I see that Bill O'Reilly and the Fox news team have started this year's "War On Christmas" blatherings already.
Is it just me or is there something sick about this so-called War On Christmas tomfoolery in a world where people really are suffering persecution for their beliefs?
Showing posts with label whining. Show all posts
Showing posts with label whining. Show all posts
9.11.08
7.9.07
Oh no they didn't...
More proof, as if that were needed, that Australians are completely and utterly barking mad, whilst, at the same time, have balls of steel, emerged today.
Via AMERICAblog to Crooks and Liars comes the story of how a bunch of Australian comediens waltzed through the security surrounding US President George Bush - which costs AU$1million per hour - with one of their number dressed like Osama bin Laden:
The comedians, from a show called The Chaser's War On Everything take an honest Aussie's dislike for everything in authority and take it to the max:
Yes. The story is worrying. It is worrying that a AU$1million per hour security force could be that piss-poor. Don't lose sight of that.
And, notice the pattern. The government ends up with egg on its face, but the comedians end up in jail.
Via AMERICAblog to Crooks and Liars comes the story of how a bunch of Australian comediens waltzed through the security surrounding US President George Bush - which costs AU$1million per hour - with one of their number dressed like Osama bin Laden:
The comedians, from a show called The Chaser's War On Everything take an honest Aussie's dislike for everything in authority and take it to the max:
Yes. The story is worrying. It is worrying that a AU$1million per hour security force could be that piss-poor. Don't lose sight of that.
And, notice the pattern. The government ends up with egg on its face, but the comedians end up in jail.
22.6.07
They're At It Again
Remember Nadia Eweida vs British Airways in the case of "you're making me obey the same rules as everyone else but I'm a Christian so it's discrimination"?
Well, here they go again.
16 year-old Lydia Playfoot was told that she has to obey her school's uniform code just like everyone else, and that means no rings.
But because Playfoot is a Christian, she feels that she should be exempt but refuses to admit it and, instead, describes a uniform code that applies equally to everyone as - you guessed it - "discrimination."
In typical "persecuted" Christian style, she compares her pointless "purity ring" that she chooses to wear but her faith does not require with headscarves and turbans which are exactly the opposite.
Sheesh. They rule the bloody country. You'd think persecution would be hard to fake, but they're right there doing it.
Well, here they go again.
16 year-old Lydia Playfoot was told that she has to obey her school's uniform code just like everyone else, and that means no rings.
But because Playfoot is a Christian, she feels that she should be exempt but refuses to admit it and, instead, describes a uniform code that applies equally to everyone as - you guessed it - "discrimination."
In typical "persecuted" Christian style, she compares her pointless "purity ring" that she chooses to wear but her faith does not require with headscarves and turbans which are exactly the opposite.
Sheesh. They rule the bloody country. You'd think persecution would be hard to fake, but they're right there doing it.
11.6.07
Harry Not Going To Iraq
In a dramatic u-turn, the British Army has announced that HRH Prince Harry won't be going to Iraq with his unit after all.
The worst part for the Prince has to be the conflict of emotions. Harry's a smart kid and I'm sure he understands that his presence in Iraq would represent an unnecessary risk, both to himself (which is acceptable) and to his fellow soldiers (which is not), but he's also got to be feeling annoyed that his position is keeping him out of a job he's earned.
Of course, there are those who are missing the point entirely, talking of rank and privilege, that Harry's life is worth more than any other soldier's, but these people - or others just like him - would be just as pissed if he'd been deployed and ended up endangering others.
People who write to local rags and sign themselves "Angry from Dunstable" or "Annoyed in Leighton Buzzard."
Idiots, in other words.
The worst part for the Prince has to be the conflict of emotions. Harry's a smart kid and I'm sure he understands that his presence in Iraq would represent an unnecessary risk, both to himself (which is acceptable) and to his fellow soldiers (which is not), but he's also got to be feeling annoyed that his position is keeping him out of a job he's earned.
Of course, there are those who are missing the point entirely, talking of rank and privilege, that Harry's life is worth more than any other soldier's, but these people - or others just like him - would be just as pissed if he'd been deployed and ended up endangering others.
People who write to local rags and sign themselves "Angry from Dunstable" or "Annoyed in Leighton Buzzard."
Idiots, in other words.
16.1.06
Quit whining
Today's coverage of yesterday's Steelers-Colts game might have left the unsuspecting reader with the impression that the Steelers lost the game. Certainly, they're whining about it as if they lost.
Steelers' linebacker Joey Porter said, of a decision by the referee to overturn an interception by Troy Polamalu:
Two articles in my local newspaper contain several similar accusations of bias or incompetence. What stuns me is that during the game, the refereeing was - if anything - biased against the Colts. A typical example was, early in the first quarter, a Colts defensive player was flagged for "facemasking" (grabbing an opponent's facemask), despite the fact that it was the Steelers' receiver he was tackling who was doing the facemasking.
The game stats show the truth. Nine flags thrown against Indianapolis for a total of sixty-seven yards in penalties, two flags thrown against Pittsburgh for eight yards in penalties. Gee, that's some biased-towards-Indianapolis refereeing.
The Polamalu interception? I understood the explanation for it being overturned, even if many pundits around the country didn't. Polamalu caught the ball as he went to the ground. The rules require that he controls the ball until he gets back to his feet. If at any time he loses the ball, it's incomplete. He lost the ball before he could get back up.
See? It's that simple. And if a Brit that's been living here in the US for only a few years can get it, why are all these Yanks so mystified? Even the NFL themselves don't seem to understand why the call was made. Yep, the NFL broke with tradition and publicly criticised the decision of one of its referees. That's how much the whole world wanted the Colts to win.
And, y'know ...
It's all a moot point anyway because the decision made no difference to the game and the Steelers won anyway!
I could understand all this bellyaching if the Colts had won, but they didn't. They lost. Quit whining.
Steelers' linebacker Joey Porter said, of a decision by the referee to overturn an interception by Troy Polamalu:
"I know they wanted Indy to win the game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning, but come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."
Two articles in my local newspaper contain several similar accusations of bias or incompetence. What stuns me is that during the game, the refereeing was - if anything - biased against the Colts. A typical example was, early in the first quarter, a Colts defensive player was flagged for "facemasking" (grabbing an opponent's facemask), despite the fact that it was the Steelers' receiver he was tackling who was doing the facemasking.
The game stats show the truth. Nine flags thrown against Indianapolis for a total of sixty-seven yards in penalties, two flags thrown against Pittsburgh for eight yards in penalties. Gee, that's some biased-towards-Indianapolis refereeing.
The Polamalu interception? I understood the explanation for it being overturned, even if many pundits around the country didn't. Polamalu caught the ball as he went to the ground. The rules require that he controls the ball until he gets back to his feet. If at any time he loses the ball, it's incomplete. He lost the ball before he could get back up.
See? It's that simple. And if a Brit that's been living here in the US for only a few years can get it, why are all these Yanks so mystified? Even the NFL themselves don't seem to understand why the call was made. Yep, the NFL broke with tradition and publicly criticised the decision of one of its referees. That's how much the whole world wanted the Colts to win.
And, y'know ...
It's all a moot point anyway because the decision made no difference to the game and the Steelers won anyway!
I could understand all this bellyaching if the Colts had won, but they didn't. They lost. Quit whining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)