You Can Wear Your Jersey Anywhere You Want

From the files of "No One Deserves To Be Beaten Within An Inch Of Their Life After A Sporting Event, You Ass", we have a column written by a one John Steigerwald. Mr. Steigerwald seems to think that if a victim of a beating was wearing a jersey from the opposing team then it is somehow that person's fault that they were damn near killed by a couple of idiotic thugs.

Let me bring you up to date. A couple of weeks ago, the San Francisco Giants played the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium. After the game, a couple of thugs wearing Dodger garb blindsided a one 42-year old Giant fan, Bryan Stow, in the parking lot. They sucker punched him and then when he was down on the ground, they repeatedly kicked him in the head before they fled like the cowards that they are. Mr. Stow, a paramedic and father of 2, is still in ICU in a medically induced coma with half of his skull removed because his brain was swelling up too much for it to fit inside of his skull when it was in one piece. He shows signs of brain damage and it's pretty obvious that his life will never be the same. While he was being kicked in the head, the Dodger clad a-holes made it clear that Mr. Stow was targeted because he was wearing a San Francisco Giants jersey. Real nice, LA. Stay classy.

Consider yourself up to date. Enter Mr. Steigerwald and his asinine column that he wrote for the Observer-Reporter.com. The title of his article is "Know when you've outgrown the uniform". The premise of his column seems to be his bewilderment at why Mr. Stow would have been so "stupid" (I'm paraphrasing here) as to wear a jersey from the opposing team to the home team's stadium. In fact, he coldly states "Maybe someone can ask Stow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years."

Uhh...wow. Let me give you the answer, Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy. He wore his jersey to the game because he wanted to. That was his team that he was cheering on and that's what he wanted to wear. Land of the free, remember? Or maybe he just didn't think that there would be people out there who would pummel someone into a coma simply because they rooted for the opposite team. Or maybe he wasn't worried about anything because stadiums are supposed to provide security. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. He didn't deserve to get beaten up because he had on a Giants jersey!

Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy goes on to ask "Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team?" Of course, he states no basis for that question, as there is no indication that Mr. Stow or ANYONE who wears a jersey to a game thinks that. I just bought my best friend a Giants jersey today. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't think that she is a member of the team simply because she's wearing a jersey that says "Lincecum" on the back of it. No, actually, I am positive of it. I, myself, have several sports jerseys which I enjoy wearing. I've never once equated myself to Joe Montana. Never.

His does make the astute observation that "Obviously, not every fan who wears his team's jersey to a game is looking for someone from "the enemy" to beat up." You don't say?! Then why are you acting like he did?! Why are you acting like Mr. Stow did something wrong? Do you believe that women who are scantily dressed deserve to get raped? Wait. Don't answer that. You probably do. You're such an a-hole.

Provocation is a funny thing. I mean, does it even exist if it is being ignored? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But my point isn't to get all philosophical here. The point is that someone wearing a sports jersey isn't provoking anyone. And the other point is that no one is asking to be beaten up no matter what they are wearing. People are supposed to act like human beings around one another. Bryan Stow did not deserve this and it doesn't matter why he wore his jersey to the Dodger game. Mr. Steigerwald is clearly a huge douchelord. Using his own logic, I wonder why he would write something as inflammatory as he did, knowing full well that there are going to be unstable people out there that read it and might possibly want revenge. Why would you do such a thing, Mr. Porn Star Moustache? Why? Oh, because you want to and because you can? Well, that's why Bryan Stow wore his jersey. Because he wanted to and because he could. Now, stop acting like the biggest a-hole around, Mr. Steigerwald, and donate to a fund to help the man. Do it now.

For the rest of you who aren't column writing a-holes and who would like to help out Mr. Stow's family, please visit http://www.support4bryanstow.com/ There are a variety of fundraisers going on if you're local, but there's also a way to donate if you're not. And please remember that no one deserves to get beaten. Even Mr. Steigerwald. I think.

The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

This Crosses A Line

I'm a big sports fan. Of the four major sports, I'm an avid fan of everything but hockey. And I'm learning to like hockey, so I'm sure that won't be long down the road. But in the meantime, it's just football, basketball and baseball. They're all great. The only thing that spoils sports for me are the fans that have to be giant douchebags all the time. Let's take some of the Dodger fans who felt the need to beat up on a San Francisco Giants fan after the opening day game in Los Angeles on Thursday.

According to The Huffington Post, "A savage beating by two men outside Dodgers Stadium has left a San Francisco Giants fan in a medically-induced coma". Oh, sure. That sounds reasonable. Beat a man to within an inch of his life because...well...there doesn't seem to be any reason. The Dodgers won and the cowards who did the beating were wearing Dodgers garb, so they weren't pummeling innocent bystanders out of frustration over their loss. Not that it would have made it more justified or anything like that. I was just drawing attention to how pointless it all was.

I did find some of the statements made by the Dodgers and by the Dodgers coach to be a bit annoying. For example, the team released a statement that said "It is extremely unfortunate that this incident took place on what was otherwise a great day at Dodger Stadium for tens of thousands of fans...We're committed to having the most fan and family friendly environment in baseball and will continue to make that a top priority." Yeah, other than the beating that left a 42-year old married father of two in the hospital with brain injuries, it was a great day. See, if you're asking me, the beating really negates the great day. It really negates the great day if you're the one who had the crap beat out of them.

And as far as their "fan and family friendly environment" that they "will continue" to make a top priority? Yeah, when do you think they might get started on that? I'm just asking because in 2009 "...a man stabbed his friend in the stadium parking lot after the home opener." Can you really call them friends if one of them was stabbing the other? I have a lot of friends and we don't usually stab each other. In fact, I'm fairly comfortable saying that I would not want to be friends with anyone who I thought might get a little stabby with me from time to time. Or ever, for that matter. But maybe they're working on the safety for the even numbered years first. I really don't know their plan.

But I do know an asinine statement when I read it. I'm referring to statements such as the one made by coach Don Mattingly who said, "I was disappointed...You don't want to see that. Everyone likes rivalries, but to me, that's crossing the line." Oh, really? To you that was crossing the line? You think that other people have some other kind of a line that involves beating innocent people within an inch of their life? To you? What the what was that supposed to mean, anyway? I'm trying to overlook his merely being "disappointed". I'd prefer a little more outrage for things like this.

Here's to hoping that they catch the scumbags that did this. Here's also to hoping that people stop making idiotic statements when incidents like this one occur. And finally and most importantly, here's to hoping that Bryan Stow, the guy who was injured, will recover from his injures. Get well soon, Bryan.