Sunday, April 13, 2008

Coach Crean, The Reds, and Dishonest Hacks

IU's administration appears to have finally done something right. Via the hiring Coach Crean, IU Nation finally has a coach that everybody can get behind, and it only took 18 million dollars to do so. I'm hesitant to comment too much outside of saying that I really like the hire. Frankly, right now there's just too much uncertainty with the team to go much beyond that. Next year will probably be pretty rough, as will the year after that, possibly. However, I have the utmost confidence that Coach Crean can and will succeed at IU, and by succeed I mean meet the expectations of IU fans: Win Big Ten titles, compete for national titles, graduate players, and recruit within the rules set by the NCAA. My top three candidates for the job were Bruce Pearl, Tony Bennett, and Sean Miller. However, I think Coach Crean may be a better hire than any of those in some ways: Pearl is not without controversy, Bennett is still relatively unproven, and Miller had a ridiculously high buyout. Coach Crean is a proven commodity.

Memo to the Reds: The object of the game is to score runs, hopefully more than one's opponent. You appear to have forgotten that, so take this friendly reminder, and hit the goddamn ball. Thanks.


My buddy Ben (or Benny, as I like to call him) is an aspiring sports writer. In my not so humble opinion, he has a lot of talent. Fortunately for us, he recently started his own blog to showcase said talent. If you're a sports fan, I highly recommend a bookmark. The kid's got a natural writing ability, and a bright future ahead of him (hopefully he won't be the Pirates beat writer. That would be a depressing job).


Dear Hillary Clinton and John McCain,
I understand that, as politicians, it's difficult for you to go too terribly long without being dishonest fucks. However, could you at least try to not lie about or misconstrue something that Mr. Obama says for, oh, I don't know, about ten damn seconds? Obama recently said this while out on the campaign trail:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
That's one of the most surprisingly honest statements I've ever heard from a politician. Frankly, it by itself makes me think that Obama may be worth the hype. Senator Obama seems to actually understand this country. What a novel idea for a presidential candidate, eh? How did his opponents respond? Well, let's play a little game. Can you tell which one of these comments came from McCain, and which came from Clinton (you know, the lady who is allegedly a member of the same party as Senator Obama)?
“Senator Obama’s remarks are elitist and they are out of touch,” insertcandidatesnameheere told an audience. “They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans. Certainly not the Americans that I know.”
Ugh. Apparently the values and beliefs of all 275 million Americans are quite similar, and able to be reflected or not reflected by one quote. On to response number two:
"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," said Steve Schmidt, a senior advisor to insertcandidatesnamehere. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."
Double ugh. For the record, even if that was a true statement (and if you read Obama's comments, you know it's not), I WANT a candidate who is out of touch with average Americans. Average Americans are stupid, stupid people. Average people in general are stupid. Personally, I want somebody better than average running the country. However, I'm not a complete moron, so I can understand why that sentiment isn't shared by the majority of the country.

So, which one belongs to which candidate? The first one belongs to Clinton, the second to a McCain advisor, though it'd be easy to think they both came from Republican strategists. How fucking dishonest can two people be? I used to respect Senator McCain, until he showed his true colors the past two years by selling out to the religious nuts whom he used to deride in order to try and secure their support. I've always loved Bill Clinton, and thought that people hated on Hillary out of sexism for the most part. Turns out, they hate on her because she actually is a dishonest, manipulative, scum of the earth, power hungry, typical politician. Should she somehow win the nomination, I won't be voting this year. I refuse to be a part of putting either of these scumsuckers in office.

Oh, and Senator Bayh, once you get done pleasuring Senator Clinton, go fuck yourself. The fact that you can support her and help her lie to attack a fellow Democrat makes you just as bad as her. I thought you were one of the few above that type of shit. I was wrong. I won't be casting a vote for you from here on out, either. Is it really worth brown nosing such an obviously typical politician (I can think of no greater insult) just for a shot at a cabinet position? Fortunately, I'm fairly certain you won't get the opportunity to get that position, as Obama should still win the nomination, unless you bastards somehow convince the super delegates to go against the will of the people. You will, however, get one thing regardless: The second ever Reggie Sad Face Award!

Congrats, Senator Bayh. By once again reminding me that 99.99999% of all politicians are douchebags of the highest order, and making me feel like a fool for thinking you were different all these years, you're almost a big an asshole as Sampson. Almost.