GOP 12: Palin hits Maureen “O’Dowd”
I found the full transcript of the interview. Here is the rest of the quote:
“That’s so funny, because I don’t think I’ve ever met that gal, Maureen Dowd — O’Dowd — whatever the heck her name is. I don’t follow the lame-stream media. Hell, I can barely even read.
“And even if I was able to read good, I’m pretty sure I would still choose not to do so. And even if I did know this columnist’s name, I’m pretty sure I would still act like I don’t. But it’s not just names that I act unedumated for; I also carry on as if my understanding of vocabulary, syntax, and grammar are tenuable at best. Yeah I make up words and talk in run on sentences and mess around with verb tenses all willy nilly… so what? Suck my balls, brain-thinkers!
“Okay. To be honest with you, I actually know Maureen’s last name. Of course I know her last name, it is just that my supporters fucking LOVE IT when I screw up or misspeak. It is almost like they hate facts.
“But don’t get me wrong: I totally hate facts, too. Like, 110% with the hating of facts. While we are on the subject of hating facts, let me take this opportunity to make myself as clear as possible: GREAT PATRIOTS OF AMERICA! I HATE FACTS! That’s why I don’t read anything. Not books, not magazines, not newspapers, and certainly not anything written by that treasonous unpatriot Maureen O’Dowd!
“Do you see what I did there?”
Hey, Joaquin Phoenix, What If We Don’t Care?
The funny thing about this post is that it proves, once again, why bestweekever.tv is the most trusted name in news.
It also reminds me of this old adage my dad used to tell me. I’m not sure exactly how it goes, but I think it has something to do with the sound a tree makes when it falls in the forest under a variety of circumstances. I’m a bit fuzzy when it comes to the specifics of this particular turn of phrase, but I have to believe that it helps put Joaquin Phoenix’s fake rap career in the proper perspective.
A few thoughts on the BCS system
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: The primary purpose of the BCS is to eliminate the economic inefficiencies that existed in the previous NCAA system in order to make Bowl Season as profitable as possible. During many of the years its been around, it has indeed brought together the two best college football teams in a game to crown an undisputed national champion, but this should be looked at as nothing more than a very pleasant side effect of a system designed primarily to sell advertising.
Those complex computer formulas and polls are all prologue, serving no other purpose than attempting to legitimize a sometimes illegitimate result by creating a complex mathematical device to take the fall when shit hits the fan.
If the NCAA was serious about crowning an undisputed national champion every year, there would be a playoff system. Period. But the only thing they are serious about is selling the broadcast rights for the BCS bowl games at the highest premium. And in turn, the networks that purchase the rights to the games are only concerned with their ability to charge a lot of money for ads during the events.
With this being said, the BCS system is a complete success. Remember that before it existed, bowl selection committees invited teams to compete based largely on maintaining traditional, historic conference pairings.
But how on earth are you supposed to stack the economic decks when there is no guarantee that a game pitting the team with a “1” and the team with a “2” next to their name will take place every year? And how will John Q. Public know what to watch unless there is a game that is referred to - nay, officially named - the “National Championship” game?
And while a playoff may be more “fair”, it would not have nearly the same predictable (and sellable-in-a-pitch-meeting) result as the Frankenfruit that is the BCS selection system. I mean, heaven forbid a mid-major makes it into the field and upsets a university that may travel better or is in closer proximity to a major media market. How can you promise advertisers 15 or more ratings points in that scenario?
And to be honest with you, I am ultimately okay with this system. As someone whose alma-mater has a long way to go before even having the chance to get royally screwed by the BCS, I do not share the outrage of an increasingly large group of college football fans. But don’t get me wrong: I hate the BCS and pray for a doomsday scenario every single year if only to stoke these fires of widespread disdain. But the only real criteria by which you can judge the BCS is how it compares to the system it replaced.
Is it better than the former decentralized, disorganized and somewhat clandestine Bowl system of days past? I think so. We may not always get the two “best” teams playing the final game of the season, but I doubt anyone can deny that two of the top three or four teams are usually involved. And yeah, there is controversy, but was there any less when teams that may not have even faced each other in years were fighting at the ballot box to be elected the National Champion?
No one is going to argue that a playoff is the most fair way of determining the champion of anything. This is likely why “playoffs” have been adopted in every single other team competition known to man. But until the NCAA decides to go that route with football, we could all do a lot worse than watching some of the excellent games we are treated to every bowl season… even if they are the result of a system that is equal parts greed, entitlement and ghost-in-the-machine voodoo.
