I found this website while cruising Fark yesterday morning and started watching the first video. I was just so intrigued by it! I mean I've never been in a courtroom or arrested (came close once) or really talked to any lawyers for extended periods of time about this subject, but to watch these videos - it was a true eye-opener.
After watching these videos, you will never want to talk to the police. At all. Ever.
The first video is the law professor, James Duane, of the Regent University School of Law. He basically outlines all of the main reasons why you should never talk to a police officer about anything, in any capacity, when you are a suspect in a crime or accused of a crime or arrested for some crime. He also does this WITHOUT malice towards the police. It's not the police officer's fault, because it's YOUR fault for being an idiot and talking to them.
I think the most enlightening piece of this video is when Prof. Duane explains that anything you say to the police can be used AGAINST you in a court of law; it CANNOT be used FOR you. If you say something to the police that helps your case as a defendant, and your lawyer asks the police officer to corroborate it, it is inadmissable because it's hearsay.
There are a lot more compelling reasons, and I have to warn you that it is a 27-minute video. And it's just Part 1.
That's right - just the first part. Because the guy wants to be "fair" - he invited a POLICE OFFICER to take half of his hour's time to either agree or disagree and present whatever he wants to say on the subject of never talking to the police. So Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department gets 21 minutes to have his say. And he says that Duane is basically right. He just gets up there and admits the many ways that people are stupid and admit things to the police because they were stupid enough to talk to them in the first place.
He also gets to clarify certain nuances of his job and admits to several tricks he gets to use in order to get the confession he needs. The one that stood out most in my mind was something I already knew, but was illustrated brilliantly as Bruch was detailing how he fools people. He has a tiny little tape recorder in the interrogation room. He lulls people into false security by asking them if he can use the tape recorder to record the interview because he has poor handwriting or can't write fast or something. (Asking is a courtesy, since he can do whatever he wants and they have no right to say no to him taping the interview, and gives them false power.) Then if he's not getting what he wants, he reaches over, stops the tape recorder, and says, "Let's talk - off the record."
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "OFF THE RECORD". The interrogation room is always miked and always recorded and anything you tell a police officer at ANY TIME can be used against you. He also lists convincing people to write "apology letters" - which are of course handwritten confessions - and the fact that only one person on a phone conversation needs to know it's being recorded for it to be legal. Just him, the police officer.
The most enlightening piece of his segment for me was probably when he stated that he reads people their Miranda Warning - it's NOT a RIGHT - as well as the constant reminder that the police can LIE to you as much as they want during an interview.
To finish, the ACLU has a downloadable PDF 'bust card' with information on your rights when dealing with a police officer.
A brief rundown:
- If you are ever detained, the police can ask you for your name and in some states you CAN be arrested for not providing it. You CAN plead the right to remain silent if you think your name alone will incriminate you, which may be a defense in case you do get arrested in the end.
- If you're stopped in your car, you must show driver's licence and registration. Other than that (and your name), you don't have to answer a thing.
- You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. The limit is a "pat-down" of your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon, and you can make it clear that you to not consent to any further search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to search your car if they have probable cause, but you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. You cannot be arrested for simply refusing to consent to a search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to enter your house if they hear someone screaming for help or if they are chasing someone. If you are arrested in a building, you do not have to give consent for the police to search "close by", which is limited to the room you were in. Other than this, you do not have to let the police in unless they have a warrant signed by a judge - and always ask to see it if they claim they have such a warrant.
- If you refuse to consent to a blood/urine/breath test while being suspected of a DWI, your license can be suspended.
- You have the right to ask if you are being arrested. If you are, you have the right to know why you are being arrested. If you are arrested, the only information you have to give to the police is your name and address. Beyond that, you have the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer.
I'm pretty sure all of that information is correct. Meanwhile, be aware that it's not just anything you SAY that can be held against you. Don't be difficult, don't be rude, and for the love of all that is good and holy - don't interfere or resist or be violent in any way.
You have the right to remain silent, but you also have the right to be stupid. It's your choice.
Please Digg this article and spread the word about the Fifth Amendment!
Read more!
Showing posts with label stupid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupid. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Immigration and Crime - A Poor Study
If there's one thing I hate even more than a poorly-done analysis claiming to be research that assumes that correlation means causation - it's a poorly-done analysis claiming to be research that assumes that correlation means causation AND misgeneralized the interpretation in the first place AS WELL AS assumes that the analysis has something to do with the issue being researched, which it DOESN'T.
The poorly-done analysis/research in question today is a study that "shows California's foreign-born population -- including illegal immigrants -- makes up only a sliver of the state's population of inmates".
Fine, you found a slightly-negative correlation between California inmates and their foreign birthplaces. Unfortunately, that information is useless. Especially when you try and generalize and apply causation relating foreign-born people to illegal immigrants, relating incarceration to crimes committed, and then also neglect the effects of illegal immigration other than just the initial immigration (like family members) and neglect certain non-jailable crimes (like shoplifting and vandalism).
Are you starting to see why I'm pissed off at this study and the news article that makes the claim that a lower number of foreign-born inmates indicates that stereotypes about illegal immigrants and crime rates are now disproven?
First of all, let's start with the fact that this study can never prove anything about illegal immigrants because all the study inquired about was the nation of birth and who was foreign-born. They make the argument that illegal immigrants are INCLUDED in the foreign-born population. I would make the argument that could also be illegal immigrants included in the USA-born population, assuming that they emigrated first and applied for citizenship elsewhere, THEN illegally re-entered the USA. It's possible, you can't deny that. Would it make a difference? Not at all. I'm just saying that their logic sucks, and equally-sucky logic proves it.
Secondly, this study is about INMATES, not criminals or crime at all. These are people who supposedly have committed a crime and been convicted of it and sentenced to jail. This study cannot possibly fathom the number of crimes being committed that have NOT led to an arrest. This study also ignores the number of crimes being committed that do not have a PENALTY that would lead to an arrest. The biggest problem about trying to make ANY connection of this study and illegal immigration is the fact that an illegal immigrant, once arrested and convicted of a crime, does NOT go to jail! Illegal immigrant criminals who are convicted are supposed to get DEPORTED. Hence, the number of foreign-born jail inmates means VERY LITTLE in relation to illegal immigrants.
Thirdly, any claim about crime rates is bogus. The number of criminals in jail had little to do with crime rates in general. One would HOPE for a correlation between crime rate and criminals being busted, but there are so many other factors in play that any generalization wouldn't be strong enough to beat up a five-year-old girl. Not even a five-year-old girl with brittle-bone disease!
Lastly, illegal immigration is illegal. The crime rate / percentage of criminals in the illegal immigration population is 100%, you dumbasses! At least near the END of the article, there is one quote that actually admits to this glaring error in the statistics: "While acknowledging that staying in the country illegally is a crime, Butcher and co-author Anne Morrison Piehl focused on activities that both foreign-born and U.S.-born adults can commit."
So they basically decided to do a study about crime and foreign-born people, but completely ignore that all of the foreign-born people who entered the country illegally are already criminals.
Any way you slice it, this is a worthless study and an especially-worthless article about the study.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(I can't make up something this atrocious - here's the article)
Read more!
The poorly-done analysis/research in question today is a study that "shows California's foreign-born population -- including illegal immigrants -- makes up only a sliver of the state's population of inmates".
Fine, you found a slightly-negative correlation between California inmates and their foreign birthplaces. Unfortunately, that information is useless. Especially when you try and generalize and apply causation relating foreign-born people to illegal immigrants, relating incarceration to crimes committed, and then also neglect the effects of illegal immigration other than just the initial immigration (like family members) and neglect certain non-jailable crimes (like shoplifting and vandalism).
Are you starting to see why I'm pissed off at this study and the news article that makes the claim that a lower number of foreign-born inmates indicates that stereotypes about illegal immigrants and crime rates are now disproven?
First of all, let's start with the fact that this study can never prove anything about illegal immigrants because all the study inquired about was the nation of birth and who was foreign-born. They make the argument that illegal immigrants are INCLUDED in the foreign-born population. I would make the argument that could also be illegal immigrants included in the USA-born population, assuming that they emigrated first and applied for citizenship elsewhere, THEN illegally re-entered the USA. It's possible, you can't deny that. Would it make a difference? Not at all. I'm just saying that their logic sucks, and equally-sucky logic proves it.
Secondly, this study is about INMATES, not criminals or crime at all. These are people who supposedly have committed a crime and been convicted of it and sentenced to jail. This study cannot possibly fathom the number of crimes being committed that have NOT led to an arrest. This study also ignores the number of crimes being committed that do not have a PENALTY that would lead to an arrest. The biggest problem about trying to make ANY connection of this study and illegal immigration is the fact that an illegal immigrant, once arrested and convicted of a crime, does NOT go to jail! Illegal immigrant criminals who are convicted are supposed to get DEPORTED. Hence, the number of foreign-born jail inmates means VERY LITTLE in relation to illegal immigrants.
Thirdly, any claim about crime rates is bogus. The number of criminals in jail had little to do with crime rates in general. One would HOPE for a correlation between crime rate and criminals being busted, but there are so many other factors in play that any generalization wouldn't be strong enough to beat up a five-year-old girl. Not even a five-year-old girl with brittle-bone disease!
Lastly, illegal immigration is illegal. The crime rate / percentage of criminals in the illegal immigration population is 100%, you dumbasses! At least near the END of the article, there is one quote that actually admits to this glaring error in the statistics: "While acknowledging that staying in the country illegally is a crime, Butcher and co-author Anne Morrison Piehl focused on activities that both foreign-born and U.S.-born adults can commit."
So they basically decided to do a study about crime and foreign-born people, but completely ignore that all of the foreign-born people who entered the country illegally are already criminals.
Any way you slice it, this is a worthless study and an especially-worthless article about the study.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(I can't make up something this atrocious - here's the article)
Read more!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Football - Stupidest Sport Ever!
Okay - technically they're all equally stupid. But the ways in which football is stupid are much more different than other sports.
80% of plays, nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Still nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. Ball moves, players push each other a lot, and either the guy holding it runs a little bit and then gets pushed down or he throws it to someone who misses it or catches it and then gets pushed down less than 20 feet from where the ball started from at the beginning of this rigamarole.
15% of the plays, something MIGHT happen, but then there was a penalty and nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Shill nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. A whistle blows, and all hell breaks loose because someone shuffled wrong. A "false start" or an "offsides" or one of those things. And then everyone has to break for a few seconds while the referrees look at the videotape of the shuffling that may or may not have taken place inappropriately - at which point a decision is made and the nothingness can begin anew.
4% of the plays, something finally happens, but in such a way that some minutia took place which means yet another flag and possible penalty.
Okay, fast-forward to the ball moving, and the guy with the ball actually throws it to someone who somehow manages to catch it, maybe run with it for a few yards, and then gets thrown to the ground or runs out-of-bounds into a cameraman - possibly as an NFL-sponsored program designed to give a cameraman a look into the life of an NFL player, generally by knocking him to the ground in a painful manner. Oh, but wait! A flag has been thrown on the field because in the split second between the guy catching the ball and getting a beat-down, the referees need to verify whether or not his feet were on the ground, or both feet were in-bounds, or whether his shoelaces were untied or something. Three minutes later, the decision is made and the nothingness begins anew.
1% of the plays, something actually happens. Which causes five minutes of detailed review as to WHY it happened or how the other team mistakenly LET it happen.
This is just like the above, but since three minutes didn't get wasted on referees reviewing three different videotaped angles - they decide to waste three minutes with announcers drawing arrows on video screens to show you how the ball was caught because "the player moved his left hand inward at the same time that he moved his right hand inward, and they came together at a central point where the football happened to be, and then he moved his right foot forward as to avoid getting tackled by a large man and then he moved his left foot forward to gain more momentum in an effort to drive the mass of his body closer towards a zone at the end of the football field commonly referred to as an "end zone" so that his team will be rewarded with a certain number of points determined by the... HEY WAKE UP! I'M EXPLAINING SOMETHING EVERYONE IS AWARE OF AND I USED TO PLAY FOOTBALL SO LISTEN TO MY VOICE NOW!"
Seriously, what crappy lottery gets played to drag out these four yokels behind one giant desk and banter with each other about this game? The black guy second from the right reminded me a LOT of Ali Williams from Family Guy. I think I caught him say ONE thing during the entire halftime bullshit report - which he said twice, possibly because it was in his contract - and that was "KEEP YO EYE ON YO LUGGAGE!" as he gripped a football, expertly pointing out the foibles of the Super Bowl players who seemed unable to do just that. Possibly due to it being RAINY and the ball being WET. Maybe if football were played in suits behind a giant desk, they'd have a much easier time of keeping their eyes on their "luggage". Thanks, Ali!
Pressing on...
Football penalties can be moronic.
Okay, in the game of basketball - someone shoves someone to the ground and a whistle is blown and a foul or technical foul gets issued and if you screw up enough times, they throw you out of the game. Now, in football, one of the ASPECTS of the game is shoving someone to the ground. So why are there penalties regarding HOW this is done? "Ref! Ref! He touched my mask! My MASK!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF??? "Ref! Ref! He touched my shirt! MY SHIRT!!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF???
This is utter nonsense. If you're going to base a major part of the game on brutally knocking down a player, then you have to let someone brutally knock that player down. Know the best way to knock them to the ground? Grab onto them and knock them down. Now, in hockey - I can understand that while beating the shit out of the opponent is a major part of the game (at least it seems that way), the usage of your stick in the process is a no-no. Weapons just hinder the brutality of the beating. But whether you just sock him in whatever teeth he has left, or pull his shirt over his head and work the torso - it's all good.
And then in football, you can't hurt CERTAIN people? There was a play involving a penalty because someone tackled the kicker. The guy came out to kick the field goal, and he kicked the ball and a guy slammed into his leg and knocked him down. BOO-HOO! There should be no penalty for that, EVER! If you're dumb enough to put on the outfit and get your ass onto a football field where you're AWARE that tackling is a major part of the game - you bet your ass tackling is going to be on the menu. If the head coach decided to wander onto the field in the middle of a play and got sacked in the process - I'd expect no penalty for that, either. Coaches know to stay on the sidelines and not ON the field. That's where the tackling generally happens.
It happens off the field just as much. Get a 250-pound man barreling out of bounds, and realize there's people there - someone's gonna get tackled. Usually a cameraman - because there seem to be SO many of them out there. How come there's no penalty for roughing up an innocent bystander? I bet if Dennis Rodman just whucked a basketball out-of-bounds and into the smug begging-for-it face of Vince Vaughn or Ben Affleck, HE'D get a technical foul or something. Football needs a serious reworking in the tackling penalty department.
Halftime Shows. 'Nuff Said.
Lewis Black has a lot of material on the horrid nature of SuperBowl halftime shows. I'd love to just copy it and adapt it all to this particular one. But I have to admit that part of the suckiness was due to the fact that it was fucking RAINING. I suspect that had it not been raining, there would have been more lucrative dancing or worth paying attention to. Instead, we were left with the crooning of PRINCE.
"Because when I think of football - OH YEA - I think of PRINCE!"
While Dave Chappelle alludes to Prince's basketball abilities, I don't think there's anything connecting him to football in general. I don't think there's much linking him to ANYTHING MANLY in general. Let's face it, people - football is considered a "manly sport". This isn't to be sexist - I do a lot of perusing of personal ads and all the women link an interest in football to "being one of the guys" and "their masculine side". All of the shots of his fans screaming madly while rushing the stage were all lanky-looking women who I doubt had any real interest in football in general. At least they didn't do their usual joining of two/three musical "talents" who are a bit mismatched and god-awful. We just got one. And it was Prince.
Purple Rage.
I zoned out through the last two quarters, mostly listening while I was on the computer. I didn't need to SEE the Bears sucking out loud - it was so loud I could hear it from the other room. Which leads me to the endgame. Confetti is streaming down, getting stuck to bald players' heads which are wet with rain or sweat or something else that would make confetti stick to skin - and they announce the trophy being brought in by "the Winningest Coach in the NFL".
"Winningest"??
Yea, they just made up a word. And not in a cool way like Colbert made up "truthiness" or "wikiality" - this is just a stupid word. I'm sure I could get a linguistics expert to verify the sheer stupidity of it. And to make matters worse, this then leads to the most devious of titles in the NFL itself - "MVP". The "Most Valuable Player", huh? Something tells me that this "value" they refer to is backed up by NOTHING factual. I mean, when it comes to a player's value in the NFL - wouldn't you look at the price on his contract? I mean, a yearly salary plus percentage of the initial signing bonus would be the natural way to determine the "most-valued" of players, right? And let's face it - after this last game, all of the players are useless, aren't they? I mean there's always that commercial at the last major sporting event that says that "after tomorrow - we're all undefeated again" or something. I guess it can refer to the value of the player DURING the season, like "without you, we never woulda made it" kind of thing, but that's a bit rude to the other players, isn't it? I mean, it's a TEAM sport, right?
Oh, and the prize for winning MVP? A car.
Hell, even on Oprah there's enough sense to give EVERYONE a car... If I were the losing team, I'd think it'd be pretty easy to just go over to that brand new fancy car and just tip it over. Seriously, these guys are huge and strong. I bet you'd only need like four of them. Just tip it over and say "Who's the most valuable NOW, BITCH?" and walk away. With the Bears, I'm surprised they didn't. Trust me, nobody in Chicago would think they were "poor sports" for doing it. They'd chip into a fundraiser for bail money afterwards as a "thank you". They'd even grunt while they placed money into the fundraising boxes with "Daaaaaa Bail!"
Oh yes, the Lombardi trophy handed to the coach and the team, but mostly the coach was announced as being the "most prestigious award in team sports". REALLY? You're really not only going to freely award this trophy that particular form of superlative, but use the word "prestige" to do so? At least in baseball or basketball, you're not allowed to push people! If football exudes "prestige" - then the most prestigious award in team sports should be the Stanley Cup. After all, it IS a lot BIGGER. And if it's a different kind of prestige, that title really belongs with the Olympic Gold Medal awarded to a team sport. Olympics exude a lot more prestige - and they have a lot more right to use the word "world" in their titles than the National Football League does. I don't want to hear that the Colts are "world champions". That's as dumb as the word "world" in baseball's "World Series".
Before I go, I just want to compare two or three SuperBowl commercials, illustrating the differences between price and elaboration and effectiveness.
Commercial #1: Kentucky Fried Chicken
They scrolled a message saying how they were going to give you a break from all of the overpriced elaborate nonsense commercials. Then it showed a bucket of fried chicken, and said it was like a 10-piece bucket of chicken for $7.99, I think. That's it.
Very effective, in my opinion. It poked fun at the hype of SuperBowl commercials, got its message across, and featured the brilliant return of the FULL TITLE of the company, Kentucky Fried Chicken. They recently decided to shy away from the KFC logo they'd been hiding behind for a long time, and re-emerge with their full title once more.
Commercial #2: GoDaddy.com
A guy in a suit is talking about the company and what they do, selling cheap domain names and whatnot, and then he gets to the marketing department door, and there's a huge party with fun and music and boobs a-plenty and he closes the door after a few seconds and says "Everybody wants to be in Marketing."
Yes, sir, and I'd like to be in Marketing, too! Very effective commercial, in my opinion, because sex sells - even more so when you're pointing out that sex sells. It's all the craftiness of honesty and humor with the added bonus of SEX that SELLS! It not only made me want to find out more about GoDaddy, but also apply for their Marketing department. Until I remembered it was just a commercial. But still... Seriously...
Commerical #3: GM Motors
An elaborate commercial with a lot of CG or machinery as a factory robot gets fired from the shop, and has to live on the streets. He winds up in the crappy position of waving around one of those big arrow signs, and finally commits suicide by jumping off a bridge. He then wakes up back in the factory, and is happy to keep working.
Why the hell would you advertise firing an employee and driving them to suicide?? I mean, it's a robot, but they personified it with human emotions and actions so we could "relate to it" and then it jumps off a bridge because it wants to die?? Why would I want your products after you reminded me of being miserable enough to the point of suicide??? Hell, if the company wanted to really SEAL the deal, after the robot wakes up from this horrible dream - the manager should have fired him for SLEEPING ON THE JOB! This was an awful commercial, and I'm willing to bet there's a lot of online blather about GM's hiring/firing practices from people who bothered to do more research than I felt like as this late hour.
I have work tomorrow and have to get up at 6am to do so.
Failure to do so might result in them firing me and me wanting to jump off a bridge. Thanks, GM! Read more!
80% of plays, nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Still nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. Ball moves, players push each other a lot, and either the guy holding it runs a little bit and then gets pushed down or he throws it to someone who misses it or catches it and then gets pushed down less than 20 feet from where the ball started from at the beginning of this rigamarole.
15% of the plays, something MIGHT happen, but then there was a penalty and nothing happens.
Okay, everyone lines up. Some shouting takes place. Someone shifts around. Shill nothing happening. More shouts. Little more shuffling. A whistle blows, and all hell breaks loose because someone shuffled wrong. A "false start" or an "offsides" or one of those things. And then everyone has to break for a few seconds while the referrees look at the videotape of the shuffling that may or may not have taken place inappropriately - at which point a decision is made and the nothingness can begin anew.
4% of the plays, something finally happens, but in such a way that some minutia took place which means yet another flag and possible penalty.
Okay, fast-forward to the ball moving, and the guy with the ball actually throws it to someone who somehow manages to catch it, maybe run with it for a few yards, and then gets thrown to the ground or runs out-of-bounds into a cameraman - possibly as an NFL-sponsored program designed to give a cameraman a look into the life of an NFL player, generally by knocking him to the ground in a painful manner. Oh, but wait! A flag has been thrown on the field because in the split second between the guy catching the ball and getting a beat-down, the referees need to verify whether or not his feet were on the ground, or both feet were in-bounds, or whether his shoelaces were untied or something. Three minutes later, the decision is made and the nothingness begins anew.
1% of the plays, something actually happens. Which causes five minutes of detailed review as to WHY it happened or how the other team mistakenly LET it happen.
This is just like the above, but since three minutes didn't get wasted on referees reviewing three different videotaped angles - they decide to waste three minutes with announcers drawing arrows on video screens to show you how the ball was caught because "the player moved his left hand inward at the same time that he moved his right hand inward, and they came together at a central point where the football happened to be, and then he moved his right foot forward as to avoid getting tackled by a large man and then he moved his left foot forward to gain more momentum in an effort to drive the mass of his body closer towards a zone at the end of the football field commonly referred to as an "end zone" so that his team will be rewarded with a certain number of points determined by the... HEY WAKE UP! I'M EXPLAINING SOMETHING EVERYONE IS AWARE OF AND I USED TO PLAY FOOTBALL SO LISTEN TO MY VOICE NOW!"
Seriously, what crappy lottery gets played to drag out these four yokels behind one giant desk and banter with each other about this game? The black guy second from the right reminded me a LOT of Ali Williams from Family Guy. I think I caught him say ONE thing during the entire halftime bullshit report - which he said twice, possibly because it was in his contract - and that was "KEEP YO EYE ON YO LUGGAGE!" as he gripped a football, expertly pointing out the foibles of the Super Bowl players who seemed unable to do just that. Possibly due to it being RAINY and the ball being WET. Maybe if football were played in suits behind a giant desk, they'd have a much easier time of keeping their eyes on their "luggage". Thanks, Ali!
Pressing on...
Football penalties can be moronic.
Okay, in the game of basketball - someone shoves someone to the ground and a whistle is blown and a foul or technical foul gets issued and if you screw up enough times, they throw you out of the game. Now, in football, one of the ASPECTS of the game is shoving someone to the ground. So why are there penalties regarding HOW this is done? "Ref! Ref! He touched my mask! My MASK!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF??? "Ref! Ref! He touched my shirt! MY SHIRT!!!" Whistle. Foul. Penalty. WTF???
This is utter nonsense. If you're going to base a major part of the game on brutally knocking down a player, then you have to let someone brutally knock that player down. Know the best way to knock them to the ground? Grab onto them and knock them down. Now, in hockey - I can understand that while beating the shit out of the opponent is a major part of the game (at least it seems that way), the usage of your stick in the process is a no-no. Weapons just hinder the brutality of the beating. But whether you just sock him in whatever teeth he has left, or pull his shirt over his head and work the torso - it's all good.
And then in football, you can't hurt CERTAIN people? There was a play involving a penalty because someone tackled the kicker. The guy came out to kick the field goal, and he kicked the ball and a guy slammed into his leg and knocked him down. BOO-HOO! There should be no penalty for that, EVER! If you're dumb enough to put on the outfit and get your ass onto a football field where you're AWARE that tackling is a major part of the game - you bet your ass tackling is going to be on the menu. If the head coach decided to wander onto the field in the middle of a play and got sacked in the process - I'd expect no penalty for that, either. Coaches know to stay on the sidelines and not ON the field. That's where the tackling generally happens.
It happens off the field just as much. Get a 250-pound man barreling out of bounds, and realize there's people there - someone's gonna get tackled. Usually a cameraman - because there seem to be SO many of them out there. How come there's no penalty for roughing up an innocent bystander? I bet if Dennis Rodman just whucked a basketball out-of-bounds and into the smug begging-for-it face of Vince Vaughn or Ben Affleck, HE'D get a technical foul or something. Football needs a serious reworking in the tackling penalty department.
Halftime Shows. 'Nuff Said.
Lewis Black has a lot of material on the horrid nature of SuperBowl halftime shows. I'd love to just copy it and adapt it all to this particular one. But I have to admit that part of the suckiness was due to the fact that it was fucking RAINING. I suspect that had it not been raining, there would have been more lucrative dancing or worth paying attention to. Instead, we were left with the crooning of PRINCE.
"Because when I think of football - OH YEA - I think of PRINCE!"
While Dave Chappelle alludes to Prince's basketball abilities, I don't think there's anything connecting him to football in general. I don't think there's much linking him to ANYTHING MANLY in general. Let's face it, people - football is considered a "manly sport". This isn't to be sexist - I do a lot of perusing of personal ads and all the women link an interest in football to "being one of the guys" and "their masculine side". All of the shots of his fans screaming madly while rushing the stage were all lanky-looking women who I doubt had any real interest in football in general. At least they didn't do their usual joining of two/three musical "talents" who are a bit mismatched and god-awful. We just got one. And it was Prince.
Purple Rage.
I zoned out through the last two quarters, mostly listening while I was on the computer. I didn't need to SEE the Bears sucking out loud - it was so loud I could hear it from the other room. Which leads me to the endgame. Confetti is streaming down, getting stuck to bald players' heads which are wet with rain or sweat or something else that would make confetti stick to skin - and they announce the trophy being brought in by "the Winningest Coach in the NFL".
"Winningest"??
Yea, they just made up a word. And not in a cool way like Colbert made up "truthiness" or "wikiality" - this is just a stupid word. I'm sure I could get a linguistics expert to verify the sheer stupidity of it. And to make matters worse, this then leads to the most devious of titles in the NFL itself - "MVP". The "Most Valuable Player", huh? Something tells me that this "value" they refer to is backed up by NOTHING factual. I mean, when it comes to a player's value in the NFL - wouldn't you look at the price on his contract? I mean, a yearly salary plus percentage of the initial signing bonus would be the natural way to determine the "most-valued" of players, right? And let's face it - after this last game, all of the players are useless, aren't they? I mean there's always that commercial at the last major sporting event that says that "after tomorrow - we're all undefeated again" or something. I guess it can refer to the value of the player DURING the season, like "without you, we never woulda made it" kind of thing, but that's a bit rude to the other players, isn't it? I mean, it's a TEAM sport, right?
Oh, and the prize for winning MVP? A car.
Hell, even on Oprah there's enough sense to give EVERYONE a car... If I were the losing team, I'd think it'd be pretty easy to just go over to that brand new fancy car and just tip it over. Seriously, these guys are huge and strong. I bet you'd only need like four of them. Just tip it over and say "Who's the most valuable NOW, BITCH?" and walk away. With the Bears, I'm surprised they didn't. Trust me, nobody in Chicago would think they were "poor sports" for doing it. They'd chip into a fundraiser for bail money afterwards as a "thank you". They'd even grunt while they placed money into the fundraising boxes with "Daaaaaa Bail!"
Oh yes, the Lombardi trophy handed to the coach and the team, but mostly the coach was announced as being the "most prestigious award in team sports". REALLY? You're really not only going to freely award this trophy that particular form of superlative, but use the word "prestige" to do so? At least in baseball or basketball, you're not allowed to push people! If football exudes "prestige" - then the most prestigious award in team sports should be the Stanley Cup. After all, it IS a lot BIGGER. And if it's a different kind of prestige, that title really belongs with the Olympic Gold Medal awarded to a team sport. Olympics exude a lot more prestige - and they have a lot more right to use the word "world" in their titles than the National Football League does. I don't want to hear that the Colts are "world champions". That's as dumb as the word "world" in baseball's "World Series".
Before I go, I just want to compare two or three SuperBowl commercials, illustrating the differences between price and elaboration and effectiveness.
Commercial #1: Kentucky Fried Chicken
They scrolled a message saying how they were going to give you a break from all of the overpriced elaborate nonsense commercials. Then it showed a bucket of fried chicken, and said it was like a 10-piece bucket of chicken for $7.99, I think. That's it.
Very effective, in my opinion. It poked fun at the hype of SuperBowl commercials, got its message across, and featured the brilliant return of the FULL TITLE of the company, Kentucky Fried Chicken. They recently decided to shy away from the KFC logo they'd been hiding behind for a long time, and re-emerge with their full title once more.
Commercial #2: GoDaddy.com
A guy in a suit is talking about the company and what they do, selling cheap domain names and whatnot, and then he gets to the marketing department door, and there's a huge party with fun and music and boobs a-plenty and he closes the door after a few seconds and says "Everybody wants to be in Marketing."
Yes, sir, and I'd like to be in Marketing, too! Very effective commercial, in my opinion, because sex sells - even more so when you're pointing out that sex sells. It's all the craftiness of honesty and humor with the added bonus of SEX that SELLS! It not only made me want to find out more about GoDaddy, but also apply for their Marketing department. Until I remembered it was just a commercial. But still... Seriously...
Commerical #3: GM Motors
An elaborate commercial with a lot of CG or machinery as a factory robot gets fired from the shop, and has to live on the streets. He winds up in the crappy position of waving around one of those big arrow signs, and finally commits suicide by jumping off a bridge. He then wakes up back in the factory, and is happy to keep working.
Why the hell would you advertise firing an employee and driving them to suicide?? I mean, it's a robot, but they personified it with human emotions and actions so we could "relate to it" and then it jumps off a bridge because it wants to die?? Why would I want your products after you reminded me of being miserable enough to the point of suicide??? Hell, if the company wanted to really SEAL the deal, after the robot wakes up from this horrible dream - the manager should have fired him for SLEEPING ON THE JOB! This was an awful commercial, and I'm willing to bet there's a lot of online blather about GM's hiring/firing practices from people who bothered to do more research than I felt like as this late hour.
I have work tomorrow and have to get up at 6am to do so.
Failure to do so might result in them firing me and me wanting to jump off a bridge. Thanks, GM! Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
