlfriend was thrown off the soccer team, his roommate and three other teammates were expelled for drugs, another expelled for burglary, and one more suspended for two games this season for undisclosed team violations. Five players expelled in short order after their first public arrest... not after a conviction or anything, just tossed right out before the handcuffs stopped being cold against the wrists. And another who actually was suspended for... something... we have no idea what... but it was against the rules. Isn't failing drug tests against the rules?
Now, again, I am behind the expulsions and suspensions (based on the information presented) but Pachall in reality, got a slap on the wrist. And here's where I have a big problem with the way TCU handled this.
Had they really wanted to make a statement about no tolerance for bad behavior, every one of those fools that failed the drug tests, Pachall included, should have been benched for the first two games of the season for breaking team rules. But no... and then when Pachall admits to the drugs and so that's out there, Patterson and friends could have benched him for 2 games then, to at least make it look like they were serious. But no... and then 2 months later, dumbass gets busted for drunk driving. And if anybody thinks this was the first time he was out in the middle of the night driving drunk... daaaaaaamn you be naive. Hell, I saw on another player's Facebook page that he and Pachall were out the night BEFORE the arrest and it was like 3 AM.
Either Patterson knew how messed up Pachall was at that point and DIDN'T try and head it off at the pass or "get him help", in which case Patterson failed Pachall as a coach. OR Patterson had no clue about all of this and Pachall had learned nothing from his previous fuck-ups. I don't care which one it is. In either case everybody involved comes out with a black eye. And I haven't even mentioned his teammates, friends, and girlfriend... none of whom seemed concerned enough about Pachall's "problem" to get him to do something. Honestly... NOBODY in his circle could tell that things were going in the wrong direction?
What should have happened is that Patterson told him he needs help and that he could come back to school, but he was done as a TCU football player. His behavior affected too many people for too long to just get to play victim and come back.
In June, when LSU-transfer David Jenkins "turned himself into police [June 13, 2013] after two warrants were issued for his arrest on suspicion of burglary of a habitation" he was immediately removed from the football team and the statement from TCU was “'When our student-athletes do not conduct themselves as proper members of the campus community, they lose the privilege of representing Texas Christian University and wearing the Horned Frogs uniform,' TCU athletic director Chris Del Conte said in a statement". 
Now, let's break that down for a second. David Jenkins voluntarily turned himself in (i.e. NOT arrested) after warrants were issued for SUSPICION of burglary. Pachall was arrested when he was caught drunk driving. Yeah, I'm gonna say it... double fucking standard. Particularly since Pachall had been in trouble before and received no apparent punishment.
I thought Chris Del Conte was smarter than this but his comments make him look like a complete buffoon. Ignoring the fact for a moment that Jenkins had not even had a day in court to argue his guilt or innocence, even if Jenkins was guilty of burglary, how do Pachall's indiscretions NOT fall under a "student"-athlete not conducting themselves as a proper member of the campus community?
And then Devonte Fields was suspended for unnamed violations but it sounds like drugs might have been involved and Fields apparently did 135 hours of community service. He was supposed to be suspended for the first two games, but he came back out in the second half of game 2. Of course, that's still 1.5 more games than Pachall sat out before his arrest. Patterson said the “The key for me is it’s still about teaching life lessons" with regards to Fields, which is great, but where were those life lessons in regards to Pachall leading up to his arrest. Let me just reiterate that Pachall openly admitted to doing drugs and failing a drug test and had no apparent punishment. Is it really any surprise then, that he just kept pushing the envelope until it fell off the table?

In game 2, Pachall started again. And he wasn't very effective. He wasn't terrible, but he wasn't impressive in the least. Before the half, he went down with an injury (broken arm) and Boykin took over. The offense almost immediately went into a different gear, indicating that once again, this is and should always have been Boykin's Team.
Early reports indicate that Pachall's post-surgery recovery will be about 8 weeks. If this is the case, then at best he'll be back for the final three games (Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor). I have questions:
Will Patterson still insist on starting him as soon as he is deemed "healthy"?
If Boykin is rolling and the games are tight and meaningful, will Pachall ever see the field?
Patterson has said he won't Redshirt him, so could this be the end of Pachall's TCU career (I hope)?
Will anybody in the NFL want him?
Should Pachall have even been brought back in light of his lackluster performance? Wasn't he more of a distraction than an asset?

I imagine, that if there is no Big12 Championship on the line, Pachall will play again. But unless Boykin is just terrible, there is no legitimate reason for Pachall to start.
I genuinely hope that this Casey Pachall Love Fest will end now. Looking back at his 2012 games, I have to wonder if he was really as good as the hype or if the drugs and partying had already taken a toll. He played 4 games: Grambling State, Kansas, Virginia, SMU. Those teams went a combined 13-36 last year, including Division II opponent Grambling, which won 1 out of 12 games. This was not stellar competition. So it's hard to know how much better TCU would have been with Pachall as opposed to Boykin. But I would wager that had he not been arrested and the partying continued, the season might well have been a more disappointing bust. Who knows. Maybe TCU would have gone undefeated and won the National Championship. Probably not, but it will always be the "Season of What If?" thanks to stupid Pachall and the irresponsible administration that was supposed to keep him in line.

I wish I could say that after all of this that I'm still shouting "Go Frogs!" every week, but I can't. I've grown pretty tired of the Culture of Athletic Apologetics that goes on in this country and TCU really let me down. I was honestly stupid enough to believe that they would actually remain consistent, especially after the drug bust. But they coddled Pachall and it had disastrous effects. And if they can't do any better than the rest, why should I bother? What do I really get out of this relationship besides poorer and exhausted from fruitlessly defending and promoting a school that rewards me by fucking up my season tickets and pricing me out of games?
Other "fans" have made it pretty clear that I won't be missed, and they are most likely right... which is just another reason for my current state of indifference. I have better things to do and now that I was written this cathartic post, I've said pretty much all I have to say. I'm glad that this has finally played out and I feel a whole hell of lot better.
Thanks for being douchebags, Casey Pachall and TCU... I have a lot more time to concentrate on things that matter and not about glorifying your stupid.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/08/27/5112520/will-tcu-defensive-star-play-patterson.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/06/14/4939052/tcu-cornerback-dismissed-from.html#storylink=cpy

Pastor Kevin Swanson.... die you fucking asshole... die die die!

Maybe it isn't very nice and maybe it is stooping down to his level and maybe it really doesn't help the cause, but "Pastor" Kevin Swanson is a fucking evil piece of shit that deserves to die a horrible agonizing death for the hate he spews.

Fast Food Employees are Stupid Fucking Idiots

Clarification: Not all Fast Food Employees are Stupid Fucking Idiots, but all of the Fast Food Employees that are staging protests, strikes, and walkouts over wages are Stupid Fucking Idiots.

I fail to understand why YOU, a person who takes words spoken by the customer and then, by either pressing buttons or following explicit instructions to create simple foods, turn that into relatively cheap and quick "food", believe that what you do is worth $15 an hour. You have a position that requires the intelligence and skill that life forms that barely register as "human" can master. Your job requires no education past post-Sesame Street level Elementary School mathematics and language (most often in the language of the country where your store is located). It requires no special knowledge of anything beyond button pressing and basic social interaction. It requires no exemplary or substantial education or employment history. Basically, if you can manage to get to the building and say, "Job Application?", you are probably qualified.

So, when you piss and moan about how little you get paid, it makes me want to shove your head in the hot oil reservoir.
"But we deserve a living wage!" you scream.
"Then learn a fucking skill that sets you apart from chimpanzees and Jersey Shore residents," I retort.

I have a fucking master's degree, nearly 20 years in customer service, and an IQ in the top 2%. I make $10 an hour. Why? Because of fairly simple economic concepts. I have a degree in a field that is currently over saturated. That means that thanks to several different reasons, there are more people looking for the same jobs than there are available jobs.

Your situation is similar but not identical. Whereas my field requires a certain level of education and experience, which currently, there is an overabundance of supply, your field requires nothing. So, while there are jobs available that are not quickly filled (unlike my field), the supply of potential workers is vastly larger than in my field. Additionally, since your positions are easy to replace (i.e. replacing a worker with a new worker results in little prolonged service quality decrease), there is less of a downside to filtering through multiple employees until one that is willing to do an adequate job at the wage offered can be found.

Additionally, your wage is one of many factors that determine the profit margin of the company for which you work. That company is there to make money for the individuals that own and operate the company. They are not there solely to provide you with employment. You are a means to an end, a resource used by the owners to achieve their goal of making money. Their job is to maintain a company that is profitable so that they earn money with which to buy shit. Your job is whatever they need you to do in order for the company to make money and be profitable so that the owners can then give you some of their money in return. If at some point, the business is no longer profitable enough to keep the owner interested in continuing the operation, then in all likelihood, your job goes away. That's how this works. There is no altruistic goal by the people giving you money to press buttons in the same way that you aren't handing people poorly constructed sandwiches in an effort to bring peace and harmony to the people of Earth. You do it to make money to buy shit.

The fact that you don't seem to grasp basic economic principles only further highlights that you are not worth the exorbitant wage level of which you deem yourself deserving.

Now... let's just say that you got your wish and your position started earning $15 an hour? What makes you think that you wouldn't be replaced by somebody similar to me... a skilled, experienced laborer that makes less than $15? Why would your employer, if they had the choice between somebody with maybe a high school diploma and no experience outside of low wage unskilled labor jobs and someone with years of experience and education and more perceived potential to become a valuable asset to the company instead of just somebody that might make shift manager, choose basic over deluxe?

And make no mistake... if I could make 50% more than I make now to do your job, a job that requires almost no significant responsibility, why wouldn't I? And be honest... which one of us is going to be more attractive to your boss?

See, when they pay you $8 an hour, they don't expect much. They are generally pretty satisfied if you show up and not steal from the till. But if you ratchet that up to almost twice the pay, shit is gonna get real. And do you know why? Because if I'm paying you $15 an hour, I'm expecting you do do a fabulous job. And if you aren't impressing me, there is damn sure gonna be somebody out there that can put your "skills" to shame and I'd bet they would do your job better for, say, $14 an hour. Don't believe me? Yeah, see, that's why you are stupid.

Nobody OWES you a "living wage." It's not a human right (as I've already discussed) and you are not entitled to it. Regardless of what your bleeding heart liberal hippie heroes have led you to believe, a classless utopia is impossible. There will always be rich people and poor people (and all those in between). You can try and create a classless society, but it won't last because there will always be some people that either want more than you (and are more inclined to exert the level of effort to obtain it) or just naturally acquire more than you (example: only one farmer grows corn in your society and he has a bad crop and so there isn't enough for everybody. Even if there is a lottery system and no goods/services are exchanged for corn, there will be some people with corn (haves) and some without corn (have nots))

So, here's what I have to say in summary: It's a cruel world, not everybody gets a trophy. Fuck off.

Dallas Fort Worth Sports Media needs to get off the Dallas Cowboys' dick

Since I live in a part of Texas that isn't part of the Houston sports media coverage, I have to listen to bullshit about the Dallas Cowboys. All the time. Even when there isn't any actual news... they sports media still devotes a ridiculous amount of time to covering the Cowboys.

I understand football is a religion in this state. I get that. There's a lot of stupid in this state so really, what's one more stupid obsession. But c'mon people... this is absurd. The Cowboys are just not worthy of this kind of attention. Maybe if they won something every now and then, but they have been a mediocre (at best) franchise for more than 15 years now. Seriously...

A few nights ago, when there was no pre-season game playing and no major news, the local CBS affiliate still led their sports with the Cowboys. Never mind that the Texas Rangers, who currently have the best record in the American League, are playing some damn fine baseball and have been a pretty dominating presence in the MLB for the past few years.

In fact, I did a quick review of pro sports teams in the Dallas Fort Worth area and how they stacked up against the Cowboys since 1995 (the last time the Cowboys won a championship). I looked at the records of pretty much all the significant teams in the five major sports (Football, Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, and Soccer) based in the DFW area. The teams looked at are as follows:
 

Dallas Cowboys

Dallas Mavericks

Dallas Stars

FC Dallas

Texas Rangers

Dallas Sidekicks

Fort Worth Fire

Fort Worth/Texas Brahmas

Fort Worth Cats

Grand Prairie AirHogs

Here's what I found:

The Cowboys have appeared in the postseason 7 times since their last championship. That's good for 7th place. Now keep in mind that of the three teams the Cowboys beat out (AirHogs, Fire, Rangers), the AirHogs haven't even existed for 7 seasons and the Fire lasted for 7 total.

The Cowboys have won 2 games/series in the postseason. That's dead last. Every other team has had at least one more successful postseason than the Cowboys.

The Cowboys are the only team in this list to NOT MAKE THEIR SPORT'S CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. That's right, since the 1995 Super Bowl (yeah, I used the term "Super Bowl"... fuck you NFL and your trademark copyright bullshit), every other notable team in the DFW area has made the final game or series for their respective league EXCEPT "America's Team."

And of those other 9 teams, FC Dallas and the Rangers are the only teams to not bring home the trophy. But hey, at least they had a real shot, which is more than we can say for the Cowdopes.

Hell, earlier this year, whatever idiot runs the Dallas Cowboys' Twitter page shoved his cleat firmly in his mouth which the Dallas Stars' Twitter page removed and shoved in the Cowboys' ass:

"At least our #9 got the job done..... RT:" @DallasCowboys Similarly in the category of nobody-cares…the NHL is back!" pic.twitter.com/06y0e6iG"

Burn. Served. Nicely done, hockey dudes.

And we COULD even mention local college and high school teams that have been more relevant on a national level than the Cowboys, but I just don't give enough of a fuck to do that kind of research (although TCU did win the fucking Rose Bowl... I'm not sure the Cowboys could win the Rose Bowl at this point).

I don't know which is more pathetic... that the local media can't stop talking about every minute detail of a mediocre football team instead of giving more coverage to teams that are currently not sucking or that there is apparently enough local interest by sports enthusiasts for trivial Cowboys related bullshit that the ratings for said bullshit support the media gangbang.

My toddler really likes "Wheel of Fortune." He couldn't watch it last night because that station had to air AN HOUR OF PRE-GAME BULLSHIT BEFORE THE COWBOYS PRE-SEASON GAME. That is just fucking asinine. People actually watch that shit? How sad is your life that an hour long Pre-Pre-Season Game program is worth watching? I've been a literal fanatic about teams before (like TCU before they pissed me off once too many times), but Christ... I can think of hundreds of things I'd rather do than watch an hour long program about the meaningless 3 hour program that follows it. What could POSSIBLY be so important that it needs its own program instead of using it as time filler during the game when there is plenty of "players standing around looking at each others sweat stained uniforms" time.

In a related note, I really want to slap that shit-eating grin off Tony Romo's face. He's done nothing to warrant that cocky fucking look he flashes around.

Also related, I can't wait until Dale Hansen dies because that jackass is the ultimate Cowboys ball licker (although Babe Laufenberg is giving him a real run for the money, but at least Babe PLAYED for the Cowboys at one point). And to make matters worse, if Dale can't find some asinine crap about the Cowboys to report, he'll just talk about golf. Once, he talked about Tony Romo playing golf and I nearly went nuclear. Dale Hansen is an egotistical douchebag. That isn't necessarily relevant to anything right now, but I enjoy taking every opportunity to point that out.

I'm all famous and shit (not really)

A random comment I made on a news story about the whole Time Warner Cable/CBS fight was used in another column about the same thing. Woo woo.

Your understanding of human "rights" is FAIL!

I really don't know which group of fools I despise more... right wing uber conservative Jesus fucks or left wing progressive naive idiots.
Today, it's the idiots.
I've starting staying away from Facebook more and more because I'm tired of blocking content from Fucknut Tea Party Panic sites and Fucknut Progressive Liberal Whine sites. Most recently, it's the Mother-of-all dumbass left wing FB pages, "Being Liberal." If there was ever a more naive, head-in-the-clouds group of morons, I haven't run across it. These fucktards are your one stop shopping source for pro-government-give-us-shit-because-we-deserve-it-for-simply-existing ideology. Rich people are scum, unskilled morons should make buttloads of money, and everybody has a right to a happy ending.
The latest affront to intelligence by these Pollyanna Kool-Aid drinkers is that Healthcare is a "Human Right." This is tied to Obamacare, of course, because Obamacare is the most awesome piece of legislation ever passed by the US Government and it was done by Liberal Democrats who are way more awesome humans that Republicans because they believe that everybody is entitled to a long healthy life with plenty of money and a fucking unicorn to ride to Candyland.
Here's the thing about "rights"... if something relies on another human being to make it happen, then it isn't a "right." Rights can be taken away, but they cannot be given (otherwise, how is it a right?)
Healthcare is provided by other people. If you get sick, there isn't a magic cure that just pops into existence and makes you better. You, at best, have to go to the store to get some medicine that required many different people, some highly skilled with lots of education, to get that into your hands. And these people were not forced to provide this medication for you. These people were paid or compensated each step of the way.
Had these people not worked together, the medicine you needed would (presumably) not been available to you. Now expand on that idea. If there were no doctors and no hospitals and no pharmacies not even a witch doctor... who would provide your healthcare? Oh, wait... someone has to give that to you? Yeahhhhhh.... see... that's not a "right."
The Declaration of Independence lists "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights... things that cannot be given and should not be taken away. Granted, "life" is technically given to you by your parents, but in this case, it refers to "somebody else killing you." And liberty... you are either free to do something or somebody takes that away, same with the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.
Do you understand? DO YOU!?!??!?
Life isn't fair and you can't get everything you want, even if it's something that you think should be a basic requirement of life.
And just for the record, here are some other things that aren't human rights:

• a high paying job
• a house
• a vacation
• education
• a full stomach
• a pension
• unemployment benefits
• to be a dick to other people by telling them they can't do something because your religion says it's bad

So, Liberals, shut the fuck up. Obamacare, like almost every other government system, will most likely cause more problems than it fixes. I'm sorry your little bleeding hearts can't handle the fact that some people can't afford expensive medical treatment (partly due to government regulations and laws driving up the cost of doing business in the world of healthcare (see also: malpractice insurance, for example)). It's going to screw over some people who were in good shape before your actions, but hey, those are just rich people, right? Rich people are evil and if they would just give away their stuff, the government wouldn't have to take it by force, right?

Fuck off.

Why Black People need to shut the fuck up and stop defending Michael Vick

I'm gonna make this real simple.

Every time an American of dark skin pigmentation with ancestral ties to the African continent defends Michael Vick using the argument that "It was just dogs, not people. They aren't more important than people. They were his property he can do what he wants with 'em" they should be reminded of the history.

It wasn't that long ago that Americans of light skin pigmentation with ancestral ties to Europe argued in defense of slavery that "They're just negroes, not white folk. They aren't even fully human... more like animals. They are property and we can do with them as we wish."

Am I comparing slaves to dogs? No, dumbass. I'm comparing sentient creatures that can feel pain that were brutalized, tortured, and killed because some other asshole believed these creatures to be little more than property, like a table or a frying pan. Slaves felt physical and psychological pain due to their treatment by their "owners". Dogs feel physical and psychological pain due to their treatment by their "owners."

So, you pieces of shit, shut the fuck up. Or don't expect me to feel sorry for you because (maybe) some of your ancestors were slaves. Pain is pain and it doesn't matter if you have 2 legs or 4.

Greg Abbott - Candidate for Governor of Texas

I don't really care much about Greg Abbott. I mean, he's a dipshit Republican in a state full of dipshit Republicans and we'll probably end up with a dipshit Republican governor because the Democrats are also dipshits in this state but outnumbered.

Anyway, all I want to say about Greg Abbott is that it is incorrect to say "Greg Abbott is running for governor of Texas." That's wrong.

See, Greg Abbott can't run. He's in a wheelchair.

So, the correct way to refer to Greg Abbott's candidacy is to say, "Greg Abbott is rolling for Governor of Texas." Let's get that straight. It's not polite to remind him of the things he can't do because his legs are just as useless as the logic and reasoning center in his brain.

George Zimmerman is a punk.
He is. Deal with it.
A jury of his "peers" decided that based on the evidence presented in court that Zimmernator was "not guilty" of 1st or 2nd degree murder as well as manslaughter.
Except that he killed an unarmed teenager. That is not in question. That is not in doubt. At no time since the night of February 26, 2012 has the statement "George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin" been anything less than a fact.
Now, I really don't have a problem with him not being convicted for 1st or 2nd degree. Maybe he is guilty of it, maybe not, but there really isn't enough evidence to reach those conclusions. The audio is insufficient since nobody can even agree on who is who. Zimmerman is the only person (alive) that saw the event (or at least, nobody else came forward).
So no, I don't think that was a mistake. The system is supposed to protect people from unfair convictions and the state couldn't prove its case.
But then there is manslaughter.
That one gets tricky. Even the jury requested clarification on how that works. This is where I'm upset.
Now, the case could be made (and was, presumably) that it wasn't manslaughter and was truly self-defense. But I don't buy it. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman followed Martin around. Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman ignored direct orders to cease and desist. Zimmerman chose to confront Martin.
And then, after unclear events, George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.
These are facts. There is no doubt that Zimmerman CHOSE to carry a weapon that he used to shoot and kill Trayvon. There is no doubt that Zimmerman CHOSE to ignore warnings given to him by police.
All Zimmerman had to do was wait in, or at least by, his vehicle until police arrived. That's it.
No, instead, he chose to act in a manner that in the best case scenario, caused a 17-year-old to attack him. He poked the bear under those circumstances.
Worst case, he confronted Martin in such a manner that Martin perhaps feared for his safety and attempted to stand his own ground.
Regardless of whether he poked the bear or outright punched the bear in the face, Zimmerman's unnecessary actions resulted in Martin's death. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

But the fucker won't be punished by the state for it. Because our court system, often held to be the "best in the world", is a game that savvy lawyers play. A system that increasingly becomes more complicated by added nuanced laws and redefinitions and unintended loopholes. A system created by humans who can't even agree on what actually constitutes fairness. Zimmerman had the extremely fortunate luck to fall into some nice fitting vague legal concepts that made it all but impossible to convict him of anything.

But the court system is not to blame. Nor are the idiotic laws written by idiotic politicians. And the inanimate objects like the gun and the hoodie... they are not at fault here.

There is one person to blame. Only one person. The person that killed Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman.

Like I said, Zimmerman is a punk. He's a wannabe cop with delusions of grandeur who was just looking for a chance to show what a badass he (thinks) he is. And he got it. Except that it went horribly wrong. Somehow, he got the shit kicked out of him by a scrawny teenager and then pulled out his gun and shot the same scrawny teenager. Punk.

And somehow, some folks make him into the victim. Fucking bullshit. He inserted himself into a situation where his actions were reckless and unwarranted. He carried around a gun because he wanted to play hero. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because Zimmerman is a useless punk. He's no victim... Trayvon Martin is the victim.

By all accounts, Martin was minding his own business. There was nothing to indicate a crime or impending crime. Zimmerman has received far more leeway for why he killed Trayvon Martin than Martin received from Zimmerman for WALKING THROUGH A FUCKING APARTMENT COMPLEX.

Now, while Zimmerman won't be in prison, he'll still be punished. He has a target on his back. He now has to worry about, ironically, vigilante style justice. He should perhaps fear a scenario where he is confronted by someone, out of view of witnesses, with no one to corroborate, and is then killed in self-defense.
I mean, he has a history of carrying a gun and killing a person. If I saw him on the street and he looked at me, who is to say I don't feel threatened? Who is to say he didn't follow me into a secluded poorly lit alley with the intent on hurting or killing me because he thought I was suspicious? He has a history of carrying a gun. Made me nervous. He wouldn't leave me alone. I was scared. So I killed him... in self-defense.

Personally, I don't care what happens to the fucker at this point. As long as he stays away from me and mine.

But damn... he had better watch his back because there are a whole lot of people who DO care what happens to him.

Maybe he and Casey Anthony can start hanging out together in unknown locations.

Guns and God and why I find both groups to be assholes

*Unfinished piece. Stupid short attention span*

Yesterday, 20 small children and 6 adults were killed because some unbelievable fucking asshole felt that the only way to make himself feel better/get his point across was to to end the lives of 26 other human beings who apparently had nothing to do with UFA's personal problems.
Now, in this country, there is virtually NOTHING that can possibly happen that won't start some pricks from injecting their political and/or religious beliefs into the situation. And some will even do immediately (like hours) after the event.
And Newton, Connecticut is no difference.
Initially, it was the gun control proponents that started getting in little jabs here and there. Although in all fairness, most were in the "we REALLY need to have a discussion about gun policy" camp, but the idea was basically the same: w3e need to ban some/most/all guns. This happens after every mass shooting in the United States, but usually doesn't really go anywhere. The major difference here was that most of the victims were kids around 5 and 6 years old. Now it's going to snowball.
I've already heard the yack about needing less guns and banning this and banning that and how we have more gun incidents that other places, blah blah, blah. I'm not going to go into a big statistical discussion because ultimately, when you compare social issues between countries, there really is no base to start from. Countries all have different foundations made up of different sizes and mixes of people that have differing concentrations of population and environmental surroundings. What works in Berlin doesn't necessarily worth in Beijing. Different people, different cultures, different histories, different attitudes, different philosophies, and different needs.
You can truthfully only talk about one country, i.e. one place subject to the same laws, because that's going to be the only place where differing opinions are remotely valid. I don't care what Mexico or Norway thinks or how they do things.
So, really, you can only talk about how Americans do things. But there's a huge catch there: see, the US is fairly unique in that due to its history as a "melting pot", the country itself is almost like its own little planet due to the extremes of population types. Californians have little in common with folks from Montana. Florida people have different needs and beliefs than people from Michigan. And this is the major problem when talking about any sort of law at a Federal level, which is what is meant when "gun control" is brought up.
Now, let me be very clear. I am conflicted in regards to gun control. On the one hand, the Libertarian in me wants the Feds to stay out of people's lives. On the other hand, I can see no reason why any private citizen, at this particular time, has a need to own an Uzi or AK-47.