- Color me stunned. I just cannot believe that Detroit Tigers first baseman Miguel Cabrera has spent the last three months in a treatment program for alcoholism. After all, we had no indication that he had a drinking problem of any so-…….wait, what’s that? You’re suggesting that the fact that he went on a massive bender just hours before a crucial game against the Chicago White Sox, a game that cemented his team’s late-season collapse and helped cost them a playoff spot yet again is an indication of a drinking problem? Look, just because dude was taken into custody by police after a domestic-abuse complaint was filed by his wife in the early morning of Oct. 3 and he registered a 0.26 blood-alcohol reading doesn’t necessarily mean that he needed treatment. After all, who among us hasn’t gone out in the midst of the biggest moment of our professional career and had a beer…..or 12 to take the edge off? Sure, he gave a symbolic middle finger to the Tigers, who are paying his $152 million contract, and to the fans who come to watch him play, but you can’t hold that against him. Perhaps he felt that going out and getting drunk off his ass between Friday night's game and Saturday morning was the best way to prepare for a big game later in the day on Saturday. They don’t administer sobriety tests in the batter’s box, okay? Maybe Cabrera believed that pitchers would see his inebriated, hung-over state and throw a nice, meaty fastball right down the middle of the plate because they figured he would be too liquored up to hit it. Risking alcohol poisoning would have been worth it then, no? All right, all right, I can’t do it anymore. I legitimately tried to mount a defense for Cabrera’s actions, but I can’t keep up the charade. This guy has clearly battled the booze for some time and along with his apparent addiction to food that has caused him to balloon to 50-60 pounds over anything close to his ideal playing weight, it is a problem that had to be addressed. Anyone willing to throw away such an important game in order to get his drink on needed to spend time in rehab and probably more than three months. Going out for a few beers is one thing, but topping out at three times above your state’s legal limit for driving is something else entirely. Along with his teammates, family and fans, I applaud Cabrera for seeking help and hopefully this is the one and only trip he makes to rehab……………
- For a long time now, I’ve been saying that what we truly need in the United States is to pit our many charitable organizations against one another in a battle to the death. Put a little prize money out there, allow them to battle it out in a philanthropic steel cage match and see who emerges the victor. Well, a banking titan has finally embraced this idea – sort of – and although JPMorgan Chase hasn’t fully reached the level of my brilliance quite yet, the company is serving up an interesting contest pitting many of the country’s most prominent charities against one another for a cool $1 million prize. The contest, which wrapped up at midnight Thursday, began late last year when Chase took a database filled with 500,000 nonprofit organizations and uploaded the information on to Facebook. The bank then “crowdsourced” the winnowing process and allowed Facebook users to decide choose which charities should be recognized. The top 100 charities won $25,000 and advanced to the second round, where the leading vote-getter will receive $1 million and five runners-up will receive $100,000 each. A Chase board of directors set up to oversee the competition will give out an additional $1 million to a single charity chosen from the original group. "We wanted to find a way where we could hear from the communities we were operating in and hear what was important to them," said Chase Community Giving foundation President Kim Davis. "This, for us, is very much about testing out a new way of doing corporate philanthropy for the firm." Overall, Chase will donate a total of $5 million to 100 charities chosen by Facebook users. What you may not know is that Chase Community Giving, the philanthropic arm of the large bank, donates annually $100 million to organizations around the world on an annual basis. The Facebook involvement has been a hit, with more than a million fans have participating. As of noon Thursday, the top vote-getting charity on the contest's Facebook page was Invisible Children Inc., a nonprofit that seeks to combat the exploitation of children as child soldiers in Africa through documentary filmmmaking. It’s a worthwhile charity, as are all of the organizations in the running for the $1 million prize. The winner will be deserving no matter who it is, but I’m just thrilled that my idea of a philanthropic steel-cage match is one step closer to reality…………
- This is just the sort of problem you run into when you take a bunch of vapid, self-absorbed, unintelligent, narcissistic idiots and slam them on television in a reality-show setting. It doesn’t have to be a bunch of self-described “guidos and guidettes” who play up to all of the worst stereotypes of Italian-Americans, but that certainly does add to the atrocity. The problem I speak of is that the aforementioned idiots begin to think that a) they matter, b) people care about what they think and c) that they are much more talented than they actually are. Enter the cast of MTV’s abortion of reality series, The Jersey Shore. From a dude who nicknamed his pecs “The Situation” to a bunch of skanky chicks who make the cast of a back-alley porno filmed in Chatsworth seem classy, the tools on this show have plumbed new depths for reality television, which is saying a lot. And just as you’d expect, they are trying to use their new-found infamy to launch their careers in new directions. One such effort is being made by Skank #1 on the show (I just number them as I come across them, so this chick is first, that’s all), Jenni Farley, better known as “JWoww” on the show. Aside from having what might be the dumbest nickname in the history of nicknames (JWoww? What, is the extra “w” on the end of Wow supposed to signify the extra hotness you think you possess?), this chick is seeking to foist her slutty style on the rest of the world with a collection of skimpy made-to-order party tops to replicate her signature look. Plastic surgery to increase the size of your rack, as this chick as undoubtedly done, is not included. She is pimping (never has that term been more appropriate) her skank wear on her Web site, which I won't dignify here by listing its IP address. The site says, “Jenni has created the ultimate in fashionable clothing. She will be reinventing the term ‘Sexy Sophisticated.’ Not only will her line be ‘Edgy’ and ‘Sexy,’ but it will make people of all ages and body type feel more confident in ‘the scene.’ This exclusive line will be limited and custom made to your body type.” Sophisticated? Nothing about this glorified hooker or Jersey Shore is sophisticated. Predictably, the prices for these fashion wonders aren’t listed and technical difficulties on the site make it virtually impossible to order at this point…………
- Oh good, just what American politics need: the Supreme Court giving big business more power to spend freely in federal elections. A 5-4 conservative majority handed the right to buy elections, er, to increase contributions without limit to businesses, unions and nonprofits, curb-stomping a half-century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to influence American. With this year's congressional midterm elections large, the decision by the justices to ease long-standing restrictions on "independent spending" by corporations and unions in political campaigns could play a significant role. "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Not really, Judge K. While you may see it as a First Amendment issue and a way to benefit a broader range of for-profit and nonprofit groups seeking a voice in the crowded national political debate, I see it as yet another way for the rich and powerful among us to purchase even greater influence on the political process. Within hours of the decision, President Obama responded by saying the court has given "the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." I don’t agree with a lot of what Obama has done in his first year in office, but he is spot-on in his assessment of this decision. He piled on with a written statement declaring that he is telling his administration "to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less." Right-wing kooks were lining up in support of the decision even as Obama was denouncing it. "The Supreme Court's decision today is a victory for the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to participate in the political process," said Theodore Olson, who successfully argued the case for the conservative Citizens United. The specific case that brought this issue before the nation’s highest court centered on a documentary on Hank Clinton. The film was produced last year by Citizens United and it tore into the then-presidential candidate with gusto. "Hillary: The Movie" was a source of controversy and the filmmakers wanted to promote it during the height of the 2008 primary season. Surprisingly, a federal court blocked any ads, as well as airings on cable television's video on demand. In regards to the specific case, the Supreme Court also ruled against Citizens United, saying federal restrictions on broadcast ads are appropriate. But the precedent set by the decision will have a more wide-ranging effect and that’s what Obama and dissenting justices like Justice John Paul Stevens are concerned about. Stevens wrote, "In a democratic society, the long-standing consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden applications of judge-made rules. The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens on the dissenting side of the case in her first case since being selected for the high court. In the end, she, Stevens and the other two dissenting justices were unable to protect the rights of the little guy. By their decision, the five majority justices also nullified earlier rulings upholding the core of a 6-year-old federal law aimed at curbing corporate campaign spending. Whereas corporations have previously been limited to issue-focused campaign ads, they can now directly support or oppose a candidate without restriction. In his opinion, Kennedy wrongly postulated that Americans should be trusted to decide competing election issues. "The appearance of influence or access," he wrote, "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Wrong again, K. Have you not met enough Americans to realize how many morons there are across this great nation? These knobs cannot be entrusted with anything more serious than which color socks to wear today or what sugared breakfast cereal to pour into their bowl in the morning. I concur with Stevens, who read part of his harsh dissent from the bench, when he said, "The court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding." If you are trying to figure out who to send your Supreme Court hate mail to, Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts were also on the majority side of this decision to give a gigantic judicial middle finger to. Section 203 of the comprehensive Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, widely known as the McCain-Feingold law. Thanks for nothing, Supreme Court, and for showing that even though you may change out a justice or two from time to time, you can still churn out utterly indefensible decisions on a wide range of legal issues…………
No comments:
Post a Comment