"It was a woman who drove me to drink..........and I never had the courtesy to thank her."
-WC Fields
Tip toeing today. Gingerly making my way through a minefield of delicate topics. Lots of things on my mind today, and none of them softies. Well, I am sure there are some softballs in there, but most of these items are 95 mph on the black. So dont let your knees buckle...get in the box...let's go.
The idea of bathroom etiquette has recently come to my attention, and I couldnt agree more that this is a topic that needs to be settled once and for all. A pamphlet should be distributed on the subject, just so that we are all working with the same set of rules. I think guys are more concerned with this than anyone else. We need our space, and the restroom isnt exactly set up to always provide that space. First and foremost: The urinal. Always take the end urinal when there is no one there. Next guy, take the farther away, and next guy, take the one in the middle. Anyone after that needs to wait, unless there is a line. Never take the urinal next to another guy if there are other facilities available. This sounds homophobic I know. But you know why? Every freaking guy is homophobic. We just are, ok. Deal with it. We arent all hateful about it, but we all have a little twing in us when another man's junk is too close to ours. That's just the way it works. Also, dont look at me. Look at the wall, or straight down. Advertisers arent idiots. They now put ads directly in above the urinals, because they know we are already forcing ourselves to look straight ahead. Now, we have an excuse. Whew! Next, the stalls. Ok, sometimes you have to use the public restroom for ole number 2. It happens. Im sure none of us want to, but we have to from time to time. First, use the stall buried in the back corner. Keep that stank away from everyone. And if someone is already in one stall, try not to sidle up to em. There is nothing worse than chillin in your stall, empty bathroom, you're readin the Times, and then you see the familiar Florsheims of Ed from accounting peek out from under the stall next to you. 'Oh please God', you think, 'let those things point towards the wall.' Then they spin around, and the elastic waistband of his big and tall slacks flop onto the tile. Next thing you know, Ed has turned the immediate 15 foot radius around his squat point into a hazardous waste zone. You find yourself breathing through your mouth as you make a mad dash for the sink to scrub up and bail, hoping for a chance to finish later. Thanks man, you think, you just ruined my one enjoyable part of my otherwise annoying day. And of course, you will see that same person later and just think, man, I hate your stinky ass. So people, try and wait, or stay away from me at least. And if its necessary (and you know when it is), utilize the courtesy flush. We all appreciate it.
Oh, and on that topic, ever enter the restroom, and someone has just blown the doors off, and you recoil in horror as a green mist envelops you? Out of the corner of your quickly tearing eye you catch a glimps of the shoes and pants of the offender, but dont recognize them. Then later in the day, you are walking around the office, and you see who it was? Oh man, that is a face you didnt want to place with that odor. Usually though, you think, oh yeah, I can see that. But you still want to just say, hey, you dont know me, but what the hell are you eating?
Today's Legal Lesson: Plessy and Brown
Both of these cases trace the evolution of the Supreme Court's reaction to the "separate but equal" doctrine. They are often cited, but few people know what they really dealt with, and the ramifications of their decisions.
Plessy v. Ferguson: In 1894, Plessy attempted to sit in an all-white car on a train, and was asked to move to the car reserved for blacks. When he refused (citing extreme fatigue), he was arrested. The question then before the Court was whether or not the idea of "separate but equal" quarters in public arenas was Constitutional. The Court found that it was. So long as the facilities remained equal, it was ok to keep people separated by race, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the times. For 60 years, this remained the norm.
Brown v. Board of Education: This was a two-part case. In 1954, the Court determined that separate but equal was not to be applied in the arena of public education. It is important to note that the Court was specific in stating that their decision only applied to public schools. However, this case would be cited in numerous other lower court decisions when the issue came up in regards to other public facilities (golf courses, parks, drinking fountains, etc.) However, integration was not as simple as it was made to sound. In 1955, the matter had to come back before the Court to decide the best manner of relief. They eventually passed to responsibility to the lower courts, who were to monitor the local efforts of each school district as they attempted to integrate the schools. This create numerous issues. First and foremost was the fact that schools were segregated because neighborhoods were segregated. Districts would be forced to bus kids in and out of various neighborhoods in order to meet the Court's mandate. In addition, this created an issue of separation of powers, as the judiciary was now empowered to control the actions of the legislature, who was implementing the new policy.
The reason I raise this issue is because of a book I read (well, most of it) which was written by my Civil Procedure professor from 1L. Roy Brooks, professor of law at Florida, Minnesota and USD; Yale graduate; multi-published author; civil rights scholar; and African American. He dared to raise the question of whether or not integration was, in fact, a good idea. Is it possible that "separate but equal" would work if implemented properly? It is a legitimate question, to which there will never be an answer. At the time of the Brown decision, separate facilities were moving towards equality. Buildings, salaries, books, etc. were all being upgraded in black schools. Couldn't an argument be made that todays youth might have excelled in such an environment? It's possible. I believe there is empirical data that shows students who attend schools isolated by sex have shown greater scholastic aptitude over the average student in typical co-ed public schools. The thought is that by separating students by sex, many of the distractions that inhibit learning are erased. I myself went to an all-boys high school, and found the experience unmatched. While we bemoaned the lack of female peers, we were able to bond in a way that is not typically found in public schools. We had no fighting. No cliques. And everyday was about learning and excelling. There is no doubt in my mind that had I attended a public school, I would have lettered in numerous sports and gotten great grades, but I would have also developed a more negative social attitude which would be holding me back today. I guess the answer is, I dont know. I find that people of similar traits hang out with each other on the whole. While I have black, and asian, and hispanic friends, I know that each of them have their own clique which is race exclusive. Not because they seek to separate me, but because they find comfort at times in the common associations. I guess that just leads me to realize that, I DONT have my own group of "similar" friends. I dont have that "all-white" clique. Why? Because what is white? As a race, white people are culturally bankrupt. We are all part this, and part that. I desparately try and hang my hat on some sort of Irish heritage, or Spanish heritage, but in the end, Im the average white American. Maybe that's why white people can be so racists. Perhaps a great deal of white people lack an attachment to something they can call their own (whether its history, or culture, whatever) so they must manufacture a group of people that they can use to separate themselves. Instead of bonding over a shared experience, they bond of a distaste for others. Hate becomes their culture, and bigotry their shared custom. I am totally rambling here, so what was my original point? I really don't know. I guess there can be value in isolating yourself with people you feel comfortable with, but at the same time, how are you to survive in the world with the inability to mingle with all peoples? This is a global society now, and we have to be able to interact with each other if we are going to succeed as individuals, and excel as a whole. I guess I am saying, Professor Brooks, interesting idea, just not practical in today's world.
By the way, how come no one ever took John Thompson to task during his time at Georgetown? The guy had one white guy in like 15 years on his team (or however long). I'm not exagerrating, it was something like that. But no one ever said, uh, isnt that racism too? See, it's funny how racism has become synonymous with white people. Racism is everywhere. Koreans hate Vietnamese. Spanish people hate Mexicans. Sure, Im generalizing, but it's true. Every ethnicity has beef with someone else, in general. But when a black guy says he hates white people, or an italian guy says he hates jewish people, no one gives it much thought. Isnt that just as bad? I think so. Isnt there an inherent problem with villifying the KKK, but not denouncing Louis Farakhan, whose message is equally hateful? Im sorry, but White Devil, well, that's just not cool. And it is so general, yeah, I do get offended. Only thing is, I dont really care. Sure I'll comment on it, but only because common sense forces me to point out hypocrisy. Other than that, shoot, as long as you dont walk up to me and say it, I couldn't care less. Maybe we should all just chill out a little bit. Political Correctness has gotten way out of hand. Shoot, look at that, I freaking capitalized it! Ok, that's just too much....
Poor Howard Dean's wife. One minute her husband is screaming to a room full of people, "We are gonna take Texas! Then we are gonna take Iowa! Then we are gonna take California!" Now the poor guy is screaming at her all day, "Im gonna take the trash out! Then Im gonna take the dog for a walk! Then Im gonna take a nap!" That guy needs to switch to decaf, post haste. Jeez, he couldnt even beat John Kerry, the walking dead. Kerry makes somnambulists look like crack fiends. If I had a dollar for every time that guy blinks, I'd have.....a dollar.
I shouldnt make jokes, this guy has a good chance to be President. Man, do you realize, for the second election in a row, we are voting for the guy who "stinks, but not as bad as the other guy?" If Kerry wins, it will be only because we can't have 4 more years of Bush, and I'll tell you what....WE CAN'T. 4 more years of that dough-head and we will be sunk. Canada will be able to buy us out in that case. I'm sorry, but Bush hasn't done a damn thing. Terrorism is becoming this guy's biggest accomplishment. Seriously, he is running ads featuring the towers and all that. Basically, his platform is, "In four years, when things got really bad...I was there!"
When does Carl Weathers get to be Governor? Remember the movie Predator. It starred Carl Weathers, some black guy I whose name I dont remember, some bit players, as well as Jesse Ventura and Ahnold. So, two people from the same movie became Governor of a major state. We aren't talking Montana or North Dakota here, Cali and Minnesota have actual people in them! This has got to be unprecedented, doesn't it? So, fighting a fictional alien creature is the key qualifier for public office. Hmmm, Sigourney Weaver did like 5 Alien movies, so she should be president, right? Hell, what about X Files guy, David Duchovney? Him and Gillian Anderson should be King and Queen.
Ill make this quick. Davis Love III.....you....are....a....pussy! Plain and simple. I can't think of a better word, Im afraid. This guy was playing golf, and some guy is yelling "No love!" after every shot. And Love got rattled! So how does he react? He has the guy removed from the course. Kicked out! What a baby! Im sorry, but isnt there this thing called, um free speech? I thought so. The guy wasnt cursing, wasnt threatening, nothing violent or offensive. He was basically rooting for Love's opponent, and dude couldnt take it. That is so brutal. Love is taking an avalanche of abuse, and he deserves every last bit of it, and then some.
Finally, if you yell "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse, can you be arrested?
-WC Fields
Tip toeing today. Gingerly making my way through a minefield of delicate topics. Lots of things on my mind today, and none of them softies. Well, I am sure there are some softballs in there, but most of these items are 95 mph on the black. So dont let your knees buckle...get in the box...let's go.
The idea of bathroom etiquette has recently come to my attention, and I couldnt agree more that this is a topic that needs to be settled once and for all. A pamphlet should be distributed on the subject, just so that we are all working with the same set of rules. I think guys are more concerned with this than anyone else. We need our space, and the restroom isnt exactly set up to always provide that space. First and foremost: The urinal. Always take the end urinal when there is no one there. Next guy, take the farther away, and next guy, take the one in the middle. Anyone after that needs to wait, unless there is a line. Never take the urinal next to another guy if there are other facilities available. This sounds homophobic I know. But you know why? Every freaking guy is homophobic. We just are, ok. Deal with it. We arent all hateful about it, but we all have a little twing in us when another man's junk is too close to ours. That's just the way it works. Also, dont look at me. Look at the wall, or straight down. Advertisers arent idiots. They now put ads directly in above the urinals, because they know we are already forcing ourselves to look straight ahead. Now, we have an excuse. Whew! Next, the stalls. Ok, sometimes you have to use the public restroom for ole number 2. It happens. Im sure none of us want to, but we have to from time to time. First, use the stall buried in the back corner. Keep that stank away from everyone. And if someone is already in one stall, try not to sidle up to em. There is nothing worse than chillin in your stall, empty bathroom, you're readin the Times, and then you see the familiar Florsheims of Ed from accounting peek out from under the stall next to you. 'Oh please God', you think, 'let those things point towards the wall.' Then they spin around, and the elastic waistband of his big and tall slacks flop onto the tile. Next thing you know, Ed has turned the immediate 15 foot radius around his squat point into a hazardous waste zone. You find yourself breathing through your mouth as you make a mad dash for the sink to scrub up and bail, hoping for a chance to finish later. Thanks man, you think, you just ruined my one enjoyable part of my otherwise annoying day. And of course, you will see that same person later and just think, man, I hate your stinky ass. So people, try and wait, or stay away from me at least. And if its necessary (and you know when it is), utilize the courtesy flush. We all appreciate it.
Oh, and on that topic, ever enter the restroom, and someone has just blown the doors off, and you recoil in horror as a green mist envelops you? Out of the corner of your quickly tearing eye you catch a glimps of the shoes and pants of the offender, but dont recognize them. Then later in the day, you are walking around the office, and you see who it was? Oh man, that is a face you didnt want to place with that odor. Usually though, you think, oh yeah, I can see that. But you still want to just say, hey, you dont know me, but what the hell are you eating?
Today's Legal Lesson: Plessy and Brown
Both of these cases trace the evolution of the Supreme Court's reaction to the "separate but equal" doctrine. They are often cited, but few people know what they really dealt with, and the ramifications of their decisions.
Plessy v. Ferguson: In 1894, Plessy attempted to sit in an all-white car on a train, and was asked to move to the car reserved for blacks. When he refused (citing extreme fatigue), he was arrested. The question then before the Court was whether or not the idea of "separate but equal" quarters in public arenas was Constitutional. The Court found that it was. So long as the facilities remained equal, it was ok to keep people separated by race, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the times. For 60 years, this remained the norm.
Brown v. Board of Education: This was a two-part case. In 1954, the Court determined that separate but equal was not to be applied in the arena of public education. It is important to note that the Court was specific in stating that their decision only applied to public schools. However, this case would be cited in numerous other lower court decisions when the issue came up in regards to other public facilities (golf courses, parks, drinking fountains, etc.) However, integration was not as simple as it was made to sound. In 1955, the matter had to come back before the Court to decide the best manner of relief. They eventually passed to responsibility to the lower courts, who were to monitor the local efforts of each school district as they attempted to integrate the schools. This create numerous issues. First and foremost was the fact that schools were segregated because neighborhoods were segregated. Districts would be forced to bus kids in and out of various neighborhoods in order to meet the Court's mandate. In addition, this created an issue of separation of powers, as the judiciary was now empowered to control the actions of the legislature, who was implementing the new policy.
The reason I raise this issue is because of a book I read (well, most of it) which was written by my Civil Procedure professor from 1L. Roy Brooks, professor of law at Florida, Minnesota and USD; Yale graduate; multi-published author; civil rights scholar; and African American. He dared to raise the question of whether or not integration was, in fact, a good idea. Is it possible that "separate but equal" would work if implemented properly? It is a legitimate question, to which there will never be an answer. At the time of the Brown decision, separate facilities were moving towards equality. Buildings, salaries, books, etc. were all being upgraded in black schools. Couldn't an argument be made that todays youth might have excelled in such an environment? It's possible. I believe there is empirical data that shows students who attend schools isolated by sex have shown greater scholastic aptitude over the average student in typical co-ed public schools. The thought is that by separating students by sex, many of the distractions that inhibit learning are erased. I myself went to an all-boys high school, and found the experience unmatched. While we bemoaned the lack of female peers, we were able to bond in a way that is not typically found in public schools. We had no fighting. No cliques. And everyday was about learning and excelling. There is no doubt in my mind that had I attended a public school, I would have lettered in numerous sports and gotten great grades, but I would have also developed a more negative social attitude which would be holding me back today. I guess the answer is, I dont know. I find that people of similar traits hang out with each other on the whole. While I have black, and asian, and hispanic friends, I know that each of them have their own clique which is race exclusive. Not because they seek to separate me, but because they find comfort at times in the common associations. I guess that just leads me to realize that, I DONT have my own group of "similar" friends. I dont have that "all-white" clique. Why? Because what is white? As a race, white people are culturally bankrupt. We are all part this, and part that. I desparately try and hang my hat on some sort of Irish heritage, or Spanish heritage, but in the end, Im the average white American. Maybe that's why white people can be so racists. Perhaps a great deal of white people lack an attachment to something they can call their own (whether its history, or culture, whatever) so they must manufacture a group of people that they can use to separate themselves. Instead of bonding over a shared experience, they bond of a distaste for others. Hate becomes their culture, and bigotry their shared custom. I am totally rambling here, so what was my original point? I really don't know. I guess there can be value in isolating yourself with people you feel comfortable with, but at the same time, how are you to survive in the world with the inability to mingle with all peoples? This is a global society now, and we have to be able to interact with each other if we are going to succeed as individuals, and excel as a whole. I guess I am saying, Professor Brooks, interesting idea, just not practical in today's world.
By the way, how come no one ever took John Thompson to task during his time at Georgetown? The guy had one white guy in like 15 years on his team (or however long). I'm not exagerrating, it was something like that. But no one ever said, uh, isnt that racism too? See, it's funny how racism has become synonymous with white people. Racism is everywhere. Koreans hate Vietnamese. Spanish people hate Mexicans. Sure, Im generalizing, but it's true. Every ethnicity has beef with someone else, in general. But when a black guy says he hates white people, or an italian guy says he hates jewish people, no one gives it much thought. Isnt that just as bad? I think so. Isnt there an inherent problem with villifying the KKK, but not denouncing Louis Farakhan, whose message is equally hateful? Im sorry, but White Devil, well, that's just not cool. And it is so general, yeah, I do get offended. Only thing is, I dont really care. Sure I'll comment on it, but only because common sense forces me to point out hypocrisy. Other than that, shoot, as long as you dont walk up to me and say it, I couldn't care less. Maybe we should all just chill out a little bit. Political Correctness has gotten way out of hand. Shoot, look at that, I freaking capitalized it! Ok, that's just too much....
Poor Howard Dean's wife. One minute her husband is screaming to a room full of people, "We are gonna take Texas! Then we are gonna take Iowa! Then we are gonna take California!" Now the poor guy is screaming at her all day, "Im gonna take the trash out! Then Im gonna take the dog for a walk! Then Im gonna take a nap!" That guy needs to switch to decaf, post haste. Jeez, he couldnt even beat John Kerry, the walking dead. Kerry makes somnambulists look like crack fiends. If I had a dollar for every time that guy blinks, I'd have.....a dollar.
I shouldnt make jokes, this guy has a good chance to be President. Man, do you realize, for the second election in a row, we are voting for the guy who "stinks, but not as bad as the other guy?" If Kerry wins, it will be only because we can't have 4 more years of Bush, and I'll tell you what....WE CAN'T. 4 more years of that dough-head and we will be sunk. Canada will be able to buy us out in that case. I'm sorry, but Bush hasn't done a damn thing. Terrorism is becoming this guy's biggest accomplishment. Seriously, he is running ads featuring the towers and all that. Basically, his platform is, "In four years, when things got really bad...I was there!"
When does Carl Weathers get to be Governor? Remember the movie Predator. It starred Carl Weathers, some black guy I whose name I dont remember, some bit players, as well as Jesse Ventura and Ahnold. So, two people from the same movie became Governor of a major state. We aren't talking Montana or North Dakota here, Cali and Minnesota have actual people in them! This has got to be unprecedented, doesn't it? So, fighting a fictional alien creature is the key qualifier for public office. Hmmm, Sigourney Weaver did like 5 Alien movies, so she should be president, right? Hell, what about X Files guy, David Duchovney? Him and Gillian Anderson should be King and Queen.
Ill make this quick. Davis Love III.....you....are....a....pussy! Plain and simple. I can't think of a better word, Im afraid. This guy was playing golf, and some guy is yelling "No love!" after every shot. And Love got rattled! So how does he react? He has the guy removed from the course. Kicked out! What a baby! Im sorry, but isnt there this thing called, um free speech? I thought so. The guy wasnt cursing, wasnt threatening, nothing violent or offensive. He was basically rooting for Love's opponent, and dude couldnt take it. That is so brutal. Love is taking an avalanche of abuse, and he deserves every last bit of it, and then some.
Finally, if you yell "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse, can you be arrested?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home