This season's bowl games are just more proof that we need a playoff. Connecticut, who is not even ranked in the BCS top 25 gets a BCS bowl and Michigan St who is ranked 9th does not. Why does UConn get one? Well that's because they are the Big Least champions, that's why. Even if their record is 8-4 as opposed to Michigan State's 11-1, it doesn't matter because they outrightly won their crappy conference. Virginia Tech (11-2, ranked 13th) gets a BCS bowl and #9 Michigan State does not. That's because VA Tech also won their weak conference. Michigan State beat Wisconsin (the only team to do so), and Wisconsin was the only team to beat Ohio State (Mich St didn't play OSU this year). So you would think that would put Michigan State above both teams in the rankings. But, no--both Wisconsin and Ohio State are above them. Michigan State's schedule is also considered to be toughter than both Wisky and OSU. So how does that make sense that they are ranked below both teams?
The BCS is seriously flawed, and the current system of bowl games is often unfair to deserving teams. Division 1-A (I refuse to use the new term FBS for Div 1-A as I think it's stupid and meaningless) needs a 16 team playoff. Everyone else has a playoff system except for Div 1-A. High school football has one, all the other college levels have one and the pros have one. I'm all for tradition, but I'm sick of there often being no clear national champion. I agree that Oregon and Auburn appear to be the best two teams in the country, but who's to say on any given day that they couldn't be beaten by say Wisconsin or Oklahoma (or Michigan State for that matter)? Without a playoff, we'll never know.
And just so nobody mistakes me for a sore Michigan State fan, please know that I am a diehard Michigan fan who bleeds blue. I just don't like injustice, and Sparty has most definitely been denied the respect and bowl game they deserve.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Politics and Election Day
I probably should've posted this a week or two ago, but oh well. It probably doesn't matter, as it doesn't seem as though very many people are reading this blog anyway...lol.
I get really annoyed by Republicans and Tea Partiers who constantly complain about being "taxed to death." If they think their taxes are high, they should go to Europe or Australia to gain some perspective. Americans pay some of the lowest (if not the lowest) tax rates in the industrialized world. And I know this may be hard to believe because everyone knows that Democrats are tax and spenders (note sarcasm), but taxes are actually LOWER under OBAMA than they were under BUSH. Yes, that's right. Obama lowered your taxes. He didn't raise them. Let's not forget that the last time we had a budget surplus was under Clinton. I love to point that out.
Tea Partiers often quote Patrick Henry and esteem the Constitution and founding fathers of our country. But if they did their homework they would know that Patrick Henry was actually against replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. He was not a Constitutionist. He was also not your every day Joe middle class. He was born into a wealthy Virginia family. Nearly all of the founding fathers were men of wealth and high social position. They considered themselves to be of the elite gentry in America. And many of them did not like the idea of giving the vote to less wealthy and educated Americans. In fact, several of them were in favor of the Congress electing the president. And in the original Constitution only white men who owned a minimum amount of property were allowed to vote. Hmmm....so what do you anti-establishment, elitist-hating Tea Partiers have to say about that? You are against elitism, yet the men you honor and esteem were elitists.
Don't get me wrong--I think what the founding fathers did was nothing short of extraordinary. They risked their lives to form the Continental Congress (at the risk of treason against the British government), and managed to win a war against the most powerful country in the world at that time (with some help from the French--which most Americans conveniently forget). Then after the war they managed to write the most progressive document the world had ever seen at that time, despite tons of squabbling due to trying to make thirteen different colonies/states happy. I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers. But let's not romanticize them.
And let's also remember why the Colonial Americans were against taxation. As colonies, they had their own colonial legislative bodies which passed bills concerning taxation. And they were fine with this. What they were not okay with was the British Parliament passign laws that additionally taxed them as they had no representitives in the Bristish Parliament. They tried to get Parliament to either give them representation or to repeal the taxes. Britian would do neither. Things slowly escalated, and eventually most Americans realized that Britain was not willing to compromise or concede anything. And then the whole quartering British troops at the American's expense during peacetime aggrivated them even more. Voila, the American Revolution began.
Another thing that pisses me off is all these conservative politicians acting like voting for the stimulus plan was comparable to treason. Let's not forget that this was a bi-partisan vote, and that most economists and financial analysts thought and still think the stimulus was absolutely needed. If the stimulus hadn't passed, things would be a whole lot worse than they currently are. Unemployment would be even worse--the stimulus saved many people's jobs. I'm sure those people are thankful for the stimulus (or at least they should be).
The stimulus also made it possible for the unemployed to afford their COBRA insurance by greatly subsidizing it. My dad was one of those laid off, and had it not been for this, he would've been uninsured because there's no way anyone on unemployment can afford to pay $500+ a month for health insurance.
I certainly am not thrilled that the banks got a huge bailout--especially when they are the ones most responsible for this mess. I would love to say, "let them go under--it serves them right!" But if they went under, they would've dragged the rest of the country down with them. Can you say Great Depression #2? Sure things suck now, but they would suck a whole lot worse without the bailout and the stimulus.
I'm a fiscally conservative Democrat, and I don't like to spend money that we don't have. I especially don't like to be beholden to countries like China for billions of dollars in loans. But sometimes you've gotta bite the bullet and do unpleasant things for the greater good.
Thanks to the mini-bailout of the U.S. auto industry, they are getting back on track and have re-hired thousands that were laid off. This is a good thing. Not just for those people, but for all the small businesses that supply the auto industry.
Another thing I'd like to know is where were all these rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-establishment, stimulus-hating Tea Partiers when the Bush administration was racking up billions of dollars in national debt to finance the war in Iraq? Most of our current deficit is due to that--not the stimulus/bailouts.
Here's what I ask of people before they go off on political rampages--read up. Get the facts--not some slanted opinion of a person or organization that clearly has a political agenda. Educate yourself before you go out there protesting or complaining. Ignorance is not bliss.
I get really annoyed by Republicans and Tea Partiers who constantly complain about being "taxed to death." If they think their taxes are high, they should go to Europe or Australia to gain some perspective. Americans pay some of the lowest (if not the lowest) tax rates in the industrialized world. And I know this may be hard to believe because everyone knows that Democrats are tax and spenders (note sarcasm), but taxes are actually LOWER under OBAMA than they were under BUSH. Yes, that's right. Obama lowered your taxes. He didn't raise them. Let's not forget that the last time we had a budget surplus was under Clinton. I love to point that out.
Tea Partiers often quote Patrick Henry and esteem the Constitution and founding fathers of our country. But if they did their homework they would know that Patrick Henry was actually against replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. He was not a Constitutionist. He was also not your every day Joe middle class. He was born into a wealthy Virginia family. Nearly all of the founding fathers were men of wealth and high social position. They considered themselves to be of the elite gentry in America. And many of them did not like the idea of giving the vote to less wealthy and educated Americans. In fact, several of them were in favor of the Congress electing the president. And in the original Constitution only white men who owned a minimum amount of property were allowed to vote. Hmmm....so what do you anti-establishment, elitist-hating Tea Partiers have to say about that? You are against elitism, yet the men you honor and esteem were elitists.
Don't get me wrong--I think what the founding fathers did was nothing short of extraordinary. They risked their lives to form the Continental Congress (at the risk of treason against the British government), and managed to win a war against the most powerful country in the world at that time (with some help from the French--which most Americans conveniently forget). Then after the war they managed to write the most progressive document the world had ever seen at that time, despite tons of squabbling due to trying to make thirteen different colonies/states happy. I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers. But let's not romanticize them.
And let's also remember why the Colonial Americans were against taxation. As colonies, they had their own colonial legislative bodies which passed bills concerning taxation. And they were fine with this. What they were not okay with was the British Parliament passign laws that additionally taxed them as they had no representitives in the Bristish Parliament. They tried to get Parliament to either give them representation or to repeal the taxes. Britian would do neither. Things slowly escalated, and eventually most Americans realized that Britain was not willing to compromise or concede anything. And then the whole quartering British troops at the American's expense during peacetime aggrivated them even more. Voila, the American Revolution began.
Another thing that pisses me off is all these conservative politicians acting like voting for the stimulus plan was comparable to treason. Let's not forget that this was a bi-partisan vote, and that most economists and financial analysts thought and still think the stimulus was absolutely needed. If the stimulus hadn't passed, things would be a whole lot worse than they currently are. Unemployment would be even worse--the stimulus saved many people's jobs. I'm sure those people are thankful for the stimulus (or at least they should be).
The stimulus also made it possible for the unemployed to afford their COBRA insurance by greatly subsidizing it. My dad was one of those laid off, and had it not been for this, he would've been uninsured because there's no way anyone on unemployment can afford to pay $500+ a month for health insurance.
I certainly am not thrilled that the banks got a huge bailout--especially when they are the ones most responsible for this mess. I would love to say, "let them go under--it serves them right!" But if they went under, they would've dragged the rest of the country down with them. Can you say Great Depression #2? Sure things suck now, but they would suck a whole lot worse without the bailout and the stimulus.
I'm a fiscally conservative Democrat, and I don't like to spend money that we don't have. I especially don't like to be beholden to countries like China for billions of dollars in loans. But sometimes you've gotta bite the bullet and do unpleasant things for the greater good.
Thanks to the mini-bailout of the U.S. auto industry, they are getting back on track and have re-hired thousands that were laid off. This is a good thing. Not just for those people, but for all the small businesses that supply the auto industry.
Another thing I'd like to know is where were all these rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-establishment, stimulus-hating Tea Partiers when the Bush administration was racking up billions of dollars in national debt to finance the war in Iraq? Most of our current deficit is due to that--not the stimulus/bailouts.
Here's what I ask of people before they go off on political rampages--read up. Get the facts--not some slanted opinion of a person or organization that clearly has a political agenda. Educate yourself before you go out there protesting or complaining. Ignorance is not bliss.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
How Much Is That In REAL Money?
Here comes another pet peeve of mine. Maybe I should change the name of this blog to Kimberly's Pet Peeves..lol.
This post is dedicated to those Americans who behave themselves when overseas and represent Americans well. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who don't. Too many behave in the most arrogant manner, as if everyone should bow down to them and do their bidding simply because they come from the good ole U.S. of A. I've heard grumpy men ask, "How much is that in real money?" Meaning, "How much is that in U.S. dollars?" Well, if someone from another country came over here and asked how much something was in Euros, would you know? And wouldn't you be annoyed?
Some Americans expect everyone overseas to speak perfect English and get annoyed if they don't. Unless one is visiting a country where English is the native language, this is an unrealistic assumption. It's also a bit rude to just go up to someone in a non-English speaking country and start asking questions in English. Better to preface it with, "Excuse me, do you speak English?" And even better if one can ask it in their native tongue.
Others get annoyed when things aren't exactly the way they are in America. We are very spoiled here, with our modern plumbing, central heating and air conditioning, free refills, all-you-can-eat buffets, etc. If one wants everything to be just like it is in America, then my advice is to stay in America. :)
I would love to have a job where I got to interview all passport applicants to deem if they are worthy of being allowed out of the country. I think I would take perverse pleasure in stamping DENIED on their application.
Trust me, I'm no perfect traveller, either. I've had plenty of meltdowns overseas (but I usually limit them to complaining to my travel companion--who these days is usually my long-suffering husband, David). I recall one particular situation of which I am not proud. Back in the 'late 90s when we were living in Korea, we took a ferry to a small island. Our boat was met by a bunch of older Korean ladies, all extolling the virtues of their accommodations. One lady in particular stood out to us, seemed very nice. We allowed her to lead us to her guesthouse. Once there, we weren't impressed by the cleanliness of it, but my husband thought it would be rude to refuse her at that point. So despite my protestations, we paid for our room. I proceeded to have a hissy fit (inside the room, and they didn't speak English, so even if they overheard me, they wouldn't know what I was having a fit about). David finally had enough of me (understandably) and went out and spent the evening eating and drinking with the proprietor and her family. He quite enjoyed himself. I, on the other hand, childishly spent the evening sulking in our room. By morning I grudgingly stopped acting like a spoiled brat.
One thing I've learned is that Australians are some of the best travellers out there. They roll with the punches, keep a laid back attitude, and don't get all whiny when the only toilet available is a hole in the ground. I have much to learn from them--although I don't mind the hole-in-the-ground toilets anymore. :D
This post is dedicated to those Americans who behave themselves when overseas and represent Americans well. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans who don't. Too many behave in the most arrogant manner, as if everyone should bow down to them and do their bidding simply because they come from the good ole U.S. of A. I've heard grumpy men ask, "How much is that in real money?" Meaning, "How much is that in U.S. dollars?" Well, if someone from another country came over here and asked how much something was in Euros, would you know? And wouldn't you be annoyed?
Some Americans expect everyone overseas to speak perfect English and get annoyed if they don't. Unless one is visiting a country where English is the native language, this is an unrealistic assumption. It's also a bit rude to just go up to someone in a non-English speaking country and start asking questions in English. Better to preface it with, "Excuse me, do you speak English?" And even better if one can ask it in their native tongue.
Others get annoyed when things aren't exactly the way they are in America. We are very spoiled here, with our modern plumbing, central heating and air conditioning, free refills, all-you-can-eat buffets, etc. If one wants everything to be just like it is in America, then my advice is to stay in America. :)
I would love to have a job where I got to interview all passport applicants to deem if they are worthy of being allowed out of the country. I think I would take perverse pleasure in stamping DENIED on their application.
Trust me, I'm no perfect traveller, either. I've had plenty of meltdowns overseas (but I usually limit them to complaining to my travel companion--who these days is usually my long-suffering husband, David). I recall one particular situation of which I am not proud. Back in the 'late 90s when we were living in Korea, we took a ferry to a small island. Our boat was met by a bunch of older Korean ladies, all extolling the virtues of their accommodations. One lady in particular stood out to us, seemed very nice. We allowed her to lead us to her guesthouse. Once there, we weren't impressed by the cleanliness of it, but my husband thought it would be rude to refuse her at that point. So despite my protestations, we paid for our room. I proceeded to have a hissy fit (inside the room, and they didn't speak English, so even if they overheard me, they wouldn't know what I was having a fit about). David finally had enough of me (understandably) and went out and spent the evening eating and drinking with the proprietor and her family. He quite enjoyed himself. I, on the other hand, childishly spent the evening sulking in our room. By morning I grudgingly stopped acting like a spoiled brat.
One thing I've learned is that Australians are some of the best travellers out there. They roll with the punches, keep a laid back attitude, and don't get all whiny when the only toilet available is a hole in the ground. I have much to learn from them--although I don't mind the hole-in-the-ground toilets anymore. :D
Thursday, September 16, 2010
And He's Like, So Amazing....
I'm starting off this blog by posting about one of my pet peeves. I find it annoying that people over use the word "amazing." Everything's amazing these days--even if it isn't.
I like to watch game shows, and the contestants, when introducing themselves, often refer to their spouse and/or children as "amazing." Hi, I'm Jane from Podunk, Michigan. And I'm married to my amazing husband, John, and we have three amazing children.
According to my dictionary, the definition of "amazing" is "greatly surprising." So does Jane find her husband and children greatly surprising? What's so surprising about them, I'd like to know.
The thing about the word, "amazing" is that it can be amazingly good, or amazingly bad. Maybe Jane's amazed that her husband refuses to ever stop and ask for directions no matter how lost he is. Or that he can spend the entire weekend lying on the couch stuffing his face with junk food and watching football while she cleans the house, runs errands and looks after the children who never cease to amaze her by their seeming inability to do anything she asks of them. Or maybe she's amazed by her teenager's disgustingly filthy room that should be condemned by the local authorities.
I'll bet Jane's husband thinks she's amazing, too. Perhaps he's amazed that every once in awhile she manages to cook something that's fit for human consumption. Maybe he's amazed that she never gets tired of talking about her feelings, or asking him if certain clothes make her look fat.
Another way the word is over used is by people describing something they did or saw. We went to see this new band last night and it was amazing. We had an amazing time!
What was so amazing about the band? Did they expect it to be awful, but were greatly surprised that it wasn't? Or did they expect it to be good, but discovered that any toddler banging on a toy piano played better music? Or was the lead singer drunk and wretching onto the audience? I think I would find that more amusing than amazing.
Maybe "amazing" is the new way to be diplomatic. I'll bet John tells Jane she's an amazing cook. She doesn't have to know he means amazingly bad. Most people assume you mean amazingly good when you say the word "amazing." So you can be honest without hurting their feelings.
If my husband ever tells me I'm an amazing lover, I'm going to look at him through narrowed eyes and say, "And just what do you mean by that?"
I like to watch game shows, and the contestants, when introducing themselves, often refer to their spouse and/or children as "amazing." Hi, I'm Jane from Podunk, Michigan. And I'm married to my amazing husband, John, and we have three amazing children.
According to my dictionary, the definition of "amazing" is "greatly surprising." So does Jane find her husband and children greatly surprising? What's so surprising about them, I'd like to know.
The thing about the word, "amazing" is that it can be amazingly good, or amazingly bad. Maybe Jane's amazed that her husband refuses to ever stop and ask for directions no matter how lost he is. Or that he can spend the entire weekend lying on the couch stuffing his face with junk food and watching football while she cleans the house, runs errands and looks after the children who never cease to amaze her by their seeming inability to do anything she asks of them. Or maybe she's amazed by her teenager's disgustingly filthy room that should be condemned by the local authorities.
I'll bet Jane's husband thinks she's amazing, too. Perhaps he's amazed that every once in awhile she manages to cook something that's fit for human consumption. Maybe he's amazed that she never gets tired of talking about her feelings, or asking him if certain clothes make her look fat.
Another way the word is over used is by people describing something they did or saw. We went to see this new band last night and it was amazing. We had an amazing time!
What was so amazing about the band? Did they expect it to be awful, but were greatly surprised that it wasn't? Or did they expect it to be good, but discovered that any toddler banging on a toy piano played better music? Or was the lead singer drunk and wretching onto the audience? I think I would find that more amusing than amazing.
Maybe "amazing" is the new way to be diplomatic. I'll bet John tells Jane she's an amazing cook. She doesn't have to know he means amazingly bad. Most people assume you mean amazingly good when you say the word "amazing." So you can be honest without hurting their feelings.
If my husband ever tells me I'm an amazing lover, I'm going to look at him through narrowed eyes and say, "And just what do you mean by that?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)