#RaceTogether And Have Your Reputation Destroyed

Prepare Your Smartphones For War

#RaceTogether is a minefield filled with short-tempered caffeine deprived customers who consider the concept of patience to be hate-speech rather then a virtue.   Then throw in some barbed wired and machine gun nests known as the smart-phone.

Every one has a smart phone these days that can record any conversation – a blessing and a curse.   It’s a foregone conclusion that any actual honest dialogue can take place between groups of extremely racially sensitive people.   Your words are a tweet away from being broadcast to the dark corners of tumblr dwelling other-kins and SJWs who haven’t forget that people with dissenting opinions are actual humans.   Davis Aurini makes a good point about this:

That is just the obvious hindrance.  The actual primary problem is that people view this entire idea as less of a conversation and more of a, “I’m mad at your kind of people for these reasons,” lecture.   Actual dialogue on a subject so controversial can’t take place in any public setting as you could lose your job.

In fact, it doesn’t actually matter if you are what society considers to be a “racist” or any one of the “ists” these days.   Once accused in the public eye – or rather the social media feed – you are guilty until proven innocent which means you are forever guilty on a basic Google search.

Caffeine Deprived Intruders Are On Their Way.
Caffeine Deprived Intruders Are On Their Way.

The Poor Baristas…

Let’s think about the Baristas for just a second.  Not only does #RaceTogether fulfill that old joke about SJWs at liberal arts colleges becoming Baristas, it adds a particular new explosive compound for angry uptight customers to get free beverages and add further misery to the idea of “customer service.”

Perhaps Schultz has been preparing his guinea pigs for these kinds of experiments all along and actually intends to scare off some of his already well-off liberal white types who spend 3k+ on Starbucks a year.  After all, how many flak barrages intended to induce white self-loathing can these types endure?

Schultz’s idea will create friendly fire situations and the casualties will be his own fellow ideologues.   Think about it, how many of the intended targets – backwater redneck conservative stereotypes – actually frequent Starbucks who aren’t actively boycotting it?  That was a rhetorical question.

Despite the backlash and drubbing coming from various sides of the spectrum , some of the mainstream media consider this a great idea. Time Magazine actually proclaimed #RaceTogether as a “brilliant” and “bold move” rather then a kamikaze mission in which allies will have their eco friendly cars sunk.   No, this doesn’t make me happy, it makes me sad.

What about the dialogue?

An honest conversation about race will only occur (1) between friends & family with liquor involved and the smartphones put away and (2) when people stop seeing every last damn thing through a racial lens – namely SJWs and many on the left who base their entire identity off race rather then the actual person.

Remember, vast generalizations and labels of people based on their race, ethnicity, and gender are perfectly acceptable as long as it’s the right people.    Being judged based on who you are is just too tiresome and isn’t convenient for being a part of the continual victim club.

Is it Cultural Appropriation? Or Perpetual Fake Outrage?

Wait, You Still Are Racist!

Nothing can destroy your career, cost you Facebook friends, and present many other life-enduring difficulties such as people believing that you are racist or have done something racist.  Being declared as a racist is almost like being labeled a heretic in the 14th century, except you might not be burned at the stake… yet.

“Cultural appropriation” is just the newest frontier in the fight against racism – a struggle that looks like it will never be overcome, not even in the most luscious of utopias.  It is also a cleverly designed tactic by certain folks to not only stop “racism”, but to make sure that it continues to endure and spread.    You can shout cultural appropriation when a member of a different race, culture, ethnicity, ect does something similar to your own.   Once they stop, you can then shout, “Non-inclusive environments and ingrained structural racism is preventing them from appreciating the unique aspects of our culture in society!”   It’s a brilliant Catch-22 and a way to always have something “ethno-centric and racial-centric” to criticize.   Page views over controversial headlines anyone?

Now,  I’m half-white and I can play the “genocide” card, so luckily when I enter into specific left-wing conversations and “internet spaces”, nothing I do can be racist because there is no such thing as reverse racism, members of the oppressing class can’t be oppressed ect.    Sweeping labels and generalizations really are a wondrous thing.

I came across this article on XoJane by Dianca London,  “UNPOPULAR OPINION: I Can’t Love Taylor Swift Anymore Because Yes, “Shake It Off” Is Still Racist”.    Quite a claim.   So how was it and Taylor Swift being racist?

“I felt nothing but frustration and anger watching Swift’s quirky twerk and even more anger as I watched her crawl on her knees beneath a line of twerking bodies. The coy look on her face as she stared at the bodies above her made me sick. It wasn’t just problematic. It was racist.”

She ends this article with a stern warning about the effects of  cultural appropriation.

“Cultural appropriation might be a current hot topic for bloggers and those who consider themselves to be allies of women of color, but for women of color like me, it’s another reminder of all the ways in which my identity is constantly being devalued, mocked, and trivialized by the media and its stars. “

So how does one go about determining what exactly is culture appropriation?

Well damn.

Remember the white girl who donned some lengthy braids a few weeks back? She was eviscerated on social media, because apparently people of African descent own braids.   Apparently, there are many styles, foods, ideas, ect owned by certain cultures and those of us not in those particular cultures are left in stark and utter confusion as to whether we can make their food, listen to their music, or become Hindus.   At this point, we might as well throw Eminem to the dogs because “rap” is clearly owned by black folks.

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

But Multiculturalism?!?!

There seems to be this fine line between “appropriating minority culture” and embracing someone’s cultural ideas, styles, ect.  Can it happen in the reverse? Is all of history simply “cultural appropriation”?   Tumblr of course tells us that cultural appropriation can only happen one way, specifically when concerned with “White supremacy, white privilege, entitlement, colonialism, ect.”   There is a GIGANTIC elephant in the “cultural appropriation” room. It’s called multiculturalism – a deeply held value by many of those who also hold onto the idea of “cultural appropriation

It is very disturbing that in one breath people can rage about about society not being “inclusive” and then in the next use phrases like cultural appropriation?   The entire idea of cultural appropriation seems to be a direct contradiction in the embracing of the values of multiculturalism.   Or we can embrace the segregation of cultures with concepts like, “cultural appropriation” and then rage as to why racism and cultural conflict is “still” on the never-ending rise.

Wherever this “line” is, I’m still not sure.

A sneaking suspicion arises in my mind.  Those who claim “cultural appropriation” and offense from are desperate to find something to label, “racist”, so that people will pay attention to them.  Rising to the number one slot in the “Oppression Olympics” is far more important than real racism, because in order for the country to supposedly conquer racism, there must always be perpetual outrage concerning the subject, even if no racism is witnessed in one’s daily life.

Simply put, if you can’t find racism in someone’s actions or words, find something new to insinuate as “racist”.  I am however starting to not care about claims of cultural appropriation, whether someone else commits them or I do.

If you do want to call out and maintain a consistent platform that prohibits “Cultural Appropriation”, here are some great places to think about and start!

“1. Eating at Chinese restaurants by white Americans and other majority non-Chinese should be looked down upon, as it entails the physical ingestion of Chinese culture.

2. Anyone who suffers a serious but non-permanent physically debilitating injury shouldn’t be allowed the use of a wheelchair, as this is an ableist appropriation of differently abled culture.

3. Members of the privileged and oppressive white majority should never, under any circumstances, expose themselves to black entertainment or express an appreciation for it. Jay Z is for black men and women only and the producers of 12 Years a Slave should give back the film’s Best Picture Oscar in the name of making a direct statement against appropriation. The same goes for Latino entertainment. Production on Machete Kills in Space by Open Road Films should be halted immediately.

4. Under no circumstances should members of the privileged class give their children ethnic names without the express written consent of a majority of that culture or a dual ruling from the staff of Salon.com and that woman who runs Shakesville. Anglo Americans specifically should be required to research proposed names for their children to ensure that the meaning of each name has no ethnic connotation going back at least four generations. Also, no Biblical names unless one is Jewish or otherwise related by blood to the cultures of the Middle East and holy land.

5. Heterosexuals or members of the heteronormative patriarchy may not, during karaoke, perform the version of Willkommen made famous by Alan Cumming in the 1998 Broadway revival of Cabaret, as that would be an immeasurable appropriation of gay and bisexual culture. Likewise, no one outside of the LGBT, specifically the trans, community should be allowed to watch and enjoy RuPaul’s Drag Race.”

Is Money In Politics Bad?

This always depends on whose money the “political party” and advocates are receiving. Ultimately, it is it’s own time held tradition of American hypocrisy that can be summed up as, “It’s wrong when you do it, but okay when I do.”

I came across this article in The Washington Post detailing a list for 2014 revealing the donors for the Center for American Progress.  CAP finally decided to do this after taking some criticism for a lack of transparency from fellow progressives as well as conservatives only too eager to point out flaws in their opponents.

Notable top donors include Walmart, financial giant Citigroup, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and some large biotech and pharma firms.  Walmart is actually particular shocking, considering unions’s attitude toward them and their top-dog status as a progressive punching bag.  This however, is not what what we should apparently be paying attention to.

“We’re proud of our donors,” CAP president Neera Tanden said in an interview. “We’re very diversified. We have a very low percentage of corporate donors. We have a wide panoply of individual and foundation supporters.

In political campaign financing and lobbying, there seems to be this odd disconnect between who you should take money from and why.  Most progressives will insist that money in politics is bad, but won’t hesitate to ask and accept plenty of it in order to win political races and advance certain agenda’s.  It was not too long ago when Michelle Obama decried the influence of money in politics, only to request campaign donations in the same speech only minutes before.

The irony of this hasn’t been lost on those on the left. This was brought up by The Atlantic in an article a few months back, “Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy?”  in which Gara Lamarche made this point about his fellow progressives:

Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?

A prevailing question that continues to remain is as to why money from “corporations” is dangerous, but money from huge political PACs, non-profit organizations, ect are not.   The CAP president emphasized the variety of donors and foundations contributing money as somehow not as “bad” as receiving money from more “acceptable” sources. Why?

The fundamental question we must ask is rather simple: Do the end’s justify the means in regards to where the cash comes from?  There is no gray area.  Either money in politics is bad or it is not.  People with strong political involvements are willing to make all sorts of exceptions about where they get their money from while condemning others for doing the exact same thing.

At some point, there must be some consistency or the whole argument breaks down into what it has become now; decrying others for doing the exact same thing that you are doing.  While you may be right about the destructive influence of “their” money in politics, it doesn’t make your identical actions any less destructive.

Either we get rid of money from politics all-together, or we quit pointing fingers at people getting funding from places, people, and worldviews we don’t like.   This of course brings up another issue: Is money free speech?   That is another debacle with it’s own mess.

Warning! Trigger Warning! Warning About That Trigger…

A Bad Joke

The internet used to be a rough and tumble place filled with danger, memes, and shocking images.  AIM chatrooms and IRC chats were uncharted digital waters; it might be a fellow teenager or someone your grandpa’s ages trying to get in touch with the youth culture. 4Chan and Reddit could still be used as a pleasant shock to confirm to your parents snooping on your browser history that you were indeed being corrupted by contemptible basement dwelling peers.

Since then some have sought to brought order to that Wild West of devious trolling minds.  In the last decade we have embraced this odd new idea of “safe spots” in not just where our home page lies, but where we surf, the social media feeds we receive.

Just recently I was appropriately – or inappropriately – given a firm tongue lashing on Facebook for a status remarking my enjoyment of the humor behind a recent Bill Burr standup in which he mentioned a joke he had seen at a restaurant, “We like our beer like our violence; domestic.”  Considering the kind of humor I enjoy, I thought this was rather tame.    (On that subject, be careful. Even being a Muslim and poking fun at “Trigger Warnings” might not save you from the wrath of SJWs.)

I had just committed one those terrible internet sins of offending someone.  Well fuck me, I don’t know how I’ll cope. Now apparently, anything offensive – that could literally be anything these days  – needs a trigger warning less the innocent childlike minds of passive observers suffer a PTSD like reaction to the content. But I wouldn’t have given this subject as much thought had a big deal not been made. All good conversations and provoking thought processes start through humor – apparently at someone’s expense.

Invading The Campus

This wouldn’t be as big a deal if were just simply limited to social media.  However, it’s started to make its way into our universities – the places where we are supposed to branch out from our sheltered existences on the rural farm and realize how the real world works at a place at an institution of higher learning. Examine Oberlin University, which in a shocking turn of event’s and mass criticism threw the below wisdom out the window. 

So what advice did Oberlin have for professors whose course material might contain potential “triggers”? In a section entitled “Understand triggers, avoid unnecessary triggers, and provide trigger warnings” (authors’ emphasis), the guide asked professors to “remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals” and to “[i]ssue a trigger warning” when such material could not be eliminated altogether.

Notice that the professors were asked to remove trigger material. Think of the implications. Are we not going to talk about murder, rape, and genocide in history classes because they could be triggering?   How far will/can we go?  I guess we should ignore the Armenian genocide and not talk about it because the topic could make students feel uncomfortable or adhering to certain Holocaust deniers in which the subject might make them feel uncomfortable.  Got to be tolerant to everyone right?

Oberlin would go farther to indicate what else could could be considered “triggering.

Amazingly, Oberlin also noted that “[a]nything could be a trigger—a smell, song, scene, phrase, place, person, and so on.”

That essentially means that almost every possible space on campus could be considered triggering.  The smell of fresh vegetables at the cafeteria could be triggering.   What happens when it’s applied to serious topics?

Harvard for example has many students actually request that professors avoid teaching about the law regarding topics like rape.  Yea, that’s right – Harvard.   

Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.

We could have an entire generation of lawyers who aren’t versed in certain fields of law because of just how triggering the topics are.   Apply that to other uncomfortable topics and the implications are troubling.  Since when did college – or any place of “higher” learning become a center for universities to treat students like children instead of adults? Disgusting.  Colleges need to ignore students who call for things like this, Trigger warnings should always be implemented, and force students to investigate all uncomfortable subjects thoroughly.  It’s called learning in the real world.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Let’s get some actual perspective on the concept of trigger warnings.  The whole idea of “trigger warnings” was at first was to warn people who ACTUALLY had PTSD of content that could make them relapse.  An entire new generation of sniveling writers and media however has decided to use trigger warnings for virtually every last damn thing that could possibly be considered, “offensive.”   Suprisingly …shudder … Buzzfeed did a  thorough and thoughtful expose on the history and current use of the Trigger Warning.

It’s spread to academia into classrooms and Syllabi.  Suggestions have been made to give the Bible a trigger warning. What’s next? Huckleberry Finn? Halo? Shakespeare?  Will everything at some point have a trigger warning? Finally, some journalists have realized that the abuse of the concept is destroying its validity.

A recent article in The Guardian of all places detailed the overuse of phrase. That right there – the overuse – is the real tragedy here.  This “Crying Wolf” via Trigger Warnings is turning the idea into a technique so common that it LOSES its meaning. It is destroying the the actual impact that needed – rarely employed -Trigger Warnings should have.

Of course there is plenty of blame to go around, but fingers can be pointed at the SJW crowd and whatever-the-hell-kind-of-feminist-faction on places like Tumblr, Reddit, ect.  Feminist publications such as Ms. Magazine, the appropriately named Bitch Magazine, and Feministe, were among the first to utilize the Trigger Warning (TW).   Fun fact: Abusing and marginalizing the idea through the overuse of TWs makes you a bitch. 

What this entails is a damning embarrassment to people with actual PTSD, not people who have uncomfortable experiences being cat-called in public.  Besides the hypocritical ignorance of “multiculturalism” think of the horror!  This nonsense trivializes people who have actual PTSD.  What does real PTSD look like? Let’s take a look through the annals of history which most of our population have forgotten existed – and we keep wondering why history keeps repeating itself.  We shall start with shell-shock the ancestor and real first example of PTSD after combat.

Let’s look at another video on the subject and pay close attention to 2:11-2:25.  That reaction to just an officer’s red hat is real and actual PTSD.

Imagine knowing someone who reacts to nothing, except the word “bomb.” Or a friend who develops a facial muscle tick after having stabbed/bayoneted someone in the face.  A French soldier in World War 1 wrote about the brutal environment of the battle of Verdun and what he describes is what gives cause to real PTSD

“At Verdun the ones who have suffered the most are the wounded and, along with them, the stretcher-bearers who transport them. Some of the bearers carry them from the front lines all the way to our post (1.5 kilometers); other ones take them in order to carry them off to Fleury and, having arrived there, the wounded have almost another 2 kilometers to go by stretcher before they can be transported by car. Imagine such a trip under the shells which hardly ever stop, through a landscape full of shell holes, tree trunks, and wrecked wire, through deep mud and, in certain areas, through clay where the stretcher-bearers sink down all the way to their waists, being forced to call for help to get themselves out of difficulty…”

Or this part of a letter from a soldier in 1916:

    “Anyone who has not seen these fields of carnage will never be able to imagine it. When one arrives here the shells are raining down everywhere with each step one takes but in spite of this it is necessary for everyone to go forward. One has to go out of one’s way not to pass over a corpse lying at the bottom of the communication trench. Farther on, there are many wounded to tend, others who are carried back on stretchers to the rear. Some are screaming, others are pleading. One sees some who don’t have legs, others without any heads, who have been left for several weeks on the ground…”

Real PTSD isn’t something we should trivialize. Note I’ve just scraped the bottom of the barrel by bringing up examples from World War.  I didn’t even bring up soldiers coming back from Overseas back to the States from Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.

These souls with real PTSD actually go out of their way to overcome it.  They work with professionals and their fellow soldiers to cope and deal with the PTSD instead of hiding from it and demanding a trigger warning at every street corner and website they encounter. Ignore the Description of the video, but observe again what actual PTSD is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5miBVm3B6tM

Even if you have PTSD from something such as rape, demanding a trigger warning and avoiding conversation about the subject won’t heal you.  It will simply let the experience continue to dramatically effect your life.  All the excuses in the world – no matter how damn valid – won’t change the situation you are in.  Get up from your slumber, seek to overcome your problem, and enjoy the life you have!   Life is short. You never know how much time you have. Don’t waste it.

P:S:  Also gentlemen, we’ve switched our top-secret patriarchy meeting to the underground volcano lair this week which is off the coast of Saudi Arabia.  

Bring cigars, fine scotch, and your male privilege cards. 

Why Voting 3rd Party Can Change History: The Election of 1924

I often browse the blog of economist and author Aaron Clarey who goes by the name, Captain Capitalism for his blog.  His post, Conservative Idiots Who “Protest the Vote” about this upcoming election misses an important lesson from history where voting 3rd party changed the results of an election.

History – for those of us who actually read it instead of watching Netflix – can teach us all sorts of fun things that internet comment brawls can’t.

Voting 3rd party can push a main party in a specific direction. Don’t believe me?

Take for example the presidential election of 1924.   Calvin Coolidge crushed his main democratic opponent, but his election win helped reveal a noticeable split had occurred in the democratic party.

The democrat nominee for president was John Davis.  During the election, he was considered by the growing progressive movement of the time to be too conservative.  Just think about that.  One only wonders what being considered too conservative by the Democrat party meant back then. Note the populist influence on progressives of the early 20th century.

The progressives that usually supported the democrat party – even though it didn’t exactly completely and utterly yet emanate their views – bolted from the party in protest and voted in favor of the 3rd party progressive candidate Robert M. La Follette from Wisconsin.  This represented a deep fragmentation in the party that had finally manifested on a national level of impact.

The Election of 1924

It was a landslide election, particularly in the electoral votes for Coolidge. However, the popular vote totals are very important.

1.  Calvin Coolidge receives 15,723,789 of the popular vote thus 54% of it.

2. John W. Davis receives 8,386,242 of the popular vote thus 28.8% of it.

3.  Robert M. La Follette receives 4,831,706 of the popular vote thus 16.6% of it.

The end result of the 1924 election for the democrat party is that the party embraced the ideal of the progressives on their party plank and the party was forever changed.  The party had secured the future votes of Progressives, but the conservative element of the party would move into a decline that is evident of the party today.

As a pessimistic libertarian, imagine if the Libertarian party cost the republicans 16% of the popular vote in a presidential election.

Yes, the “evil” Democrats would have even more of a free reign to destroy our lives than they usually do, but the Republican Party would have to change its positions if it wanted to again be a party capable of winning major elections.

We Need A System Implosion

Honestly, the Republican party is in trouble. It has been for some time just due to simple demographics. It needs to change, and it needs to change now if it wants to slow the decline.  Perhaps a widespread deviation from the party by libertarian voters who are usually forced to pick between the best of two evils is taser to the nipples that the party needs.

Even if it doesn’t work in this hypothetical future situation- even though history has shown its worked in the past – the decline of the country will happen even faster.  I’ve always been leaning toward the conclusion that the country is doomed.    As Stephan Molyneux has one said, “The experiment in limited government has been a failure.”

I  am now to the point where I strongly believe the system can’t be saved.  It needs to implode and restart. We need to let the car wreck of today happen instead of pushing it off with “The Republican Party” of the trainwreck of 50 years from now.  Either it’s gonna hurt now, or alot more in the future.   The recent riots we’ve seen in Ferguson and now Baltimore are only the beginning.

Reading through Aaron Clarey’s (Captain Capitalism) book on the incoming decline of the country has re-affirmed and reinforced my conclusion. It is because of his views on the country’s future as a whole that I find it confusing as to why he wants to delay socialism or simply setback the incoming trainwreck through voting.  I’d much rather have it happen now.  (Granted I’m newly only 26, single, and have no kids.)

Now you can still be pessimistic, but you still get everything back from our robbing thieving government and enjoy life and the decline as it happens. If they are going to rob you, its time to use the welfare system to rob them back. I highly suggest Aaron Clareys: Enjoy the Decline: Accepting and Living with the Death of the United States.

Note the very conservative viewpoint of the book, but economics and our massive bureaucracy doesn’t lie.  You can’t sustain a system in which there are more people who don’t work vs those that do.

Cheers to all my fellow vagrants.

Ann Coulter’s Futbol in Mouth

About two months ago during the World Cup, that nothing thing ruins a nation’s identity like kicking a ball around. That’s what Ann Coulter is desperate to have us believe and acknowledge this. I’m not exactly one of her haters nor one of her admirers, but when I see bullshit, I mention it.

Why this late? Because its early into the EPL season and I’ve seen some great games and shocking results already.   Arsenals loss to Southampton, 1-2, was a pleasure to watch.  (Especially if you root for Southampton after their supposed confinement to a relegation battle this season.)

Backstory: I was converted into a soccer fan in about 6th grade. I not only played the sport, but the video game, Championship Manager, got me into the EPL and the basics of the game.  Football Manager escalated that enjoyment into actual regular attempts to get up to watch EPL games on early Saturday Mornings. (That time difference means the first game is at 6:45 central time in the morning.)

One thing I do like about Coulter is she will say whatever is on her mind. It pisses plenty of people off, but at least she has balls.   Right now though, she needs a kick in those balls.

First off, one of the most exciting goals I’ve seen in the “boring” sport of soccer came in the World Cup, and the situation and context of tying a team like Portugal made the goal all that much more exhilarating.

Second, this countries identity has been ruined for a while.  You know what ruins a nation?

Concepts like hate speech.  Conservatives and Liberals who endorse the Police State as necessary for our security. Crippling national debt. 80% of created jobs being part time.  Being taxed on every last damn thing in addition to property, income, federal taxes, paycheck taxes, ect.

As for the research that liberals are more likely to watch “soccer”, hogwash. Soccer is my favorite sport, and I despise the ideals of modern day progressive liberalism.

The growing attraction to the beautiful game may be partly because of growing immigration from south and central America, but easier access to streaming sites to watch the Champions League, EPL games on NBC Sports, the pussification of major sports with the exception of Hockey, and the fact that the NFL is suspending players because of “incidents off the field” because of their worry about PR and image is what causing people to look elsewhere.  At least the MMA is still all about the fighting.

Granted, England, which has arguably the most competitive league in the world – The English Premier League – has insane rules about just about everything thanks to FIFA.  The condemnation Arsenal’s Jack Wilshere received for smoking a cigarette was ridiculous. The fact you can get suspended and possible jailed for “racist” arm gestures on the pitch is also absurd.

One primary criticism of soccer is the diving and flopping.  It does happen. Players go down to easy, embellish the impact of a foul, ect.  There are two important things to point out about that.

– Getting your foot stomped on while running full speed can bring you to the ground. It’s hard to run through that.
– Divers and floppers get heckled badly on the pitch from the stands. Fans let you know how much they despise you.  It’s more damaging to a player’s form on the pitch then you may think.

Regardless, I still dislike players who go down to easily. Yea, I’m talking about you Sergio Busquets.  However, it doesn’t subtract from the beauty and physical demands of the game.  As long as normal American sports keep getting worse, world sports like soccer will start to replace them. At least our men’s soccer team has actual competition on a world level – unlike the world basketball championship.

These highlights from the ageless classic British highlight show, Match Of The Day, might give you an idea as to what you are missing.  Also, Southampton. All the way.

Liquored Up, Broke, and Hungover: The Poor and the Promotion of Video Gambling.

When it comes to trying to use every possible method to trick people into losing their money, the decrepit and morally bankrupt state of Illinois is right up there.  It’s citizens – myself included – have been treated like a piggybank, but apparently the state needs to garnish even more of our money to feed the machine that is billions in debt.

Illinois has been actively encouraging people through commercials, online media, ect to play the Illinois Lottery. Hell, there is now even a new official app you can play the Lotto through to make losing your money even easier as you watch you the game.  What they don’t tell you is that the real lotto winners are the ones who snag a public sector job in Illinois. You can bet your ass it won’t be part time either like 90% of the jobs offered in this cespool.


Apparently people still weren’t coughing up enough money in the mega jackpots that the local poor and homeless never seemed to win after years of trying their luck.  Even being the first state to allow online lottery sales still isn’t generating enough revenue. So what else can be done?

Historical Flashback: October 9th, 2012 marked the first day of legalized video gambling in bar, pubs, and “drinking establishments” across Illinois.  As a radical libertarian, I’m not opposed to legalize gambling on principle, but it doesn’t take a genius to realize that alcohol and video slots are a great way to keep pulling the lever instead of walking away.

Who profits? The bars, the state, and the local government.  This is why the state actively encourages both the lotto and the gambling regardless of who it hurts.  I’m still pissed that they are blowing tax dollars – even though thats pretty damn normal in Illinois – on promoting the Illinois Lotto on TV and Cable.  Hell, how is that even in the budget? I guess that “investment” really does turn a literal sick profit. 

In every game where there are devious winners, there must be distraught losers. Those losers are the local patrons who walk away with even less money. Note that the place, Jesters, is in Waukegan which is one of the poorest areas in Illinois whose residents now have 70,000$ less to put toward bettering their lives.  You can’t walk the streets without people asking you for “bus money” that they can gamble away, use for drugs and liquor, ect.  But yes, lets encourage them to spend their money poorly instead of on their families!

Besides the morning after hangover, throw in a terrible and shocked look on your face when you realize how much money you lost last night.  I live in Fox Lake – about 10 minutes from the Wisconsin border – and we have ALOT of bars.  This now means people gamble their money away at much more of an increased rate then they did two years ago. The Reverse Robin Hood Effect is in full display.

I’ve seen it all.

– My former, now evicted neighbor, already drank his unemployment money away at one of the local Fox Lake bars, and with the slot machines, it became even worse.

–  The local poor hobbling lady at the gas station wasting away what money she has buying lotto tickets.

– The homeless people roaming the streets buying as many lotto tickets as they can hoping to strike lucky and maybe land a warm place to stay when our nasty winter hits.

Now I’m not calling for video gambling in bars to be banned or even moderated any more than it is. I’m just simply pointing out the blatant bullshit of this state in promoting and encouraging people to do it.  Seriously, just imagine if this state was encouraging people to smoke cigarettes. The uproar would be incredulous.

But yes! Let’s encourage all these people to play the lotto instead of investing that money in ways to get them out of the rut they are stuck in.  At least the school, infrastructure, and “public” projects will reap the rewards.  All for the greater good right?

Wrong. The ends – especially in this situation – don’t justify the means.  I just wish my corrupt state run by self-proclaimed caring liberal democrats stood by their supposed allegiance to the poor, downtrodden, and less fortunate in Illinois instead of actively promoting and encouraging new and revised ways to trick them out of their money. (At least Pat Quinn tried.) Hypocrites, the lot of them. Seriously, fuck this state.

The actual compassionate, fair-minded, and justice seeking liberals who control the state of Illinois should be outraged to see articles from publications like Businessweek with headlines like, “How Poor Families Fund College for Wealthy Students“.  Let that article soak in.  Seriously, justify this bullshit with excuses like, “It funds the schools!” or “It helps fund important social welfare programs! I dare you. I dare you to be consistent with your ideology for once.