Shameful Behavior Month

As June comes to a close, I am left feeling there is something seriously wrong with a society that devotes a month, as well as parades, to celebrating a sexual compulsion.   Even for those who take delight in acting on that compulsion, how do they come to feel it appropriate to march around proclaiming their sexual compulsion as if it actually deserves public applause? 

I get it.  The idea is supposed to be that there's no reason to be ashamed (not true...there's plenty reason), that they should not be judged in a negative manner (though their compulsion is to act immorally).  But to march around, designating a month of the year?  That's just plain goofy, to say nothing of perverse. 

When I see T-shirts that say something like, "Proud to be Irish", or I hear of "Black Pride", I think, "What did you do to become Irish or Black?"  Did you work hard to be born Armenian?  Was there a special test?  Again, there's no reason to be ashamed of one's race or heritage, even if one's race or heritage has a bad rep.  That is, Germans of today don't need to be ashamed because of all those nazis back during WWII.  But to be proud to be a German? 

Or one can be proud to be a part of a people that has done great things, more or less being proud of those members of one's people who actually did the great things, rather than being proud of having been born into that group.  But either way, these things are just accidents of birth and are no reason to be "proud to be a...whatever".  Did YOU do something great?

But this is different.  This is being proud because one feels like doing something.  Or worse in this case, actually having done it.  A sex act.  "I'm proud to have sex with my significant other!  Let's have a parade!"  Doesn't make sense.  Are these thirteen-year-olds?  "Check it out, dudes!  Me and Ellen did it!  I'm gonna celebrate it annually!" 

Of course, the reality is that it is just another attempt to convince normal people that these particular celebrants are normal, too (though they most certainly aren't), that they're no more or less moral than normal people (though they most certainly are celebrating immorality).  It is meant to enable the guilty and coerce everyone else into accepting the dysfunction.   It is meant to ram their idea of morality and normalcy down the throats of the general population, without the consent of the general population. 

Here's a really goofy aside:  I turned on the radio as I was about to drive in to work and a sports talk show was ending.  One of the two sports dudes was talking about how much fun he had at the city's "Pride" parade, and how his wife continued to hang out there while he had to go to the radio station for his show...and how the station needs a float or something in next year's parade...and how everyone at the station is down with the idea (or so he believes, anyway).  Good gosh! 

Hell in a handbag, my friends.  Hell in a handbag.

Poor LeBron!

I couldn't tell the proximity or distance of either ref, one calling a blocking foul on James and the other calling charging on Durant.  But as I saw the play commence, there was no doubt in my mind that the blocking call was correct.  I don't know about all the sports talk dudes who discussed the call the next day, but in real time it was quite clear to me that James was moving when contact was made.  That makes it a blocking foul on him.  The replay made it even more apparent.  The sports talkers believed that at any other point in the game, or in any other game, Durant is called for charging.  This is nonsense given at least one of the refs called blocking immediately. 

So the refs pretend there is a question about the restricted area so the rules say they go to the tape.  There was never any real question that James was outside the restricted area.  It was just a ruse to settle the question since both refs were convinced of what they saw.  Again, not really seeing where they were when they made their respective calls, who knows?  But they abused a rule in order to see the tape and the tape showed James was moving.

I thought I heard someone, and it could have actually been while the play was being discussed by the announcers and analysts, that moving doesn't matter.  But that's not true.  And James was clearly moving, even without benefit of the replay to confirm.

Everybody is saying the Cleveland was robbed, because without the replay, the charge call, which I guess was the call on the floor, would have stood and should have.  But here's the truth:  if the roles were reversed, and it was James going to the rim and Durant defending, there is no way James would have been called for charging.  This is a guy who routinely runs over defenders who are even moving away from him, trying to avoid contact.  He could be called for charging two or three times per game on average, and when he is called for charging, he whines.

So for anyone who believes the game was stolen because of this call, go wet yourself.  Try scoring more points next time or prevent being scored upon, then these calls won't matter.

As for replays, I hate 'em.  Never wanted them to be employed in any sport I watch.  That is to say, not for the purpose of correcting or confirming calls.  Whiners whine about not wanting a game decided by a bad call.  Again, play better.  Score more.  Ensure that the other team scores less.  No one likes a call to go against them whether the call is right or wrong.  To blame a loss on the refs is wussy stuff.  Suck it up.  You weren't good enough.  The refs had nothing to do with it.