So, there's been a stink over a recent casting call memo that was sent out about a potential ESPN college basketball ad campaign. Basically, they were searching for particular individuals to represent some of the marquee teams ESPN covers. The letter is below, (and it's awesome) and I was thinking that we could have some fun filling in the casting call for our alma mater/favorite college basketball team, or correct ESPN's interpretation of us. I'll Start:
[ IOWA ]
MALE, blonde hair blue eyed WHITE guy who is much bigger than all the other call center employees due to a life of eating growth hormone and antibiotic infused pork. Tries really hard at call centering, but just has no talent and is very poor at it. Always eating. Wears a Carhart jacket.
See? Fun? The original casting call is below.
Director: Matt Aselton
Casting Director: ERICA PALGON
Interview: Thurs 11/13 and Fri 11/14, Mon 11/17
Fitting: 11/21
Shoot: 11/24, 25
Location: New York
SUBMIT ELECTRONICALLY LIZ LEWIS CASTING PARTNERS
EVERYONE MUST BE STRONG WITH COMEDY/IMPROV. PLEASE WRITE ANY ADDITIONAL NOTES, IN THE NOTES PAGE, ABOUT ACTOR'S COMEDIC/IMPROV EXPERIENCE/TRAINING, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN LOOKING THROUGH SUBMISSIONS
All roles are ages 18-22 yrs old. WITH THE EXCEPTION of PERDUE.
The concept: The spots take place in the ESPN College Basketball Call Center (CBBCC). All of these guys are there representing their schools, calling people on the phone to get them to watch more College Basketball. Basically they are selling college basketball.
SEEKING:
[ DUKE UNIVERSITY ]
MALE. Our guy for Duke UNIVERSITY is a smart, with it, young WHITE male. He's handsome. He's from money. He is, in short, the kind of guy, everyone can't stand. He is the kind of guy everyone wants to be.
[ NORTH CAROLINA ]
FEMALE. She's a Southern bell. She is the counterpoint to Duke. Being young and pretty everyone wants to be around her. She's charming. Not a dingbat, she's sharp.
[ TEXAS ]
MALE. Straight out of an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog, Texas is a young man's man. He is the kind of guy that could field dress a deer and then take you to the debutante ball in 20. Polite, farm boy. He's good at everything. Except call centering.
[ KANSAS ]
MALE. Kansas is straight off the farm. However, he takes great pains to point out that Kansas is very cosmopolitan, as witnessed by their record, their burgeoning tech industry, and their hybrid corns (bonus: modified by fish genes!)
[ CONNECTICUT ]
MALE. Connecticut is all things Connecticut. He's a little bit older. He's a little bit thicker around the waist. He's WHITE. He's also competitive. Very. Waspy, blue blood.
[ OKLAHOMA ]
MALE. Oklahoma is awesome and he thinks everything is awesome. He's very enthusiastic about all things call center and all things life and he wants to share this contagious enthusiasm with everyone he meets. Wide-eyed, as naive as they come.
[ LOUISVILLE ]
MALE. Louisville is very true to place. He's short. He's HISPANIC. And one day he hopes to carry on in proud Louisville tradition and race thoroughbreds.
[ TENNESSEE ]
FEMALE. Tennessee is orange crazy. The ice tray in her orange fridge, that freezes the water she dyes orange, is that orange. The party girl cowboy hat she wears is a white and orange zebra print. The tattoo on her lower back is Pantone 3 for that Tennessee orange. The only thing that's not orange is her dog, which is the mascot Smokey. Did we mention she's crazy? A party girl who would hang out at the cowgirl hall of fame.
[ PURDUE ]
MALE. Child prodigy. 14-year-old. Or open to an 18-year-old who looks 14. Aeronautical engineering. Wiz kid. Think McLovin from Superbad.
[ VILLANOVA ]
MALE. Villanova is the poor man's Duke — he's not quite as handsome, he's not quite as rich, he's not quite as dapper. After 2 or 3 beers though, who cares? As he's friendly enough.
[ NOTRE DAME ]
MALE He's an ASIAN kid who is in to all things Notre Dame, ridiculously so. Oh, and he's always fighting. Every time we encounter him he always has some words or another, be it the faint traces of a black eye, or a scab or whatever. He epitomizes the fightin' Irish.
[ PITTSBURGH ]
FEMALE. Pittsburgh is a tomboy. She obviously grew up in the neighborhood and isn't going to take any guff from anyone and she'll wallop you in the eye with a crowbar if you suggest different. So don't. Think Tina Fey type.
[ SYRACUSE ]
MALE. Jewish kid from Long Island that is loving the college experience. It has opened up a world he never knew existed. All you can eat buffets in the cafeteria — who knew? To Syracuse, everything is a party.
[ GEORGETOWN ]
FEMALE. Georgetown, a 4.36 GPA who's lived in 9 world-class cities, but all the time in her sister's shadow (her GPA is 4.37). She's sort of the female Duke, except most people like her. Think Reese Witherspoon.
[ GONZAGA ]
MALE. No one knows what Gonzaga looks like because no one knows where to find him. He is still stuck in the grunge look, reckless, in from the wild. Flannel look. Chews tobacco. Guy that would go to school in the Pacific Northwest.
[ MARQUETTE ]
FEMALE. Marquette, on a scale of 1-10, she's a six. A B-, C in every category you can define a person by. Her defining characteristic is you don't really remember her. You're not breaking your arm to get to her, but you're not chewing it off to get away. She does have a winning personality though. Midwest, sweet girl.
[ MICHIGAN STATE ]
MALE. Blue collar to the core. Michigan State is one tough kid that grew up by putting a few down. That's just Michigan State's way. Big beefy kid.
[ MEMPHIS ]
MALE. What can we say about Memphis? He's a southern BLACK kid, really culinary and polite. He's artistic, and draws comic books really well.
[ MARYLAND ]
MALE. He plays lacrosse. A dude. Low key. Mid Atlantic, wears baseball hats and chinos.
[ OHIO STATE ]
MALE. He looks like Jim Tressle (head coach of Ohio State football) in the dress code. Red sweater vest. Always. Doesn't care for swearing either — of course we never really test this out as they are commercial advertisements and no one swears in them, but it's true nevertheless. A Republican.
[ ILLINOIS ]
MALE. African-American. Young Obama. Think Toofer-the straight-laced, Harvard grad writer from 30 Rock (Keith Powell)
[ OKLAHOMA STATE ]
FEMALE. She's a fun loving girl, Oklahoma born and bred. Decided not to travel out of State so she should be closer to home. She's a flirt. She's a hot chick.
[ TEXAS A&M ]
MALE. True to the region, Texas A&M is one tough dude. He's not big physically, but he is imposing. He's an ROTC kid and his 100-yard stare lets you know it.
[ BAYLOR ]
MALE & FEMALE. Baylor is not one people but two. It's a couple. In fact, we're not even sure which one goes to Baylor. We only know they are madly in love. Their world is each other, which is really sweet or really sickening, depending. Think Sheri Oteri and Will Farrell as the cheerleaders.
READ MORE: ESPN
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Angering People
The Red Sox are doomed: Burn, Baby, Burn
Donovan McNabb is overrated: Black people play quarterback like this; white people play quarterback like that
Michigan is the armpit of America: Michigan
Wisconsin is not good at football: Wisconsin vs. Penn State
Phish SUX: Stupid hippies
Steelers fans are unattractive: Fat Yinzer
I bet this guy graduated from Ohio State: Brilliance
(video at: YouTube)
Chico State: Bad school, good times
Donovan McNabb is overrated: Black people play quarterback like this; white people play quarterback like that
Michigan is the armpit of America: Michigan
Wisconsin is not good at football: Wisconsin vs. Penn State
Phish SUX: Stupid hippies
Steelers fans are unattractive: Fat Yinzer
I bet this guy graduated from Ohio State: Brilliance
(video at: YouTube)
Chico State: Bad school, good times
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Brian Krzyzewski for '10 Student Trustee
Vote Brian Krzyzewski Class of ’10 Student Trustee.
I am endorsing Brian Krzyzewski for Student Trustee because he is my roommate and that is awesome.
Now don’t hold the fact that Brian Krzyzewski is my roommate against him, because sometimes, when we are sitting in the living room watching TV, he just sits there and stares at me, with eyes full of contempt and hatred. I can tell he finds me to be one of the most heinous persons on the face of the Earth, and that, my internet friends, is a sign of good taste.
Sometimes, late at night, when I’m standing over Brian Krzyzewski’s bed, watching him sleep, I track the gentle rise an fall of his chest as he breathes and think to myself, “that is the rhythmic breathing pattern of a true leader.” Standing there in the dark of the night, I imagine his angelic blue eyes and say in a hushed tone, “that is the icy blue stare of a man I’d like to represent me at high level Vermont Law School meetings.”
Thinking of standing over Brian Krzyzewski while he sleeps reminds me of a story from my childhood. There was a drug store located about two miles from my house, in a town center. On weekends, I biked all the way to the area, ostensibly to rent a Nintendo game at the video store. But, once I stole my first issue of Playboy (tucked into my windbreaker), I stole a new Playboy every month. And I can recite those older Playmates practically in chronological order: Kerri Kendall, Cheryl Bachman, Carrie Jean Yazel, etc. The only problem with stealing those Playboys was that I had to bike the two miles all the way home in order to get to my room and masturbate in a sweaty furor. I was fat, so it took a while. Once, I just pulled over the side of the road and did it in the woods. I may have tried to have sex with a tree, but I'm not ready to admit that.
Brian Krzyzewski once told me that he desired to one day have a profession where he could be called “Big Daddy.” Mob Boss, Football Coach, Boarding School Director, Brothel Proprietor, any of these professions would work. Well, I think that “Big Daddy Brian Krzyzewski” sounds like a fine moniker for a student trustee.
Also, he hates Bacardi Limon.
VOTE BIG DADDY STUDENT TRUSTEE!!!
Love always;
I am endorsing Brian Krzyzewski for Student Trustee because he is my roommate and that is awesome.
Now don’t hold the fact that Brian Krzyzewski is my roommate against him, because sometimes, when we are sitting in the living room watching TV, he just sits there and stares at me, with eyes full of contempt and hatred. I can tell he finds me to be one of the most heinous persons on the face of the Earth, and that, my internet friends, is a sign of good taste.
Sometimes, late at night, when I’m standing over Brian Krzyzewski’s bed, watching him sleep, I track the gentle rise an fall of his chest as he breathes and think to myself, “that is the rhythmic breathing pattern of a true leader.” Standing there in the dark of the night, I imagine his angelic blue eyes and say in a hushed tone, “that is the icy blue stare of a man I’d like to represent me at high level Vermont Law School meetings.”
Thinking of standing over Brian Krzyzewski while he sleeps reminds me of a story from my childhood. There was a drug store located about two miles from my house, in a town center. On weekends, I biked all the way to the area, ostensibly to rent a Nintendo game at the video store. But, once I stole my first issue of Playboy (tucked into my windbreaker), I stole a new Playboy every month. And I can recite those older Playmates practically in chronological order: Kerri Kendall, Cheryl Bachman, Carrie Jean Yazel, etc. The only problem with stealing those Playboys was that I had to bike the two miles all the way home in order to get to my room and masturbate in a sweaty furor. I was fat, so it took a while. Once, I just pulled over the side of the road and did it in the woods. I may have tried to have sex with a tree, but I'm not ready to admit that.
Brian Krzyzewski once told me that he desired to one day have a profession where he could be called “Big Daddy.” Mob Boss, Football Coach, Boarding School Director, Brothel Proprietor, any of these professions would work. Well, I think that “Big Daddy Brian Krzyzewski” sounds like a fine moniker for a student trustee.
Also, he hates Bacardi Limon.
VOTE BIG DADDY STUDENT TRUSTEE!!!
Love always;
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
In Which I Complain About Email
There was a lot of talk of “an expected level of professionalism” at tonight’s SBA candidates’ forum, and that brought my blood to a boil, because I believe “expected level of professionalism” to be a code for an unconscionable restriction of student speech, in the form of email policies and harassment policies, on VLS’ campus.
For starters, I’d like to inform everyone that much of my examples are borrowed from “Fire’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus.” A full copy of which can be downloaded for free at: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5063.html. It will be cited as “Guide.”
1. Freedom of Speech and the private campus.
Our speech at VLS is not protected by the Constitution; our speech is protected by principles of contract law buttressed by principles of free speech found in First Amendment litigation. Courts look to two sources for the agreements that contractually bind a student and an educational institution; Student Handbooks and Admission Materials. The theory is that if a student is not informed of potential limits on speech in recruiting materials, restricting that student’s speech once they enroll at the institution constitutes fraud. Student Handbooks are looked at to determine if there is actual policy in place to restrict speech.
The VLS Student Handbook, at page 90, in the email policy contains this amazing line: “While Vermont Law School rejects any form of censorship, behavior that constitutes misconduct may result in sanctions.” The School, in the space of 17 letters and one comma, directly contradicts itself. I ask you, is not sanctioning behavior that takes place via a medium of communication (i.e. email) the definition of censorship? In fact this policy constitutes the most despicable of all censorship, prior restraint, because, “as long as the policy exists, the threat of enforcement remains real and can influence how people speak and act.” (Guide 137) Also, are not the constant reminders that our emails may become public on our bar applications another threat that goes against our interest in freely speaking our minds?”
2. Email as a professional tool
The main argument I get from my detractors is that the email is a professional tool, and a level of professionalism should be enforced. I, surprisingly, agree completely with this concept. Because I agree with this concept, I support the removal of item #11 of the authorized uses for the email system found on page 90 of the handbook: “Participation in topical forum.” The administration cannot, having established that the school “rejects censorship in any form,” give us a medium to participate in discussion, yet simultaneously establish limits on HOW we are allowed to participate. That is against all for which a decent, liberal society stands.
3. The quest for truth or the quest for an uneasy, ignorant calm?
Our institution’s definition of Harassment is found on page 74 of the handbook.
“Unlawful harassment may include, but is not limited to, the following actions if, as isolated acts or as part of a pattern, they have the prohibited purpose or effect on employment or educational performance or environment: jokes, derogatory expressions, or comments; the display of graphics, cartoons, or objects; sending or forwarding electronic mail messages; and other conduct offensive to a reasonable person possessing a particular protected characteristic”
While the intention of this policy is well-meaning, it represents an incredibly vague and impermissible proscription of speech. Sometimes, important things must be said that are offensive to a reasonable person of any characteristic. If we curb our ability to speak on issues because we may offend someone, we destroy our ability to examine the darkest parts of our society, where often the roots of our social ills can be found.
“The Guide” explains much better than I can (at pg 135.)
“If prejudice, bigotry, or ignorance exists, it is far better to know how people actually think, to discuss such things, and to reply appropriately than to force such things underground, where they only fester and worsen. If you are hated by someone, it is better (and safer) to know who hates you and why. It is counterproductive to force educable human beings to disguise their true beliefs and feelings. It is counterproductive to create a climate in which students are afraid to speak frankly and freely with each other. [Students should] challenge the administration on the university’s motivation for passing these speech codes. Do such restrictions of liberty serve the educational development of students and the search for truth, or do they merely give administrators the appearance of peace and quiet at the expense of real progress and candor?”
I contend VLS has traded its quest for truth for a quest for social harmony to be achieved at all costs.
4. Satire, Parody, and Discussion
My preferred mode of sparking debate and angering the populace is satire and parody. Why, you ask? Because it is much more efficient, great effect can be made with two sentences or a crude drawing, and I don’t like to type. Satire and parody are target number one of regulations that seek to curb “unseemly” debate. Again, I’ll let “The Guide” make a point that I am too lazy to make (at pg. 99):
“PARODY AND SATIRE: INCREASINGLY UNDER ATTACK
Parody and satire are facing difficult times at American universities, where many administrators have either lost their sense of humor or substituted a stifling and misguided paternalism that makes many forms of humor impossible. This is tragic, because parody—a crucial form of dissent and social criticism—is an invaluable component of life in a free society. Parody, as free speech, enjoys sweeping constitutional protections. Again, students are well advised to read the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1987), and to be prepared to use it defensively if accused by a campus administration of being guilty of creating a “hostile educational environment” by means of a mean-spirited, slashing parody seemingly intended to inflict emotional distress on its target. As the Supreme Court has noted, forms of speech such as biting parody and spiteful political cartoons are time-honored ways of communicating disapproval. Indeed, parody and satire succeed in their mission only when they inflict distress.”
So, if you are against parody and satire, then you would agree with Jerry Falwell in the above cited case. Censorship makes strange bedfellows, don’t you think?
And so ends my rant on free speech at VLS, feel free to contact me, and please, be as vulgar and hateful as you wish, I’m a big boy (so, seriously, I’m fat) and I can take it.
For starters, I’d like to inform everyone that much of my examples are borrowed from “Fire’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus.” A full copy of which can be downloaded for free at: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5063.html. It will be cited as “Guide.”
1. Freedom of Speech and the private campus.
Our speech at VLS is not protected by the Constitution; our speech is protected by principles of contract law buttressed by principles of free speech found in First Amendment litigation. Courts look to two sources for the agreements that contractually bind a student and an educational institution; Student Handbooks and Admission Materials. The theory is that if a student is not informed of potential limits on speech in recruiting materials, restricting that student’s speech once they enroll at the institution constitutes fraud. Student Handbooks are looked at to determine if there is actual policy in place to restrict speech.
The VLS Student Handbook, at page 90, in the email policy contains this amazing line: “While Vermont Law School rejects any form of censorship, behavior that constitutes misconduct may result in sanctions.” The School, in the space of 17 letters and one comma, directly contradicts itself. I ask you, is not sanctioning behavior that takes place via a medium of communication (i.e. email) the definition of censorship? In fact this policy constitutes the most despicable of all censorship, prior restraint, because, “as long as the policy exists, the threat of enforcement remains real and can influence how people speak and act.” (Guide 137) Also, are not the constant reminders that our emails may become public on our bar applications another threat that goes against our interest in freely speaking our minds?”
2. Email as a professional tool
The main argument I get from my detractors is that the email is a professional tool, and a level of professionalism should be enforced. I, surprisingly, agree completely with this concept. Because I agree with this concept, I support the removal of item #11 of the authorized uses for the email system found on page 90 of the handbook: “Participation in topical forum.” The administration cannot, having established that the school “rejects censorship in any form,” give us a medium to participate in discussion, yet simultaneously establish limits on HOW we are allowed to participate. That is against all for which a decent, liberal society stands.
3. The quest for truth or the quest for an uneasy, ignorant calm?
Our institution’s definition of Harassment is found on page 74 of the handbook.
“Unlawful harassment may include, but is not limited to, the following actions if, as isolated acts or as part of a pattern, they have the prohibited purpose or effect on employment or educational performance or environment: jokes, derogatory expressions, or comments; the display of graphics, cartoons, or objects; sending or forwarding electronic mail messages; and other conduct offensive to a reasonable person possessing a particular protected characteristic”
While the intention of this policy is well-meaning, it represents an incredibly vague and impermissible proscription of speech. Sometimes, important things must be said that are offensive to a reasonable person of any characteristic. If we curb our ability to speak on issues because we may offend someone, we destroy our ability to examine the darkest parts of our society, where often the roots of our social ills can be found.
“The Guide” explains much better than I can (at pg 135.)
“If prejudice, bigotry, or ignorance exists, it is far better to know how people actually think, to discuss such things, and to reply appropriately than to force such things underground, where they only fester and worsen. If you are hated by someone, it is better (and safer) to know who hates you and why. It is counterproductive to force educable human beings to disguise their true beliefs and feelings. It is counterproductive to create a climate in which students are afraid to speak frankly and freely with each other. [Students should] challenge the administration on the university’s motivation for passing these speech codes. Do such restrictions of liberty serve the educational development of students and the search for truth, or do they merely give administrators the appearance of peace and quiet at the expense of real progress and candor?”
I contend VLS has traded its quest for truth for a quest for social harmony to be achieved at all costs.
4. Satire, Parody, and Discussion
My preferred mode of sparking debate and angering the populace is satire and parody. Why, you ask? Because it is much more efficient, great effect can be made with two sentences or a crude drawing, and I don’t like to type. Satire and parody are target number one of regulations that seek to curb “unseemly” debate. Again, I’ll let “The Guide” make a point that I am too lazy to make (at pg. 99):
“PARODY AND SATIRE: INCREASINGLY UNDER ATTACK
Parody and satire are facing difficult times at American universities, where many administrators have either lost their sense of humor or substituted a stifling and misguided paternalism that makes many forms of humor impossible. This is tragic, because parody—a crucial form of dissent and social criticism—is an invaluable component of life in a free society. Parody, as free speech, enjoys sweeping constitutional protections. Again, students are well advised to read the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1987), and to be prepared to use it defensively if accused by a campus administration of being guilty of creating a “hostile educational environment” by means of a mean-spirited, slashing parody seemingly intended to inflict emotional distress on its target. As the Supreme Court has noted, forms of speech such as biting parody and spiteful political cartoons are time-honored ways of communicating disapproval. Indeed, parody and satire succeed in their mission only when they inflict distress.”
So, if you are against parody and satire, then you would agree with Jerry Falwell in the above cited case. Censorship makes strange bedfellows, don’t you think?
And so ends my rant on free speech at VLS, feel free to contact me, and please, be as vulgar and hateful as you wish, I’m a big boy (so, seriously, I’m fat) and I can take it.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Pinging Whales
[the situation: The House passed a resolution congratulating the N.Y. Giants on winning the Super Bowl. A fellow student sent out and email to the school informing us of the House Resolution. He received an email in response that asked why he would waste people's time with such an email. This is my response...]
I think the question may be "why would the U.S. House of Representatives waste time with this."
But that is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that there are several people at this school who are Giants fans who may be interested to know that the U.S. House of Representatives formally recognized their teams' ascension to the pinnacle of their profession. Add to those Giants fans people who are football fans in general, and you have a small group of people that are very interested in the information Mr. Naumiec and Mr. Davis had to disseminate.
Are these people a small portion of VLS students? Yes. But is there a minimum percentage of people that need to be interested in information in order for it to be transmitted? 30%, 25%? If we could get these hard numbers in the next email policy, that would be great, those of us who are in the minority would like to know when it is proper to share our interests with the community as a whole.
Maybe it is a level of importance that is required in order for news to be deemed "everyone email worthy?" I humbly submit that the NFL is a billions of dollars a year industry, employing tens of thousands of people, and that the news in question was an act of Congress. I think that on both these counts the information presented is much more important than "free doughnuts in Chase."
For every email that gets sent out, there is going to be somebody that doesn't like it and/or doesn't care. Recently, an article was sent out concerning sonar activity of the U.S. Navy, specifically the tactic of "pinging," and it's effect on whales. Not only do I not care about whales, I find it hilarious that the U.S. Navy had been accidentally killing whales with their sonar. In fact, I think "whale pinging" should be a sport. (Although I did think of this idea myself, and I'd like to take credit for it, I find it hard to imagine a world where Dick Cheney has not already thought of this.) I didn't send the well-intentioned sender of information that was useless to me an email asking how intelligent, talented people could be wasting their time with whales while wholesale murder is happening on the streets of our nation's poorest neighborhoods. I scratched my head in wonder about how much some care about whales, and continued to use the internet as is was meant to be used; to find pornography.
Also, we need more parking.
(P.S. Seriously, what's the deal with whales?)
Here is the story
I think the question may be "why would the U.S. House of Representatives waste time with this."
But that is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that there are several people at this school who are Giants fans who may be interested to know that the U.S. House of Representatives formally recognized their teams' ascension to the pinnacle of their profession. Add to those Giants fans people who are football fans in general, and you have a small group of people that are very interested in the information Mr. Naumiec and Mr. Davis had to disseminate.
Are these people a small portion of VLS students? Yes. But is there a minimum percentage of people that need to be interested in information in order for it to be transmitted? 30%, 25%? If we could get these hard numbers in the next email policy, that would be great, those of us who are in the minority would like to know when it is proper to share our interests with the community as a whole.
Maybe it is a level of importance that is required in order for news to be deemed "everyone email worthy?" I humbly submit that the NFL is a billions of dollars a year industry, employing tens of thousands of people, and that the news in question was an act of Congress. I think that on both these counts the information presented is much more important than "free doughnuts in Chase."
For every email that gets sent out, there is going to be somebody that doesn't like it and/or doesn't care. Recently, an article was sent out concerning sonar activity of the U.S. Navy, specifically the tactic of "pinging," and it's effect on whales. Not only do I not care about whales, I find it hilarious that the U.S. Navy had been accidentally killing whales with their sonar. In fact, I think "whale pinging" should be a sport. (Although I did think of this idea myself, and I'd like to take credit for it, I find it hard to imagine a world where Dick Cheney has not already thought of this.) I didn't send the well-intentioned sender of information that was useless to me an email asking how intelligent, talented people could be wasting their time with whales while wholesale murder is happening on the streets of our nation's poorest neighborhoods. I scratched my head in wonder about how much some care about whales, and continued to use the internet as is was meant to be used; to find pornography.
Also, we need more parking.
(P.S. Seriously, what's the deal with whales?)
Here is the story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
