A Rapid Reaction to Another NFL Season

I normally don't make short, "lazy" blog entries, but I thought there was enough content in one of my recent Facebook statues to repost it here. Although it wasn't a great (or even tolerable) year to be a Jets fan, there's still been a ton of great football (just none from the Jets offense) to enjoy. Here's a few of my quick thoughts as we get ready for another NFL playoff season.

Good thing Sanchez is legendarily bad, as it took a 5 turnover game before Rex would bench him for a game. 5 turnovers? JaMarcus Russell never even had a game that bad. Just take a minute to think about that.

1. Although its a bummer that he missed breaking the rushing record by 9 yards, Adrian Peterson is a beast who carried what was supposed to be a terrible team into the playoffs. He has to be the MVP.

2. The Texans are toast. You can't go out with the chance to get that first round bye and fall apart like that. 

3. The Colts went from 2-14 to 11-5 (and a playoff berth) in one year. The only real difference? They added a great QB. Take notes, Jets management. Too bad there's no Andrew Luck's in the draft this year.

4. Who would have guessed that the Redskins would be competing for a playoff spot this late, or that the last game of the regular season would determine a division winner? This is what makes sports great.

5. And on a more personal note, its looking like the Jets will dump their GM and offensive coordinator. Add them to the growing list of personal Mark Sanchez got fired. Too bad his contract makes him untouchable. Then again, I guess the Jets deserve Sanchez considering how they deceived and mistreated Tebow all season. Something about what goes around... 

A Reasonable Suggestion

Welcome back, readers. I hope you all have been well. Since my last post, I've moved out to Buffalo to begin work on a MSW (Masters in Social Work) program. From learning to live off campus to taking graduate level courses to my internship, there's certainly been a lot of change. But oh, let me focus on the internship. It's been interesting and challenging to say the least. I'm not going to identify the agency I work for, but suffice it to say its a homeless outreach.In addition to the challenges associated with my first office job, working in a homeless outreach really opens one's eyes to the different problems and issues faced by urban communities.

For instance, while pretty much everyone understands that homelessness and poverty are not exclusively third-world problems, I think most Americans understate the extent of the problem in their own country. A recent report by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (known by us "insiders" simply as HUD) found that over 600,000 Americans are homeless on a given night. As if that wasn't bad enough, reports indicate that up to 30% of this homeless population may suffer from a mental illness. 

So what can be done for these people? What is the best solution for them and society as a whole? When facing social issues as dire as this, it is many people's first instinct to turn to the government for help. This is an understandable but ultimately foolish response. Throughout my college experience, several  colleagues have educated me about the dangers of government. And between foreign invasions that have resulted in innocent deaths, the Big Brother state of our security measures (Why does the government need to search my bags or have me walk between a metal detector just to enter high profile public places; seriously?), and its ever-increasing taxation/ legislation suffocating our economy, it is clear that the one true aim of the government is to oppress its citizens.

The truly unfortunate aspect of this conversation is that, while many people would condemn these mistakes of our government and be willing to trim down the government waste and abuses, very few Americans would support the abolition of federal social programs. But redistribution of wealth is not the answer for either the have's or the have-not's. All programs like SSI, Public Assistance, Food Stamps, etc. accomplish is violate one person's rights (the taxpayer) to enslave another (the receiver of aid). This sounds cruel, but think about it. Taxation is essentially an individual committing a portion of their income to the government in order to secure a needed government service. Its a capitalist transaction, ie. purchasing the protection of the police or the favor of the fire department, designed to result in direct dividends for the individual payer. Although I suppose you could argue that soothing the violent lusts of the rabble on our streets may benefit the wealthy, I doubt most of our taxpayers would consider such a service worthy of its high cost.

And let us not forget about the homeless. The greatest gift that can be given to them is an opportunity to be truly free, not dependent on government handouts but liberated to pursue any low wage job of their choice or convenience. To those who would claim there simply are not enough jobs or that the jobs don't pay well enough, I offer a brief three part rebuttal. One, no man in allowed to have more than he can earn in a free marketplace, except for those who inherit their wealth. Two, government interference is responsible for all of our economic difficulties, so there would certainly be enough jobs if the government completely stopped regulating the economic sector. After all, the $8/ hr. job could easily become two $4/ hr. jobs. Its common sense. Finally, in such a diverse and free market, homeless individuals are empowered to come up with creative new means of making a living. For instance, I understand that prostitution and panhandling are quite effective means of securing income. If only the government would get out of these people's lives, I'm sure the homeless would be quite resourceful and able to survive.

However, there is one problem yet to be addressed. While everyone should work, what does society do with the homeless who are unable to work? After all, I've witnessed first hand the afflictions of the lesser classes; from the schizophrenics to the mentally challenged to the substance abusers, there is a respectable portion of the homeless population that cannot independently support itself. And while its easy to hold the substance abusers accountable for their actions, what are we to make to the mentally ill/ challenged? Through no choice or fault of their own, these people cannot work or support themselves. Yet the government's attempts to help would only further oppress them and the wealthy. So what options do we have if any?

Ideally, the families of the disabled and private sector charities would be able to meet the needs of the severely disabled. However, considering the inability of both the private and public sectors combined to combat poverty and homelessness, it may be a bit naive to assume that the striving of a few good Samaritans will remove all the poor from our streets. So what are other options? We could simply ignore those who are homeless and unable to work, but this presents a whole new set of problems. Besides the urging of many moralists that it is inappropriate to leave the severely disabled to fend for themselves, there is also the issue of crime. It should go without saying that desperate and mentally ill individuals are more likely to commit criminal acts. Unfortunately, the prison system is publicly run, meaning the room and board expenses of each homeless deviant are funded by robbing the taxpayer. 

It is at this point that the advocates of our current homeless programs will appear and start crowing, confident that they have found a humane and affordable means to assist the poor and disabled. They'll mention programs like Housing First, a low-demand program designed to find affordable housing options for the homeless. Supporters of the program will note that, by emphasizing stable housing, the program reduces the taxpayer burden (by reducing the need of emergency shelter and prisons, which are far more costly) while improving the quality of life for the homeless. I'm sure their bleeding hearts are in the right place, but their solutions simply replace government intervention with a different form of government intervention. Many of these programs receive federal funding, and even if they didn't many of the homeless individuals receive their monthly rent money in the form of federal aid programs (ie. Public Assistance, SSI, etc.). There's even a government aid program designed to help these people pay their utility bills. As if all the redistribution of wealth wasn't bad enough, our government has now socialized heat and made not freezing to death a basic human right.

So its clear that the government cannot be involved in our solution to the problem of homelessness, as it is always the problem. It is at this point that I would like to provide a suggestion for how society can handle the homeless who are unable to work. I modestly propose that we reestablish the institution of slavery as a means to assist those who are disabled and homeless. 

It is my sincerest hope that my noble goal will not be misconstrued. I am not suggesting a return to the dehumanization of a particular race. After all, many minorities make significant contributions to the economy, and many whites have been found to be disabled and unable to produce anything of economic value. My perception of slavery does not seek to discriminate. Rather, by allowing the disabled and poor to be owned and controlled by far more competent individuals,  it ensures that everyone's basic needs will be met while freeing us from the oppression of government taxation. Even better, re-instituting slavery ensures that the wealthiest Americans will always have access to a cheap labor source. Although this has really always been the case, the additional influx of slaves into the system will really oil the cogs of the great anarchical capitalist machine.

Now, to briefly cover a few objections. I suppose many individuals who seek to limit government and maximize individual freedom and responsibility would consider slavery to be a violation of an individual's right to choose. Please don't let this bother you, my friends. Under my system, we will require each  individual to sign a contract enumerating their willingness to commit to the slave lifestyle. Of course, given their varying levels of cognitive and mental impairment, this will serve as mostly a formality. We have to keep the lawyers and civil rights advocates satisfied after all. Others may object to slavery itself, noting that it is a cruel and barbaric institution. I would urge those who would protest slavery to consider the one alternative, having the disabled homeless continually experience fear, hunger, thirst, cold and abuse under the nearest bridge. When one takes this objective look at the problem, it is clear that the only way to truly assist the disabled homeless population is by enslaving them. I welcome anyone to find a better solution.

While it may be unconventional, I am confident that most people will find my proposal to be quite modest. Assuming my faith in the American people is not misplaced, we could begin to set in place legislation concerning the enslavement of the disabled poor by the next election. The era of the wealthy man's burden is at hand; all we have to do is reach out and embrace it. Think of the potential, my friends.

Author's note: The author would like to apologize to the writer who inspired this piece, as this attempt to emulate his work is no doubt a very dim reflection at best. Nevertheless, constructing this piece was quite an enjoyable and challenging endeavor. 

  

A Hearty Summer Sports Rant

So I always mean to blog more often than I do. I come up with new ideas, topics that push me to brink of sanity with frustration, and then I do nothing. Oh, I'll think about it a lot, even comment on a relevant Facebook status, but I just never seem to get around to actually blogging about it. In particular, this summer has left me with countless sports related topics that I can't help but rant about. I absolutely love sports, but I can't help but love them a little less when confronted with the unbelievable stupidity of...

1. The NCAA

I'll open with what is undoubtedly the most  frustrating league of American sports, the NCAA. For those who don't know, the NCAA is the largest collegiate sports association in the country, featuring the most prominent college's athletic programs in the country (USC, Ohio State, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, etc.) as well as several lesser-known programs. Bottom line, if you're talking about college sports, you're talking about the NCAA.

Now I know what you're thinking, what could you possibly have against college sports? All of those noble young college kids balancing their academic responsibilities with their love of athletics and competition. How can you hate a sports association based on integrity and hard work that continually reinforces their admirable values for young people and fans everywhere?

Except for the fact that absolutely none of this is true. Not a word. The vast majority of college athletics has nothing to do with the love of the game or integrity. A few astute readers may gather that this rant is being fueled in response to the horrific scandal at Penn State, where an entire program was shamed after it was discovered that college officials were hiding the fact that one of their assistant football coaches, Jerry Sandusky, was a child molester. Obviously the scandal at Penn State helps prove my point that the NCAA isn't what it seems, but the thing that no one seems to understand is that Penn State is only the symptom of a greater underlying disease.

Bottom line because I want to keep each segment relatively short, the NCAA is a hopelessly corrupt cash cow exploited by college officials and athletes at the expense of our national education and character. The NCAA is not about allowing young students a chance to compete; rather, its about young athletes exploiting the reality that they make colleges money to promote their future professional careers. The NCAA isn't Rudy; its Carmelo Anthony, a basketball star who used a Syracuse scholarship to promote himself in college for a year before entering the draft. Can someone please explain to me why we are giving scholarships to kids who don't even want to go to college and have no intention of, I don't know, actually learning anything while in college? It is an insult to the university to keep talented kids out who want an education while welcoming in cash cow, rental athletes. Should we really be surprised by the countless scandals that come out of a system so consumed with profit margins and wins? But hey, why should we really care about education or the safety of our children when our college athletes get all hookers they want?

And yes, there have been far more than 2 scandals. I just don't have all day to research them.

2. The Olympics

Rather than trying to shoot down the massive drone of protesters on this one, allow me to illustrate my point with a fun and simple game. Are you ready kids? Its time to play, "Guess which of these activities are Olympic events."

Trampoline

                                             Race Walking

Table Tennis

Rhythmic Gymnastics 

                                              Baseball

You don't have to like baseball (I can't stand soccer but I acknowledge that its a truly athletic sport that should be in the Olympics) but you cannot, cannot honestly argue that it requires less athleticism or has less of an international following than the other "events" posted.

But Chris, you're just another typical egocentric American, assuming that just because you and your country love a sport the whole world should have to accept it into its Olympics.

Thank you so much for making that terrible argument. Allow me to destroy you with facts and logic. First of all, over a quarter of major league baseball players are Hispanic, with a great quantity of future superstars hailing from countries like the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Venezuela. But hey, apart from all of Latin America, every Major League Baseball player is an American. Allow me to list some of the most American-sounding names of Major League Baseball players:

Daiseke Matsukaka, Kosuke Fukudome, Chien Ming-Wang, Ichiro Suzuki, Yu Darvish, Shin-Soo Choo, Takashi Saito, Norichika Aoki, Hiroki Kuroda, Hideki Matsui, Wei-Yin Chen, Hong-Chih Kuo, Koji Uhehara, and these names are getting hard to spell, but you get the point.

Not to mention that there are over 20 Canadian players in MLB, including superstars like Joey Votto, Justin Morneau (another very white American sounding name), and Ryan Dempster.

So why isn't baseball in the Olympics? Its simple; a committee, with a heavy European influence, decided that baseball shouldn't be in the Olympics. And yeah, its true that baseball has had its issues, mainly with drug testing and the fact that Major League teams don't want to release their players to be in the Olympics, but this move is ultimately the result of Euro-centrism. The European-powered Olympic committee decided to screw over Asia, Latin America and the United States by taking our favorite sport away from us.

You know what? Screw you right back, Europe. If you won't pretend to like baseball, then I'm going to stop pretending to like the absurd activities you call sports. The Olympics suck. I'll take the World Series (or if I feel like actually being ethnocentric the Super Bowl) over your pseudo-sports any day.

Not that we should be surprised. Europe has quite the history of imposing its will on other nations.

3. Lolo Jones' critics

So yes, I know I just wrote that I don't care about the Olympics. But even I kinda care about some of the events (at least when baseball and preseason NFL aren't on). More importantly, I'm constantly being exposed to all of the hype and excitement of the Olympic games from the media. So imagine my surprise when I heard that a hard-working American athlete was being torn to shreds by the American media and even her fellow teammates? What could Olympic runner Lolo Jones possibly have done to incite such strong reactions (besides having a ridiculous name)?

Apparently Lolo's self-promotion choices, from posing in a tasteful semi-nude photo for ESPN magazine to being public about her choice to remain a virgin until marriage, have garnered her a tremendous amount of media attention. Some writers, like New York Times columnist Jere Longman, object to the fame of Lolo, claiming that this athlete is all looks and style over substance (even comparing her to Anna Kournakova).
When Jones (I'm going to start referring to her by her last name, as I can feel brain cells dying every time I type Lolo), responded to the criticism in an emotional rant, she garnered even more criticism.

In case you were getting bored by all the words, here's a picture of Lolo. Damn.

Sports commentator Jim Rome ripped into Jones' attempts to defend herself, "Boo-hoo, Lolo. It’s not the media’s job to support athletes. It’s your job as an athlete to be mentally tough and have much thicker skin. If you’re going to promote, hype and market yourself as much you did before the Games, you better be ready for the inevitable backlash… especially if you can’t back up all the junk you were running."

Now just wait a second. Just because she hasn't lived up to her personal goals and public expectations she's suddenly a mouthy failure? She's still qualified for and competed in multiple Olympic games, in addition to earning countless college honors and holding the American record for the 60m hurdles. Not to mention the fact that she has overcome multiple injuries including spinal surgery to compete in this latest games.I would hardly call that failing. And even if she was a failure, why does the media insist on creating sensational stories about athletes only to later criticize them for being too famous? Honestly, the only thing that her critics can truly bring against Jones is that she's freakin honest. She's had an interesting story (highlighted by her physical attractiveness) and she's not afraid to talk about it.

So shut up, Jim Rome, you pathetic excuse for a journalist. Everyone knows that you're the Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman of sports, a hate-monger who spews dissension and criticism because its the only marketable skill you have. Even your ESPN show was called Jim Rome is Burning, if only that were the literal case.

I seriously can't overemphasize how much of a hateful dick this guy is.

         
Now, I can at least cut Rome some slack because its his job to be hateful and controversial. He may not even enjoy it for all I know. But even Lolo's own teammates have harshly criticized her for all of the attention that she's receiving. A fellow Olympic runner, Kellie Wells, said to NBC after winning a medal, "Well, I think that, on the podium tonight, the three girls that earned their spot, that got their medals and they worked hard and did what they needed to do, prevailed. And that's all that really needs to be said."

You know what, Kellie, you're right, that really is all that needs to be said. Sure, I could pull other thinly-veiled insults toward Jones from this article if I wanted to, but your own words (in the context of when they were delivered) and the words of your teammate Dawn Harper clearly express the bitterness of human jealousy and hate at its worst.  Never mind the fact that you ladies won your medals and Jones didn't. Yet you still feel so insecure, petty and jealous. And that...that's just sad.

And there we have it, three sports stories that have outraged me for far too long. Now that the truth has been written (albeit in a place where no one will read it), perhaps I can have some peace. What's that, I can't watch some of the Jets preseason games because of the NFL Network? Gaaah...maybe next time.

What else would I be doing today?

"Well hello there, reader. How was your day? Not so good? Oh, well I'm sorry to hear that. You know what, why don't you just grab a seat on the coach, kick your feet up and relax for a bit. I'll handle dinner and the kids. I mean, after all, its Valentine's Day, and I have a very hot date planned for your mind. Prepare to be enlightened and challenged to once again view the world in a whole new way."

"What's that? I'm not amusing you? Well, I'm sorry, but its Valentine's Day and I was just trying to keep things fresh. I really don't know what makes you happy anymore. I mean, every year I have to try to come up with something special for you that doesn't seem insincere or contrived. Do you have any idea how difficult it is not to repeat the same bland comedic rants when society expects me to automatically be inspired, funny and creative on the exact same day every year? What if I'm busy or just a little tired that day? What if my truly inspirational ideas and greatest comedic wit came on February 13th or 15th? But alas, you wouldn't care, would you? I'm forever to be judged by my comedic talents on February 14th alone. I mean, I know your friends wouldn't look at me the same way if I failed you today, but give me a break, I'm really trying here. You know what? That's it. We're through. The relationship between author and reader

meant so much to me, but alas, you simply can't be pleased today."

"At least I'm faithful to you. I saw you spending time on that other humor blog yesterday."

Fortunately (unfortunately?) for you, I know that I owe it to my readers to take on this burden and once again write a fantastically scathing criticism of Valentine's Day. My past work has built up an expectation, and my professional commitment to our relationship demands that I continue the work I have started. So here we go, another description of why Valentine's Day is a corporate lie, brought to you in list form with humorous pictures in case you start to get a little depressed.

1. Valentine's Day sucks for singles and widowers.

I know at this point what you're probably thinking. "Oh, but Chris, you tipped your hand with some of your previous entries. I know that you're a bitter single guy, and that's the only reason you hate Valentine's Day." Fine, lets examine this idea of bitterness for a bit. I think many people, myself included, get annoyed by a day devoted solely to perpetuating false stereotypes of love while subconsciously telling single people that there is something wrong with them. Just look at some of the comments I've found online...

"Happy commercialized love day!"

"Sigh...no date on V-day. Oh well, I still have Imgur, right?"

"We're not alone as long as we have each other guys. Sigh...back to my peanut butter sandwich."

"Gets back together on the 15th *avoids wasting money on a stupid holiday."

My point is that many people are biased both for and against Valentine's Day, and that people have both good and terrible reasons for holding those opinions. And honestly, even though its hardly a foolproof argument, the fact that we call Valentine's Day a holiday even though it bothers so many single people (and some people in relationships too) seems off to me. So, you can either immediately dismiss me because I'm biased *shudder*, or you can stop criticizing and actually listen to what I have to say. But of course you always have to have the last word, and no matter what I do for you I'm the bad guy. Isn't that right, reader? And you're just so controlling and judgmental. But alas, today is Valentine's Day, so its important that I pretend to cherish our relationship even though I know that we're both secretly dead inside. *sigh* Onward and forward then.

2. Valentine's Day is contrived and it creates unhealthy expectations of love and romance.

Quick visual exercise. What do you think of when you hear the words, "Valentine's Day?" I'm sure all kinds of wonderfully sweet words come to mind, "chocolate" and "roses," "love" and marriage," "long walks on the beach" and "romantic comedies."

Ah yes, the romantic comedy. Perhaps there is no better symbol for Valentine's Day than you. The romantic comedy teaches us all of the important Valentine's Day values, like following your heart, rejecting any relationship that is not perfect all of the time, and, my personal favorite, the love-always-equals-warm-and-fuzzy-feelings philosophy.

I mean, don't get me wrong. Romantic comedies are great. Think of how many more marriages could have been tragically saved if a piece of contrived Hollywood crap didn't tell couples to walk away the second they face a challenge?

Do you think I exaggerate? Well, yes, but I still have a point. I could cite numbers about how our perceptions of relationships is changing, highlighted by a spike in divorces, but numbers are boring. An example that I found to be far more interesting was an online conversation between some friends on Facebook. Well, actually, only one of them was a friend, which meant that I could view but not comment on the feed. It was a rough day. Why do you taunt me Facebook?

Anyway, the conversation was between a guy and a girl, and they were discussing who was at greater fault in some romantic comedy, the male lead or the female lead. My reaction to this conversation was a unique mix of amusement and horror. Please, please tell me that we're not taking Hollywood romances seriously enough to actually debate them? Please?

Don't get me wrong; I can understand why people want to take romantic comedies seriously. Especially women. For all intents and purposes, romantic comedies are porn for women. That's right, I just said that. Now take a minute to think about it. Romantic comedies teach people that they are perfect just as they are, and that if they just continue to always be their awesome and perfect self, then someone else awesome and perfect will instantly fall in love with them and together they will create an awesome and perfect life together. There are no real fights, passionless spells, or serious challenges in romantic comedies. Romantic comedies, by continually reinforcing the knight in shining armor ideal and promising women everywhere that their romantic lives will one day be perfect, create an image of relationships just as unrealistic and destructive as any naive teenage guy would get from watching porn.

In my opinion, Valentine's Day only furthers the negative romantic comedy stereotypes, and I refuse to embrace anything that deceives and hurts people by creating unrealistic expectations for relationships.

3. Valentine's Day is artificial.

"Wow, Chris, you are bitter. Some girl must have destroyed you in the past for you to have such a negative view of relationships" I can certainly understand that I come off like that, but I disagree on both counts. I may be a pessimistic person, but I don't have a negative view of all relationships. I know and respect tons of couples who truly love and are committed to each other, people who would never need a contrived "holiday" to remind each other of their love.

My problem isn't that I'm bitter (or at least its not my only problem), my problem is that I hold love and relationships to a higher standard. There is nothing creative, self-sacrificing or meaningful in you doing something for your significant other on a day where you are pretty much required to do something. Valentine's Day is like the government donating some of your tax dollars to charity. Sure, you may claim that your actions prove that you love the poor children or whales, but you didn't really have a choice in the matter. Your actions simply maintain your social respectability, nothing more, nothing less.

All that Valentine's Day does is breed discontentment. Discontentment among men who resent being obligated to make a romantic gesture, and resentment among women who equate the men's lack of creativity with him not loving her. But true love is so much greater than this. True love is committal and self-sacrificing; true love involves doing something romantic because you genuinely want to, not because you want something physical in return or because society will frown upon you if you don't.

And yeah, I have plenty of lesser and petty reasons for hating Valentine's Day, like the fact that I'm single and that I resent the consumerism that it promotes, but ultimately, the hollow and artificial nature of the day condemns it for much greater reasons.

So there you have it, reader, another Valentine's Day rant served up fresh and exciting for your own enlightenment and entertainment. Maybe now you can finally accept me for who I am, and not hold me to such ridiculous standards every Valentine's Day. Oh, what's that? I never will do enough for you, the reader, we're in a sham relationship and the only reason we're still together is because I need someone to read my words and you don't want to pay for content that's actually funny or meaningful? Fair enough; I'd expect nothing better on Valentine's Day.

*Author's note- special thanks to Tim for helping me compile these images. The mock Valentine's Day cards are fantastic.

Maybe Someday I'll Know Enough to Know I Don't Know it all...

Once again, readers, I'm back to discuss a more serious topic that plagues me at this late hour. Don't worry, I'll try not to make detailing my serious life lessons a habit, and I suspect that I can manage to pull something meaningful and humorous about what I'm about to write.

In a lot of ways, my time at my current college has been surprising. Suffice it to say, I attend a small, conservative Christian college that's values in many ways seemed to reflect my own. Yet my time here has taught me that this is not necessarily the case. Don't get me wrong; honest discussion and disagreement can be fantastic, and civil discourse can help everyone understand where the other side is coming from.

"Nah, I'd rather keep dehumanizing everyone who disagrees with me."

As great as honest, free and civil discussion can be, however, there comes a point where continual disagreement can become discouraging. Its ironic that I'm overwhelmed with disagreement and aggravation at a college I suspected would be too harmonious. On many issues that are important to me, like theology and politics, I find myself struggling to find any common ground with even my closest of friends.

"What did I tell you about getting drunk and screaming about Ron Paul, Jeremy?"

Now I specify that I disagree about these topics with my friends because these are personal matters that I don't discuss with everyone. Unfortunately, many of my college's culture ideals also stand in stark contrast to my personal beliefs, which only furthers my sense of alienation here. Now, you may be inclined to laugh at or dismiss the aspects of this college's culture that bother me, but just hear (or would it be "read" in this case) me out.

1. Tobacco use is incredibly prevalent at my college.

Its perfectly fair for you to want to immediately dismiss my first point. After all, young people everywhere smoke, and how does that affect me? And who do I think I am trying to dictate how other people choose to live their lives? I mean, seriously, its clear at this point that I need to get off my high horse.

First, I don't write this to morally condemn people who choose to smoke. I have many wonderful friends who choose to use tobacco in one manner or another, and that is entirely their life choice. Period. I don't think colleges should outright ban tobacco use. But when I get into serious arguments with the smokers who say that it is a violation of their personal rights for the school to enact a ban against smoking within 15 feet of buildings, I can't help but be a little offended. I know you have rights, but do my rights as a non-smoker who doesn't want to breathe in your poison mean nothing?

"Nah, I'm sure this stuff is harmless."

And again, I realize that I can come off as judgmental and holier-than-thou, but this really isn't my intention. I've lost two family members who I love very much to lung cancer, one as a direct result of a lifetime of cigarette use. I hate tobacco companies, and believe that they are staffed by manipulative bastards who prey on young people by selling them addictive carcinogens. Am I biased? Obviously, but I still can't understand how someone can choose to do this to themselves after all the research that has been released connecting tobacco use to serious health problems. Of course, this isn't the only thing I can't understand about my college...

2. Frat culture is overwhelmingly prevalent at my college

This one may come as a surprise to a lot of you, especially the younger readers. And once again, I'm going to approach this topic as carefully as I can in the least judgmental manner possible.

First, everyone can choose how to live their own lives. Its not my business if you want to drink or party or whatever. Everyone who knows me realizes that I certainly like a good drink as much as anyone.

That being said, its the culture and mindset of fraternities that really bothers me. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but I don't like leader figures hoarding natural desires like social acceptability over the heads of young impressionable freshmen. Maybe I exaggerate, but lets think about this, how many students would honestly go through all of the embarrassing, humiliating and degrading nonsense that frats require if they weren't desperate to achieve popularity and fun?

"Mhmhmh...I know I would."

This isn't even to mention the studies that have shown that frats encourage harmful lifestyles, like alcohol abuse and reckless behavior (and did we really need a study to tell us any of these things?!?!) Now I'll admit that most of the frats at my college are harmless, and that I'm a bit uptight and probably upset that I'm not having as much fun as they are, but any word that condones behavior like this should not be used to describe peer groups at my college. Just my opinion.

3. The political justifications they used to explain their beliefs

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about my debates with other students here is that we can't even agree that we have the same fundamental ideas or motives. At this college, many of the people that I've run into put such a strong emphasis on personal rights and liberty that all other logic seems to be thrown out the window. These are the libertarians/ radical conservatives who would argue against laws requiring hospitals to treat dying patients who can't afford to pay their medical bills. These are the people who vehemently argue against smoking restrictions, as my right to breathe clean air is apparently less important than the smoker's convenience. Frats should exist not because they are good or even harmless, but because students have a right to form them.

It is at this point that we have to, once again, call off these frustrated debacles we call arguments. If we can't even agree that human "rights" should be limited sometimes to ensure greater societal good and justice, then how can we hope to ever understand each other or come to agree about anything?

Alright, it is now 3:30 AM. Writing this tonight was probably a bad decision, but honestly, sometimes I feel like I'm the only sane person here. I guess I've always been a man of strong opinions and convictions, but I can't understand how anyone could see the world differently than me on these issues.

It is at this point that I'm forced to hope that even though I still can't fully understand why other people think the way that they do, perhaps each day I can develop a greater respect and appreciation for their convictions. I know that I don't know everything, and I realize the fact that sometimes I think that I do is simply a testament to my own youth and immaturity.

Unfortunately, issues of policy and theology, freedom and justice go beyond clean intellectual, emotionless discussion. Rather, they impact my unique vision of how I believe the world should be. They drive me to fight for change in areas where many of my friends simply wouldn't agree with me. To them, I'm too bitter and opinionated, but from my own perspective, I wonder how anyone could tolerate all of these "problems" (from my perspective) when there clearly must be better alternatives. Nevertheless, I realize that I need to speak less and be more civil when I do. Oh well, maybe someday I'll know enough to know I don't know everything.

Side Note: This blog is used to express my opinions in a humorous and often outlandish fashion. No matter how civil I become, my humorous (hopefully) rants on this blog will not change. Look forward to this year's annual Valentine's Day entry. Bahahaha.

Standing at the edge, staring at an abyss called opportunity...

To anyone who ends up reading this, welcome back to my blog. Sorry its been so long. Since my last post, I've been busy wrapping up one semester, taking a winter intercession course, and trying to enjoy a few weeks of Christmas break in between. Although I've spent time considering what new, potentially humorous topics to rant about (I have my eye on you, BCS), I'm afraid tonight's entry may be a bit more personal and somber. Don't worry. As always, I'll do the best that I can to make light of my insignificant complaints and to pull humor from even the most somber of circumstances.

"I never thought this schmuck was funny."

My newest moment of self contemplation was stirred by a particular Facebook friend's status, which referenced her search for graduate schools. As a second semester senior psychology major, this is something that I absolutely must do. And of course, for one illogical reason or another, I have thus far avoided the whole process like the plague. Why, you ask. That's a great and (since it involves human nature) complex question, one that if correctly answered should instantly merit the answerer their very own honorary psychology degree.

"This piece of printer paper neatly tied with a ribbon counts, right?"

At this point, I could not blame you for wanting to call me out as a lazy bum. There is a good deal of truth to that. Oftentimes, I have been blessed enough to get things done quickly and at the last minute. Case in point, when transferring out of my community college, I really only attempted to apply to 2 schools (and I only applied to the second school because I was wait-listed by the college I currently attend). Another example one might cite was how I chose to spend the majority of my time during the recent intercession period.

"If only studying chemistry counted as a quest..."

Regardless of any motivation issues, I think that I sometimes drag my feet when making important life decisions for the very same reasons that others rush into new opportunities. Excitement. I look at so many of my friends and others around me and they seem excited. They seem excited, stable, prepared and above all, obnoxiously fortunate.

I realize that I have no right to complain, but since this is my blog I'm going to anyway. It is frustrating to see friends who are genuinely passionate about their studies and future job opportunities while I'm forced to weigh confusing and contrary ideas like job practicality vs. interests, skill sets vs. passions, and settling vs. being unemployed.

Of course, I know many people change their majors and careers, and I know many others "settle" to an extent to make sure that they are able to provide for themselves and family. Which brings me to my next point. Although I am still quite young (just assume traditional college age and leave it at that), many of my friends have already entered into serious romantic relationships. I've already attended more weddings of high school friends than of actual family, and two more are coming up this summer. Despite all the negative stereotypes of the modern male as being lazy, noncommittal and exploitative, it is clear that some young guys (myself included) want something serious and meaningful in our relationships.

And don't get me wrong; I'm happy for my friends. But at the same time, what they see as simply the start of a new exciting life I see as the end of an era. I don't care who you are. I don't care what anyone's told you, and I don't care about how many contrary examples you can readily produce. Guys in serious relationships are consumed by those relationships, and their other relationships suffer to an extent. I realize that this is simply inevitable (people only have so much time and dominant relationships use up the time first), but that doesn't make the consequences any more desirable for the affected friends.

"To the groom, congratulations you spoiled bastard..umm...I mean dear friend."

I guess if there's a point to be made from this depressing cynical rant its this: "I want answers." Everyone tells me about how being single equals freedom and how college represents the chance to study and pursue any ideas and careers that you want. Honestly, that's cute and fun and [insert bland meaningless adjective of choice here] I guess, but I could care less at this point about my freedom. All of the examples and stories I mentioned involve a natural transition into full-on adulthood, a phase that is supposed to represent self growth and discovery. Well, where is my self growth and discovery hiding? Where are my hidden passions and brilliant plans, super career and blushing bride? I know that I'm not entitled to any of these things, but I sure would love to know where to start looking for them.

Now that I think about it, this entry was incredibly whiny and not very funny. I'm sorry about that; I genuinely do try to provide interesting rants in a humorous fashion. Alas, I may have struck out this time. Hmm..what to do?

How about this? Assuming you've actually gotten this far, reader, simply take a moment to consider how absurd it is that I, a young man blessed with a wonderful family, many friends, many luxuries, and the opportunity to go to college would actually take over an hour of his time to scream and pout at the heavens for even more.

There, there's your humor. And once again, as the good host that I am, I provided it at my own expense. As for my witty lesson, well its currently past 2 in the morning so don't expect too much. I guess I would just say that when we feel shorted in life its important to remember the many blessings, people, and beliefs that shape us and provide stability even when life changes or starts to get a little crazy.