Badasses and Jackasses #3

1 semester down...3 more to go.

As I chug along the purgatory that is the bridge between my undergraduate years and my ultimate goal of graduate school, I have finished one semester's worth of language courses at Oakton Community College. The experiences were quite positive but I'm not afraid to admit that I'm definitely glad that one semester of these language classes are out of the way.

I haven't done this in a while so I figure, it's time for another stirring edition of

Badasses

and

Jackasses

BADASS

-Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley

In February of 2011, the great city of Chicago will have a new mayor for the first time since April of 1989.

To put that in perspective, George Bush Sr. (no not Dubya but his much smarter father) had just taken residence in the White House three months earlier. The Exxon Valdez spill was only a month before. The tragic massacre at Tiananmen Square had not even occurred yet.

Usually when one man is in a position of power for that long, it means that he/she most likely abused their authority or were just that damn good. I think it's pretty clear that Richard M. Daley was no political saint...but I think it's also pretty obvious to say that he deserves a lot of praise and credit for the job he has done in Chicago for the past 21 years.

Let's face it, since the era of Reaganomics, as well as Bill Clinton's terrifically stupid idea to turn America into a "Free Trade Globalization Whore," the economy of the Midwest has taken a colossal beating. Once the shining jewels of American industry, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh have hit some difficult times. There's a reason why the area that stretches from Pennsylvania to Ohio to Michigan to Wisconsin to Illinois is called the "Rust Belt." Like an old machine that hasn't been taken care of, the metropolises of America's heartland have been forgotten and neglected.

But playing the Sarah Palin card of blaming all our troubles on "those sneaks" up in Washington is a little unfair and irresponsible. Cities like Detroit have had some pretty lousy leadership, case in point, Exhibit A:

Under the same incompetent and ineffective leadership, Chicago could have easily headed down the same path. In fact, with massive flight to the 'burbs, it seemed inevitable.

People who can't adapt to the times will always fall through the cracks. When the tide collapsed on the American manufacturing industry, Daley shifted Chicago's economy to one that was more service-based, pretty much the trend for any city seeking to reach elite status not just in America, but around the world as well. Daley also decided that the City of Big Shoulders should also expand its reputation to be a possible tourist destination, despite the fact that snow and sub-zero temperatures take over the city four months out of the year. Navy Pier was finally brought forth to its potential, now becoming one of Chicago's most popular attractions.

Millennium Park was also a crowning achievement of the Daley years. It's funny listening to my dad basically insult what the city looked like before the park was created. He tells me stories that the lake front, with the exception of Grant Park, was just filled with garbage, broken bottles, and rusty railroad tracks. Now, Chicagoans can enjoy the beautiful and sleek sights of Millennium Park right by good old Lake Michigan, and we should thank Richard M. Daley for that.

Daley also at least tried to make an effort to fix Chicago's notoriously awful schools. By appointing Paul Vallas and Arne Duncan, Daley did a few things to push some areas in the right direction, although I would be lying if I told you Daley completely fixed the education problems in Chicago. Daley, the descendant of hard-working Irish immigrants to this city years ago, also saw the need for immigration reform and pushed for that as well. And despite his firm Roman Catholic background, as well as the shadow of his macho and bombastic father following him, Daley also saw the need to put aside petty prejudices and tried to promote rights for gays and lesbians.

Perhaps one of Daley's most "endearing and charming" attributes was his passion and fury. Just like his old man, Daley was never afraid to "tell it like it is," something that is definitely needed in a society that has become way too PC these days. When Daley was informed that the eggheads up in Washington told him to clean up the Chicago River, Daley basically told them to go f**k themselves. However, unlike the boorish and uncharismatic Dick Cheney, Daley did it in a much less profane way. Daley basically told off the dummies in the EPA, mocking them about their own stupidity for not cleaning their own river in the capital, as well as bungling the BP Oil Spill. Makes sense considering Daley's record on pushing Chicago to become a greener city. When people criticized Daley for his aggressive push to allow Chicago cops to own high-powered weapons, Daley simply told them the honest truth, that a cop's job, particularly in Chicago, is extremely dangerous and they needed proper protection to keep their lives safe. Quite frankly, anyone who criticized his decision on this matter obviously was some brainless silver spoon idealist who probably lived up in the 'burbs on their high horse.

Daley is definitely not an angel. All the mistakes he made with privatizing parking meters, COUNTLESS corruption charges on truck drivers and other forms of patronage, as well as neglecting his wife during her illness definitely knock him down from his pedestal. Some even say that Daley, for all the time he spent making the Loop a much nicer aesthetic place, did little to help some of Chicago's most difficult areas, which is what a mayor of any city should do, especially one that was in power for more than twenty years. All of these hurt his reputation and remind us that for all his positives, he had some very glaring flaws.

Still, Daley's leadership kept Chicago relevant and allowed it to prosper at a time when the world around it, not just in Washington but also beyond America's borders, forced many Midwestern cities around Chitown to bite the bullet hard.

And let's not forget, he nearly brought the Olympics here. For all the morons who are going to rip on Daley for not getting the Olympics to Chicago, seriously go and get a lobotomy b/c you're clearly wasting your brain power. You really think that Chicago had any chance against a city like Rio, or Madrid, or Tokyo, especially considering the obvious bias the IOC has against US bids? It's amazing enough that Daley at least got Chicago into the finals.

The fact that this jackmuffin New Trier phony

is most likely going to succeed one of Chicago's best mayors makes me very sad.

Mayor Richard M. Daley, you are a bonafide BADASS. Take a bow.

JACKASS

-Luke Scott

Since becoming President of the United States, Barack Obama has earned his fair share of detractors. Some of them have justifiable grievances. American conservatives for example have every right to be upset and criticize Obama's plans to socialize health care, close Guantanamo Bay, and pull US soldiers out of the Iraq War. After all, distrust of welfare programs and hardline stances on the "War on Terror" are positions that defined the Republican Party during the Dubya years.

No one should have expected the conservatives of this country to welcome our new president with open arms. After all, did liberals do the same with Dubya? Obviously not.

However, I do take major exception with one of Obama's most egregiously moronic critics: the Birthers.

If you do not know who they are, brace yourself, you might lose precious brain cells just reading about the idiocy they believe in. Well according to them, they argue that Obama should never have been eligible to run for president. Why you ask? They state that Barack H. Obama, senator from Illinois and former resident of the US state of Hawaii, was actually born in Kenya.

Well apparently Baltimore Orioles' outfielder Luke Scott is a strong believer in this "birther conspiracy."

Yahoo Sports posted an interview they did with the outspoken baseball player. He's an avid hunter and believes in second amendment rights. Nothing wrong with that. Despite the fact that I tend to lean left in the political spectrum, I have no problem with hunting and owning weapons of any kind, as long as you're responsible with them. Hey it's just like drinking.

Speaking of drinking, it seems like Luke Scott did a little too much of it before his yahoo interview because some of the crap that soon followed his statements on hunting made him look like a brainless d-bag.

Scott's first mistake, said a bunch of garbage out of his ass without backing it up. He made some good points about why they should be a little less strict on gun control laws. Then he absolutely DESTROYED his argument by doing what all political cretins do, making up facts from nowhere. This imbecile claimed that Washington DC's crime rate was the highest in the country despite the fact that they had the strictest gun control laws. Uh...dumbass, Washington DC is not even in the top twenty according to the FBI. But i bet Scott is probably one of those anti-govt. nutjobs who thinks the FBI are a bunch of "fascist liars."

The funny thing is that according to the list, the two most dangerous cities in America are St. Louis and Camden, both of which are located in states that allow concealed firearms. In fact, both states also are pretty lenient when it comes to owning shotguns and rifles. But I'm not going to jump to conclusions like this Luke Scott nitwit. Unlike Luke Scott, I'm smart enough to know that there are BILLIONS of other reasons that explain the levels of crime in a city.

If that wasn't stupid enough, the ignoramus Luke Scott continued on with his senseless drivel. He goes off on how Obama "does not represent America." Fair enough. But then he just completely derails himself with the ultimate in silliness, siding with the birthers.

His own words from the article:

"If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go withing 10 minutes -- to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate...the man [Obama] has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he doesn't answer anything. And why? Because he's hiding something."

The simpleton then proceeded to go on some tangent about how Obama lacks honor, integrity etc.

Hey genius, Obama's administration has gone public about this. I don't know what Luke Scott is talking about but he certainly isn't dodging anything, especially when you can find this on the F**KING internet

If this guy got hit in the head by a fastball, a deafening hollow echo would result. It would be louder than a sonic boom.

Luke Scott, your inability to check facts before making outlandish statements and gross generalizations, as well as your blind devotion to quite possibly the DUMBEST GROUP OF MOTHERF**KERS this planet has ever seen, make you a total JACKASS. Thanks a lot you weasel.

Cheers,
DC

It's Time To Give Them a Chance

In the years leading up to the 1994 World Cup, the United States, a country NOTORIOUS for embracing negative attitudes towards unarguably the world's most popular sport (soccer, a.k.a. football) was awarded the right to host the tournament.

Many were skeptical of the decision to choose the USA. America's soccer history prior to 1994 was a punchline. The last time the United States qualified for a World Cup was in 1950 and when they finally did make their long awaited appearance in 1990, only four years before they were picked to host the big event, they bombed out unceremoniously, getting humiliated in their first game against Czechoslovakia 5-1 and then promptly lost to Italy and Austria. Others might have had issue with the venues, none of which were purely for soccer (most were converted American football stadiums like Rose Bowl and Soldier Field) and that attendance would be dismal considering the dislike Americans had for the "Beautiful Game." Others pointed at the state of the United States national team and probably thought that they would be the first host team not to make it past the group stages.

Well the 1994 World Cup went along and sure enough the USA landed in the Round of 16 and played eventual champions Brazil "competitively" (losing only 1-0 haha). Perhaps even more impressive, the 1994 World Cup broke the record for most total attendance at 3.6 million throughout the tournament. To this day, 1994 still holds that record despite subsequent tournaments in more soccer-friendly countries like France in 1998 and Germany in 2006.

So much for a World Cup that was expected to fail.

Why am I bringing this up now?

Well if you haven't heard the news, FIFA made the controversial decision to award the World Cups of 2018 and 2022 to Russia and Qatar respectively. Unsurprisingly, the choices were not met with much enthusiasm. The selection of Qatar was met with rather harsh criticism from the United States in particular. Even Obama, the supposed global statesman, was not supportive of a World Cup being held in the tiny Middle Eastern country.

And it's not just the USA. Accusations of "oil money" and bribery have been levied against both Russia and Qatar from all places: Spain, Japan, and of course, the envious English who honestly are acting as though hosting the World Cup is their God-given right, despite the fact that they've only won once and haven't reached the semis since 1990. Honestly, if any country has a God-given right to host the tournament, it's Brazil considering they've won the thing:

FIVE FREAKING TIMES

A lot of this talk stems just from sheer arrogance. England had the best technical bid and the best soccer history (well relatively speaking). That being said, that never made them a shoo-in to host 2018. The United States also had a strong bid as well, but they shouldn't have treated this 2022 bid like it was going to be handed to them on a silver platter. And honestly for Spain, it really doesn't help your cause when your bid says Spain/PORTUGAL 2018 and your bid head keeps forgetting to mention PORTUGAL in his stump speeches.

Perhaps worse than the English whining over "Russia's bribery," are the comments made by Americans concerning Qatar. I was a fan of Alexi Lalas as a player, but as a commentator he is just terrible. He's already predicting that the USA will be the immediate backup to Qatar if they fail. Um, first off Qatar has ridiculous amounts of oil money and 12 years to build all the stadiums so yeah barring some natural disaster, I don't think we'll have to worry about a "backup plan" anytime soon. And even if they did, why would it necessarily go to America? Australia's bid was impressive as well.

Others are playing the "Extremist, Backward Muslims" Card that's been used by the ignoramuses of the world since 9/11. They are going off on how beer will be banned and how women will be forced to wear niqabs, burkas, and hijabs.

C'mon son! Use your head people, when it comes to these greedy monarchies out there, MONEY TRUMPS GOD. The leaders of Qatar know that this:

and of course this

equals interest which of course equals money. As soon as they see the cash flowing from the beer and the half-naked unofficial cheerleaders, I'm pretty sure the al-Thanis will let it slide...

There are three main goals (no pun intended) of the World Cup: 1.) to determine the best national team in the world, 2.) to entertain and amaze the world with brilliant, thrilling, and beautiful displays of soccer for a month, 3.) to spread the popularity of the world's most popular sport as far as it can possibly go. As far as accomplishing the 3rd goal, FIFA could not have chosen better hosts than Russia and Qatar.

It's difficult to determine whether or not soccer is the most popular sport in Russia (most likely it is). Regardless, Russia, aside from a miracle run at Euro 2008, has underachieved at most international tournaments since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There's no denying the popularity of soccer throughout the Middle East, but that doesn't change the fact that Qatar has not even come close to qualifying for the World Cup. To be quite frank, Qatar's national team will probably be embarrassed in the group stages of 2022. Let's keep several facts in mind however. South Africa was not a soccer powerhouse coming into the 2010 World Cup. Korea and Japan were not heavy kings of the sport when 2002 rolled around.

Look at the transformation of soccer in the United States since they were awarded the right to host in 1994. Major League Soccer was created only two years later and still exists to this day. While the level of play is nowhere close to their European counterparts, MLS has a strong fanbase and has produced good talent. Aside from a major hiccup in 1998, the United States national team evolved from laughingstock to a mid-tier threat. They have dominated CONCACAF, becoming competitive with historic regional powerhouse Mexico. The US has qualified for every World Cup since 1994 and made it past the group stages in 2002 and 2010. And finally in terms of the level of popularity, the 2010 World Cup drew crazy ratings all across the country.

I think it is safe to say that 1994 was a turning point for soccer in this country. The facts make me confident that 2018 and 2022 will be the same for Russia and Qatar.

But for that to happen, we just have to give them a chance...

Cheers,
DC

WikiLeaks: Boon or Bane?

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last few months, you have probably heard of WikiLeaks, a website that has somehow gained access to extremely classified government documents, and publishes them on the Internet. This guy with the shady sunglasses and dangerously smug expression is not a Bond villain but it's actually Julian Assange, the founder of this website.

Lately, he has come under fire over sexual assault charges, but he has also drawn the ire of many governments, particularly Uncle Sam after Assange's website published a series of government documents that revealed some controversial realities of the U.S.'s campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just these past couple of days, Assange has released a document that apparently now reveals that the American military command in Afghanistan has not thought "too fondly" of their British allies involved in the Helmand Province. American commanders apparently thought that the Brits made "a real mess of things." Apparently, Hamid Karzai (the uber corrupt and incompetent president of Afghanistan, and the saddest excuse for a "democratic" leader this side of Ronald Reagan's old buddy Augusto Pinochet) didn't think too highly of the British presence there either.

In circumstances like these, I think WikiLeaks is really causing problems. The last thing America needs is for them to lose another crucial ally. Thanks to the "people skills" of certain people during the previous administration, we burned bridges with everyone from Australia to Germany to South Korea. Britain is another one of those countries that is vital to the war effort in Afghanistan.

Honestly, I don't know what Assange is trying to accomplish by making these articles public. Most likely Assange is one of those anti-Bush liberals who still can't get over the fact that unfortunately America is mired in this f**king war over in some country that's been god forsaken since 1979. I acknowledge that WikiLeaks does us all a favor by revealing these secrets and making them known, but at the same time stuff like this should not be treated lightly. If Assange wants to vent about his anti-Bush, anti-war views, he needs to keep in mind that sowing the seeds of discord is only going to make things much worse. Losing the British in the war effort because of some stupid hissy fit in Afghanistan will only make the situation much more difficult. Not like this guy cares, he's probably banking and resting somewhere cozily while more American soldiers are putting their lives on the line for some bulls**t war that has done nothing except for getting rid of the Taliban, only for them to come back like the cockroaches they are.

However, let's not forget though that Assange's WikiLeaks also brought to our attention the needless and disturbing deaths of Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor Eldeen, two Reuters journalists who were killed by US soldiers in very reprehensible circumstances. His website informed us of something that the regular media often lacks the courage to do. In that sense, WikiLeaks and Assange have done us all a great favor, giving us valuable, straightforward, gritty information while CNN wastes our time about another story on Lindsay Lohan, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes on some stupid, narrow-minded rant on the "ignorance" of the American South, and Fox News just does their usual dumb gimmick of "fair and balanced" crap.

Perhaps even more important is WikiLeaks finally taking on China. While not necessarily confronting them (at this point, only God has the courage to really take on the Chinese powerhouse), Assange posted a secret American document that reveals something that many of us have suspected all along, that China no longer gives a damn about what happens to North Korea.

This is extremely valuable. Until that document, no one could really prove that China, arguably North Korea's only relevant ally in the international stage, no longer has too much, if any interest in maintaining those old bull***t communist ties that really died out when Deng Xiaoping took over in Beijing. China now realizes that Seoul is the only relevant Korea left and that the sooner the Kim regime in Pyongyang ends, the better it will be for China and Korea to build a relationship (that will involve many exchanges of money)

It's funny how at this point, the seemingly untouchable political regime of China now is scrambling and taking a half-assed stance in regards to another of North Korea's heinous and asinine acts that cost the lives of two South Korean soldiers and ruined the lives of many other civilians. And all this due to a document leaked by WikiLeaks that pretty much shows that China now regards North Korea as a "spoiled child."

Without China's full backing, North Korea is finished. We may have WikiLeaks to thank for that.

Cheers,

DC