As another year draws to an end college basketball season is just beginning. I am someone who waits for this time of year to begin; knowing that March Madness isn't far off.
For the past couple of years I have organized a NCAA pool at my place of employment, with the limitation of not letting it get too large or out of hand. If March Madness pools were legalized the excitement of not only running but also participating in a pool would grow and the potential winnings would sky rocket.
I realize that some legislators believe that if you were to legalize this form of gambling that people would expect all types of gambling to be legalized. But the legislators' views are worthless as many of them are recovering gambling addicts and can't see the mere fun in the pools without the gambling aspect. And things would get out of hand with all types of gambling being legal so the obvious solution would be to just legalize the pools.
All of my co-workers agree that the reason they come to work in March is to participate in my annual pool. All business would make their employees just as happy as my co-workers if the NCAA pools were legalized. Let's be honest, before March Madness pools in the work place jobs were boring and unfulfilling, but with the pools work has become exciting again. One common argument to this is that NCAA pools are a hindrance to an efficient workplace environment. I completely disagree. If the pools were present workers would become more efficient so as to have more time to follow the games after their work was completed.
I am not the only one who sees this as a great proposal. David Letterman and Jay Leno love the idea of March Madness pools and participate in a great deal of them. Legislation should reflect the approval of such individuals by making the pools legal.
The list of pros is endless, so lets not waste another year of trying to run or participate in a pool under the radar and embrace them for what they are, pure unadulterated fun!
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Can Natural Disasters be Funny?
© Copyright 2007 John Cole - All Rights Reserved
politicalcartoons.com
http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/e3d1d2fb-9a07-4361-8e7a-30a7e0ee50e5.html
A family is down on their luck with their home in foreclosure, but it turns out not to be so bad after all because Mother Nature had her own way of taking their home away. A disheartening thought, but since things were bad already this isn't much worse, right?
As with the Doniger piece that we read regarding September 11, I too wonder if it is to soon to joke , or whether we should joke at all, about the horrific natural disaster taking place in California. Doniger mentions a remark that Jay Leno made about Osamo bin Laden stating, "it's OK to make fun of the bad guy." Doesn't seem so awful if we put the bad guys at the butt of the joke, but in the above example the bad guy isn't a person (at least we don't know if it is or not yet), so the butt of the joke is specifically on the situation itself. To me this type of comic relief would seem permissible to a larger audience than one knocking the so called "bad guy." The finger can't be pointed at anyone specifically so why not joke about it.
Even though we don't have someone to point the finger at, people still want to joke about these types of events, I beleive mostly for some much needed relief. But, for me, being a complete outsider to the events happening in California, it was hard to look at this comic and laugh. I feel because I am not there and experiencing the terror that I don't have the right to laugh. Doniger mentions this in her article as well. Stating that, "permission to joke is only granted to the victims." I tend to agree with her, at least at first. How does anyone have the right to make jokes about something so horrible unless you are the one who experienced it. As the events grow older and become outdated more people will begin to joke about them, but until that time the humor should be reserved for those specifically involved. Allowing the victims to joke will provide them with much needed relief to a situation that seems impossible to deal with.
The key to this comic is that the joke is on the situation itself and not the people that are being affected. If this were pertaining to all the lives lost it would be seen callus and distastful, but with homes and entire cities being demolished, sometimes there is nothing more to do than make fun of the situation and laugh, and the above comic is a perfect example of how to do so.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
A Passion for Drunk Driving
No Police Report Can Truly Capture My Love Of Drunk Driving
By Keith Pauls
If you were to go by the public records alone, you'd get the wrong impression of me. You'd think that I was some kind of common lawbreaker who's had multiple run-ins with the authorities for operating motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol. You'd think I'm just some guy who goes out, gets plastered, stumbles to his car, and drives home like it's no big deal. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. No matter what the police reports say, I don't drive drunk. I love to drive drunk. I live to drive drunk. It's my passion.
Fact is, mere words could never describe the sheer exuberance I experience when I climb behind the wheel of the first car I find when I'm deeply intoxicated. Take this report, dated Oct. 31, 2003. It says they clocked me at 70 miles per hour in a residential zone on that chilly Halloween night. Well, from where I was sitting, it felt more like I was going 120, and it was awesome. I felt as free and full of life as those kids in their Frankenstein costumes.
It was one of those moments where it's you and two open roads, and you don't know which one to take, so you just let it all happen. Sure, I ran a few stop signs and clipped a few mirrors, but what good is paying for all that insurance if you never use it? The police may have gotten all the facts right, but where was the heart?
After they administered my Breathalyzer, they determined that I was drunk. They didn't need a test for that. When they came up to my window and asked me if I had been drinking, I said "Yes!" and pounded the steering wheel while howling at the moon to show them how alive I felt. And I meant it!
There are some emotions no police report could ever capture.
Oh yeah, how about July 2004, when they said I "failed to maintain lane position and crossed the yellow line before skidding along the guardrail to a complete standstill." Well, sure, that's the sterile way of saying it. What they didn't mention was the jolt of adrenaline that rushes through you as you wake up and see two bright headlights coming at you and you move at just the right moment, straddling that knife's edge between here and the hereafter. They also fail to mention how much I was cracking up when they finally got to me.
Or from May 2005: The report makes such a big deal over how I refused to take a field sobriety test, you'd think that I was Public Enemy No. 1. But why waste taxpayer money on proving that a man who just a minute earlier was singing, "I am so fucking drunk, and I love it!" to the tune of Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" is intoxicated? They had me recite the alphabet, and noted that I was unable to get beyond "G." Well, I didn't get to where I am today knowing what comes after G backwards. I got here by pounding three of anything over 60-proof and doing doughnuts in the state police headquarters parking lot.
They should have put down that the reason I was so mad was because they made me stop what was probably the best drive of my life. It was so invigorating! But instead they put it down as "attempted assault." No way. That police officer and I had a gentleman's disagreement over whether or not I would drive home. Nothing more. To insinuate otherwise is not only irresponsible, but fucking lame.
Report after report, it's all the same: "Subject was swerving this or striking oncoming that and was belligerent and uncooperative when pulled over." Taken together, all you get is a man who endangers people's lives and should have his license revoked. But even if you added up all seven to nine reports, you'd never get close to the sheer, unparalleled ecstasy of throwing MGD cans out the window of a speeding vehicle as the stars and police helicopters streak overhead. I hope the next time they pull me over, the police get it right, so I can actually remember the details of another fantastic ride, and, God willing, one day share them with my children.
Should I drive drunk again? No. Will I drive drunk again? Of course. When drunk driving gets in your blood, you just have to heed the call.
The Onion September 26, 2007
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/no_police_report_can_truly
Upon opening The Onion this week my eyes were drawn to this opinion article praising drunk driving. Knowing the genre of writing that appears in The Onion, I wasn't surprised by the article, but still couldn't conceive how anyone could make light of drunk driving; however, Keith Pauls does just this.
By Keith Pauls
If you were to go by the public records alone, you'd get the wrong impression of me. You'd think that I was some kind of common lawbreaker who's had multiple run-ins with the authorities for operating motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol. You'd think I'm just some guy who goes out, gets plastered, stumbles to his car, and drives home like it's no big deal. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. No matter what the police reports say, I don't drive drunk. I love to drive drunk. I live to drive drunk. It's my passion.
Fact is, mere words could never describe the sheer exuberance I experience when I climb behind the wheel of the first car I find when I'm deeply intoxicated. Take this report, dated Oct. 31, 2003. It says they clocked me at 70 miles per hour in a residential zone on that chilly Halloween night. Well, from where I was sitting, it felt more like I was going 120, and it was awesome. I felt as free and full of life as those kids in their Frankenstein costumes.
It was one of those moments where it's you and two open roads, and you don't know which one to take, so you just let it all happen. Sure, I ran a few stop signs and clipped a few mirrors, but what good is paying for all that insurance if you never use it? The police may have gotten all the facts right, but where was the heart?
After they administered my Breathalyzer, they determined that I was drunk. They didn't need a test for that. When they came up to my window and asked me if I had been drinking, I said "Yes!" and pounded the steering wheel while howling at the moon to show them how alive I felt. And I meant it!
There are some emotions no police report could ever capture.
Oh yeah, how about July 2004, when they said I "failed to maintain lane position and crossed the yellow line before skidding along the guardrail to a complete standstill." Well, sure, that's the sterile way of saying it. What they didn't mention was the jolt of adrenaline that rushes through you as you wake up and see two bright headlights coming at you and you move at just the right moment, straddling that knife's edge between here and the hereafter. They also fail to mention how much I was cracking up when they finally got to me.
Or from May 2005: The report makes such a big deal over how I refused to take a field sobriety test, you'd think that I was Public Enemy No. 1. But why waste taxpayer money on proving that a man who just a minute earlier was singing, "I am so fucking drunk, and I love it!" to the tune of Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" is intoxicated? They had me recite the alphabet, and noted that I was unable to get beyond "G." Well, I didn't get to where I am today knowing what comes after G backwards. I got here by pounding three of anything over 60-proof and doing doughnuts in the state police headquarters parking lot.
They should have put down that the reason I was so mad was because they made me stop what was probably the best drive of my life. It was so invigorating! But instead they put it down as "attempted assault." No way. That police officer and I had a gentleman's disagreement over whether or not I would drive home. Nothing more. To insinuate otherwise is not only irresponsible, but fucking lame.
Report after report, it's all the same: "Subject was swerving this or striking oncoming that and was belligerent and uncooperative when pulled over." Taken together, all you get is a man who endangers people's lives and should have his license revoked. But even if you added up all seven to nine reports, you'd never get close to the sheer, unparalleled ecstasy of throwing MGD cans out the window of a speeding vehicle as the stars and police helicopters streak overhead. I hope the next time they pull me over, the police get it right, so I can actually remember the details of another fantastic ride, and, God willing, one day share them with my children.
Should I drive drunk again? No. Will I drive drunk again? Of course. When drunk driving gets in your blood, you just have to heed the call.
The Onion September 26, 2007
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/no_police_report_can_truly
Upon opening The Onion this week my eyes were drawn to this opinion article praising drunk driving. Knowing the genre of writing that appears in The Onion, I wasn't surprised by the article, but still couldn't conceive how anyone could make light of drunk driving; however, Keith Pauls does just this.
Pauls began by stating that his life's purpose is the drive drunk. His mishaps with the law were mere instances within each of his drunken escapades and he has thoroughly enjoyed each and every moment of these escapades. Con you imagine someone enjoying drunk driving? That is what makes this such a great article because the idea is completely asinine.
The further I read the more and more I saw this piece as a parody of A Modest Proposal. Both authors tackled issues that one couldn't imagine in any type of positive light and attempted to convince their readers that their views weren't so abnormal after all.
As Swift discussed how to prepare a child to eat, Pauls described the rush he had while traveling uninhibited at 70 mph. Swift then goes one to mention the positive effects that eating children would have on Ireland's economy; while Pauls discussed the ability to utilize one's auto insurance to the fullest degree.
As is A Modest Proposal, I see this piece as another perfect example of Satire; showing the true nature of literature found in The Onion. And although I would never advocate drunk driving, Pauls does make an interesting argument or two.
Monday, September 17, 2007
"Clinton does late-night"
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, appeared on "The Late Show with David Letterman" yesterday and read the Top Ten list, titled "Top Ten Hillary Clinton Campaign Promises."
10. Bring stability and long term security to "The View."
9. Each year on my birthday, every American gets a cupcake.
8. You'll have the option of rolling dice against the IRS for double-or-nothing on your taxes.
7. Having trouble getting a flight and Air Force One is available - it's yours.
6. My Vice President will never shoot anybody in the face.
5. Turn Gitmo into a Dairy Queen as soon as possible.
4. For over a century there have been only two Dakotas - I plan to double that.
3. We will finally have a President who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
2. I will appoint a committee to find out what the heck is happening on "Lost."
1. One more pantsuit joke and Letterman disappears.
from Newsday.com August 31, 2007
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/friday/nation/ny-uslett315353318aug31,0,2672995.story
At the end of August former First Lady and Presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared on the Late Show; the perfect guest to not only interview but also theme that night's Ton Ten List.
Letterman took this opportunity to play on the fact that the United States has never had a female president and if Clinton did take office the kind of changes we could expect throughout America. For some this could be seen as controversial, as many still don't believe that a woman could run this country; however, Letterman's audience tends to be fairly liberal and in turn able to see the sarcasm in Letterman's list. The list could be construed as a faulty generalization of all women. One could place all women in a group that enjoys baking and watches prime time dramas, though we know this is not true.
I believe that Letterman is trying to appeal to the emotions of his viewers; hoping they will see the obvious chauvinistic views that many Americans attach to women by playing on those very opinions. Letterman has taken the job duties of the most powerful person in the world and whittled them down to 10 simple tasks, almost implying "What does the President do anyway?"
As the list progresses the campaign promises get more outrageous and less about politics, this is Letterman's way of keeping his audience engaged. The final promise truly takes the cake! As a women in a man's world many female politicians and business women choose to wear the ever popular pant suit. Is this a comfort issue or an issue of trying to be consistent with the dress of the male professionals and politicians? Letterman could be simply making reference to Clinton's choice of clothing or he could be making reference to Clinton be willing to take on the country in a way that no woman has ever been able to do before.
Through humor Letterman has addressed the issue that we do in fact have a female running for the position of President of United States and that she can handle the bigger issues at hand if she has these 10 simple campaign promises!
10. Bring stability and long term security to "The View."
9. Each year on my birthday, every American gets a cupcake.
8. You'll have the option of rolling dice against the IRS for double-or-nothing on your taxes.
7. Having trouble getting a flight and Air Force One is available - it's yours.
6. My Vice President will never shoot anybody in the face.
5. Turn Gitmo into a Dairy Queen as soon as possible.
4. For over a century there have been only two Dakotas - I plan to double that.
3. We will finally have a President who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
2. I will appoint a committee to find out what the heck is happening on "Lost."
1. One more pantsuit joke and Letterman disappears.
from Newsday.com August 31, 2007
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/friday/nation/ny-uslett315353318aug31,0,2672995.story
At the end of August former First Lady and Presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared on the Late Show; the perfect guest to not only interview but also theme that night's Ton Ten List.
Letterman took this opportunity to play on the fact that the United States has never had a female president and if Clinton did take office the kind of changes we could expect throughout America. For some this could be seen as controversial, as many still don't believe that a woman could run this country; however, Letterman's audience tends to be fairly liberal and in turn able to see the sarcasm in Letterman's list. The list could be construed as a faulty generalization of all women. One could place all women in a group that enjoys baking and watches prime time dramas, though we know this is not true.
I believe that Letterman is trying to appeal to the emotions of his viewers; hoping they will see the obvious chauvinistic views that many Americans attach to women by playing on those very opinions. Letterman has taken the job duties of the most powerful person in the world and whittled them down to 10 simple tasks, almost implying "What does the President do anyway?"
As the list progresses the campaign promises get more outrageous and less about politics, this is Letterman's way of keeping his audience engaged. The final promise truly takes the cake! As a women in a man's world many female politicians and business women choose to wear the ever popular pant suit. Is this a comfort issue or an issue of trying to be consistent with the dress of the male professionals and politicians? Letterman could be simply making reference to Clinton's choice of clothing or he could be making reference to Clinton be willing to take on the country in a way that no woman has ever been able to do before.
Through humor Letterman has addressed the issue that we do in fact have a female running for the position of President of United States and that she can handle the bigger issues at hand if she has these 10 simple campaign promises!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Caramel deLites, not so delightful
Fall is just around the corner and neighborhoods are eagerly awaiting the arrival of their local Girl Scouts to feed their cookie cravings. The CSPI, Center for Science in the Public Interest, would like consumers to take a moment and consider what they are buying before diving into that second stack of Thin Mints. By taking a nutritional stand against Girl Scout troop cookie sales around the country, the CSPI has brought a great deal of criticism upon their supposed good intentions.
A website devoted to consumer freedom created the above mockery of the CSPI's stand on Girl Scout cookie sales. The comic is ridiculing the CSPI's view that Girl Scout cookies are unhealthy. He or she has turned a Girl Scout cookie drive into a nutrition and health information session claiming that in this instance the CSPI has gone too far. The comic portrays, through definition, ways to make the cookie sales healthier and more acceptable to the CSPI's nutritional standards. An obvious use of sarcasm is the comic's way of telling the CSPI that they have entered uncharted territory that will most likely not succumb to their nutritional facts and figures. The over the top proposed changes tell the reader that the comic disagrees with the stand that the CSPI has taken regarding a favored National "treat".
Sarcasm is a strong style in which to take on this topic; as it is able to fairly easily discredit the CSPI while promoting the Girl Scouts. Claiming the CSPI is extreme, "Eat them, but know they'll kill you." It makes it seem as though they are an all or nothing organization and that there is no "Anything in Moderation". Through this sarcasm the comic connects with an even larger audience than just the Girl Scout Organization, because who ever thought a cookie or two could kill you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)