Third Party Anyone?

So I took a facebook quiz the other day, and of course most of those things are dumb, but this one really set me to thinking. It was a long quiz with many questions intended to find out where I stood politically. In the end it told me what I already knew, that I am quite down the middle politically with a slight lean to the left.

The thing is though most of my friends on the left think I am far to the right and most of my friends on the right think I am far to the left. For example:

I think lower taxes are good. I think that the forced redistribution of wealth is theft. I think that devaluing the currency through deficit spending is not only a bad idea, but a sin. I think a strong military in a dangerous world is a good idea. I think that police profiling is common sense. I think anyone who is actively hiring people and contributing to the economy needs as little over sight as can be dictated by common sense. I think abortion is murder. I think public schooling is broken and needs to be radically revamped. I think marriage is a Church institute which should only be given to one man and one woman. I think most of these things because I am a Christian and I try to color my world view with my faith. Because of this most of my left leaning friends think I am a raving loon on the far right of the spectrum.

Also;

I think that a society that does not care for its poor is doomed. I think schooling our children is among our paramount responsibilities and not doing so is a capital crime we commit against ourselves. I think recognizing our place in the world is important. I think AZ immigration law is fascist. I think businesses which employ illegal labor are slavers. I think permitting abortion in rare cases such as tubal pregnancies is a right and moral thing to do. I think government over sight of businesses is good because child labor is bad and weekends are good. I think paying taxes is a command from God. I think to deny same sex couples the rights of contract which have been attached to marriage is discriminatory. I think these things because I am a Christian and I try to color my world view with my faith. Because of this most of my right leaning friends think I am a raving loon far to left of the political spectrum.

I have wondered for a long time why that is. I think I have the solution. Money.

The polarization of American politics is not the result of one side of the aisle steering a course far afield of anything ever seen before, but money. The free range of money in politics has dragged both parties away from the center because of well funded groups who want nothing to do with compromise and view every political question as a sporting event to be won and not a problem to be solved. A great example is the health care debate.

America is among the wealthiest nations on earth and while none are refused medical care outright because of county hospitals and the like, the over burdening of such institutions is a direct result of the outrageous cost of healthcare squeezing out those who desire private care but cannot afford it. Therefore those who in the past would have gone to a family doctor now head to the ER when a child is sick because their middle income can no longer afford them a family doctor's visit. Because of this over burdening the equity of medical care and access to quality care, especially specialized medicine, has been lost to a great portion of our population.

At the same time, when Congress attempted to tackle this problem, the solution was a trillions of dollars expensive bill which plans to curtail cost by cutting payments to doctors and scaling back access to the very medical science it was intended to avail to the people it claimed to serve. So in other words the only solutions (apparently) on the table were; do nothing and do worse.

Why?

Money.

Those who stood to be most hurt by the over haul of the medical system were doctors and insurance companies, and insurance companies have more money and therefore they wrote the bill. No really. The powerful lobby interests on Capitol Hill which the insurance companies support assured that their lapdogs on the left and right gave them the provisions which they wanted couched in language which the constituencies of said lapdogs would not find to offensive. So you are not cutting back payment to doctors you are controlling costs. So you are not increasing taxes massively in spite of the fact that there is enough money in the healthcare system already if the bureaucracy is controlled, you are increasing access.

The point is that massive money pours into the Nation's Capitol every day to serve the will of the causes which gave the money in the first place. And of course people do not part with their treasure unless they care deeply about the cause, and therefore any compromise on the part of the one who has taken the money for the cause is not seen as cool headed governing, but betrayal. New Jersey's governor comes to office and says that the state simply cannot afford to pay the level of benefits it has in the past, which is true, to state workers, and rather than being seen as a man who has a grasp on the problem he is vilified by the left. Obama dares to say that America needs to rethink its energy policy (as in ya know America needs to actually have an energy policy because "use it until its gone" is not a policy) and he is seen as tree loving hack who hates jobs and America and children and puppies who wipes his butt with the flag and is secretly a Muslim.

The selling of interest and the rabid support of the cause heads to that interest has dragged the parties away from the center because to be in the middle is now seen as being a flip flopper and weak instead of cool and considerate. And do not think one side has a monopoly on this sort of behavior. No matter how vitriolic and censorious the TEA Party folks might be, the hate spewed on them by the far left which can be easily seen if looked for is just as venomous and disgusting. Of course both sides of the aisle complain about this and cite their preferred news agency (Fox and talk radio on the right CNN, MSNBC on the left) as proof of what the other side is doing. In fact the very fact that left and right leaning news agencies exist at all is because of the money which has been poured into politics. After all if people are willing to give their money to advertisers on Fox news in sufficient numbers, then Fox News will continue to air because it will always have enough money to do so because it is giving its viewers what they want.

This phenomenon has not helped America, just in case you haven't noticed, but rather has shown us what we are and no one wants to admit it. Think about it. Each year some new bright star rises up and says, "I will not play the political game in Washington. I am from outside the beltway and will serve the interests of the people." Really the last three presidents have all run more or less on this platform when they initially got elected. The problem is that while people complain about the partisanship in DC what they want is not and end to politics, which would mean a drift toward the middle, but rather the elimination of the opposition. For this reason the divide grows more each year more and more people are disaffected by the system and left to vote, not for the candidate they think best, but for the one they find least repugnant. The marginalized middle grows less interested all the time leaving the hacks to run the show and each year more people ask themselves, "Where did it all go wrong?"

So what is the solution?

A third party.

A party which thinks business is good, but not to trusted carte blanche. A party which recognizes that illegal immigration needs to be stopped at its source which of course is unscrupulous employers and those willing to patronize them. A party which knows that people need affordable goods and that Wal Mart is the great satan. A party which actually believes in religious freedom. A party that knows that gun ownership is a right to be protected and that there is no harm in knowing who has guns. A party which knows that personal liberty is sacrosanct and that at will abortion is probably not one of those liberties. A party which is willing to take care of poor families and provide day care and lunch and breakfast at schools which do not consist of saw dust and gristle. A party which recognizes that ADM being able to say who serves on the USDA and EPA is bad bad bad freaking idea.

In short a party which could raise no money and therefore will never exist.

I guess we're screwed.

But it was fun while it lasted.

Just thinking.

Enough with feeling bad for the little guy

So for the longest time there has been this myth in sports, and as you all well know entertainment mirrors life and the values of entertainment reflect those of the entertained, that it is "unfair" that rich teams like the Yankees can spend more money than poor teams like the Pirates. There has been much hand wringing over the inequity of payroll in baseball as talking head after talking head has spoken with tear filled eyes about the poor abused little guy who just can't hope to compete with the big bad rich teams. To try and amend this inequity the owners agreed that a high income teams whose salary structure exceeds a certain limit should have to pay a penalty out of which the money would be evenly distributed to the poor teams so that they, the little guy, could compete with the big guy.

Now we find out the truth.

Recently as part of ongoing labor talks in baseball it has been revealed that these small market teams like the Pittsburgh Pirates (whose fans just built them a new ballpark to help them compete) and the Florida Marlins (who have won two world series in the last fifteen years then immediately sold off the entire team complaining of lack of money) have not only been making money year in year out, despite what they claimed was happening, but have been taking the money paid to them by the rich teams and pocketing it as a windfall instead of reinvesting it into their teams. This goes along with what I have been saying, that small teams could compete if they wanted to and all the bitching about losing money was overblown because there was no shortage of billionaires looking to get into the business of owning baseball teams.

Just in case you don't know, billionaires do not buy businesses so that they can lose fifty million dollars a year every year so they can win. That is why when owners cry about losing money because of how over paid the players are I always call "BS" with a bullhorn from the highest place I can find. And this proves it. As the Pirates have lost 90-100 games a year each of the last ten years (hot on the heels of falling a game short of the world series several years in a row), the ownership has said that salary structures had gotten so wildly out of control that they could no longer field a winning teams. In fact they complained that even an average teams would prevent them from making money. So the good people of Pittsburgh ponied up the money for a new ballpark which led to the old owners promptly selling for a huge profit because of increased value with the new stadium, and now we find out that all of those years, the Pirates were not losing money, were not breaking even, but pulling in massive profits and screwing the fans of the Pirates in the process. How much money did they make, 43,000,000 in the last three years while the teams finished dead last each year. Also during that time the team traded away many promising players claiming they could not pay them because they were losing money year in and year out. And unless I am much mistaken this is probably the first you have heard about this.

Why?

Because this sort of thing does not fit the narrative. The narrative says that rich teams win because they have all the money, not that winners become rich because they persistently try to win and therefore have more fans. So the guy who wrings his hands about the big bad Yankees on ESPN's morning show is a freaking Mets fan so of course he hates the Yankees and wants to paint them in a bad light. Why should he care if the Pirates took the Yankees' money and pocketed it? It costs him nothing.

There is the belief that the Yankees have more money because they have a huge TV deal, but the Braves, Cubs, Red Sox, Mets, Angels and Dodgers all have similar TV deals and yet those teams are not vilified. Why not? Because years of penis envy has not been formed against those teams by crybaby sports writers who watched through gritted teeth as the Yankees beat their favorite team when they were children.

The Yankees are on TV all the time because they have the most fans and so they get the best ratings and therefore the networks, who want the most number of people to see the commercials, put the Yankees on.

The Yankees have more fans because they have been consistent winners for years.

The Yankees have been consistent winners for years because they have ownership which is committed to winning.

Therefore it is winning which breeds large fan bases and and big TV deals and lots of fans.

But...

"Because they have this advantage the other teams can't compete," says the narrative. Far apart from the truly un-American idea that the only way to bring the bottom up is to tear the top down (I know we call that public school but that is broken too) this is also crap. Example #1, the Texas Rangers.

Tom Hicks bought the Texas Rangers after they had won their division two times in three years and they won it again the first year he owned the team. Unfortunately for the Rangers they happened to run into the Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Pettite Yankees in their young and up in coming years and lost the three playoff series by a combined 9 games to 1 (3-1, 3-0, 3-0). Far from realizing that the Yankees were just better, Hicks fired his general manager, traded the core of the team, bought a bunch of ill fitting high priced over the hill free agents, and gave Alex Rodriguez 252,000,000 when the next highest bidder was about sixty per cent of that. Predictably the team went into the tank, the fans stopped coming to watch them lose, and Hicks complained that he could not compete, not because he is an incompetent ass, but because the Yankees are rich. And since this complaint fit into the narrative, the media and Rangers fans licked that !@#$ right off the bottom of his boot and blamed A-Rod for the miserable failings of an incompetent management team.

A quick word about A-Rod.

A-Rod is the whipping boy of embittered sport's fan everywhere. He is supposed to represent everything wrong with the greedy over paid athlete. The problem is that A-Rod is nether greedy nor is he over paid. First off the reason why Alex Rodriguez makes as much money as he does is that for a long time he hit the baseball better than anyone else on planet earth. He was not only scarce, he was unique. And anytime a commodity is scarce it goes up in value. The reason why Kobe makes millions to play basketball and you do not is Kobe can hit a fifteen footer over Ray Allen and dunk on Kevin Garnett and you can't do either one of those things. If Kevin Garnett was in wheel chair you could not dunk him, and neither could I, so stop complaining about what these guys make. Also when A-Rod was given that contract, no one put a gun to Tom Hicks head to make him offer it. Hicks not only out bid everyone else, he bid against himself and paid a price which no one else was willing to pay or even get near. A-Rod averaged hitting .300 with 50HR's and 140RBI's while he was with Texas and was booed every time he struck out by bitter Ranger fans pissed off that he made more money than they did.

And how did he get rewarded? Tom Hicks told the media that A-Rod was greedy and a bad team guy and the media and Rangers' fans licked that !@#$ off his boots too. But was A-Rod greedy?A-Rod agreed to take less money, to cut his own contract, so he could be traded to Boston and the union and MLB said no. Then A-Rod agreed to go to New York after a contentious winter and the Rangers made a terrible trade for him just to get him out of town. Then the media complained that A-Rod just wanted to go play for the Yankees, never mind that he wanted to take a pay cut to go to the Red Sox and the Red Sox were too cheap to pay full price, but somehow this became A-Rod's fault. Then we find out that the reason why A-Rod wanted out of Texas was that Tom Hicks had stiffed him 24.9 million dollars, and what do crybaby sports' fans say? "Well he's got enough money what does an extra 20 million matter?" Well... twenty million. I don't work for free and I dare say you don't either.

Oh but what abut the steroids?

Can we please stop crying about steroids? Did anybody not know Canseco, MacGwire and Bonds were juicing? These guys each put on like fifty pounds of muscle in one off season, and no one cared because they started hitting moonshot home runs. The more they hit the more people came. Other players saw that they could make more money if they took steroids, so they juiced up and more people came to the park. In fact baseball had a renaissance after the strike year as record after record fell on the field and at the turn stile as people poured in to watch guys who had never hit better than .260 with 23HR's hit .320 with 54HR's. Baseball gave you what you wanted. You wanted home runs and you got them. Don't stand there now with your local freaking congressman crying for the children..... OH THE CHILDREN... when you tuned in each night to see if Sosa or Big Mac would be the first to break Maris' record. Screw you and your indignation. You asked for steroids. You demanded steroids. You got steroids! Now lie in your bed and shut up.

So after the bonanza of insanity that baseball became came crashing down and the economy went in the toilet and the gates fell and so did the numbers, now we find out that the whole time the poor innocent small market teams were stealing from their fans the whole time and blaming the Yankees.

But it was always crap.

Exhibit #1 The Texas Rangers.

After Tom Hicks had bankrupted himself and the Rangers and guaranteed that any new owner would have to take on 200,000,000 in debt which he borrowed against the Rangers (not to run the team but to keep his other failing businesses afloat) as well as having to pay out 75,000,000 in unpaid salary to players past and present, not one, not two, not three or even four millionaire/billionaires stepped up to try to buy the biggest joke in Baseball, but not less than six very wealthy men tried to buy the Rangers. Even with all of the debt. Nolan Ryan, Chuck Greenburg and two nameless billionaire partners bought the Rangers for 590,000,000 dollars out bidding billionaires Mark Cuban and Jim Crane for the team. But the Rangers are supposed to be a team that can't compete and will lose money why would these very successful men try to buy them? Because it is all a big freaking lie. They will no more lose money on the Rangers than the man in the moon, and they know it. And now thanks to Pittsburgh everyone else does too.

But no one is talking about it. Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

And speaking of the narrative.

When Cliff Lee was traded to Rangers, who were bankrupt and couldn't take on any more salary, he told the whole world that he had earned the right to decide where he wanted to play and, being friends with C C Sabbathia he wanted to play in New York. Meanwhile Nolan Ryan, Chuck Greenburg and Co have decided that next year they will be capped on their salary at about 90,000,000 dollars which does not leave enough money to sign Cliff Lee.

Understand.... they have already determined how much they will spend to guarantee profit. Not to win but to make profit while they cry about the debt they took on voluntarily.

And also, true to to the narrative, the Ranger fan is getting out his salt and pepper to eat yet one more !@#$ sandwich off the owners' boots the whole while saying, "Yeah screw the Yankees its all their fault!"

Why do I bother to be surprised?

Just Thinking

Courage is Being a Yankees Fan

There is this sort of "Ho hum of course you like the Yankees.... they always win," attitude about me from folks down here Texas way when I tell them I do not in fact like the local team but the Yankees. I have always liked the Yankees. When I was small my dad made no bones about his love for the Dodgers and while he rooted for the home team I was always left feeling a little cold about them when he would complain about how they would never re-sign their star players because of lack of money. Growing up in the 70's there were national games of the week on the TV and usually the team that was on was the Yankees. As I came into sports rooting age the Yankees made the world series three of four years and won two including my first vivid baseball memory of Dave Winfield jumping over the fence in Dodger's Stadium to try and catch a fly ball. I was so impressed by this act of what seemed to me heroism that I attached to the Yankees and have been so ever since.

This annoyed my dad so much that he stopped taking my sister and I to Yankees games one night as we sat in the bleachers and cheered long and loud for the visitors as they drummed the hometown heros.

I find it strange however that being a Yankees' fan in Ranger's land is seen as obnoxious. Far aside from the abuse heaped on me for sitting quietly and minding my own business with my sons as we watch our beloved Yankees play from the oh too classy drunks who populate the Ballpark in Arlington, I also strongly object to the notion that it is somehow easier to be a fan of a great team, ie the Yankees, than an absolute joke of a team, ie the Rangers. OK that was a little obnoxious but given the recent spectacle of the Ranger's sale you have to admit they are a joke.

The point is that it takes no courage whatsoever to be a Ranger's fan. I realize that most people see this 180 degrees out of phase because it is somehow considered heroic to lose year after year after year ie the Cubs and Red Sox fans who are looked upon as sympathetic figures because their teams are or were lovable losers; not because they had actually done any grand thing to be admired or loved, but simply because they have lost for so long that their losing has ceased to be contemptible, laughable or even pitiable and has instead morphed into a cooly accepted fact looked upon with benign indifference by those too smart to root for such losing enterprises. Only in sport could a business fail to meet its known, stated objective for 100 years and be thought lovable. In any other enterprise the business would be dispatched forthwith for the common good and the losing forgotten in the grave of history as yet one more failed idea devoured by the successful and the strong.

"But no" says the losing enthusiast, "to try valiantly and fail is admirable." I suppose this is so provided that the effort is valiant. But which is more valiant; to lose 60% of your contests for twenty years in a row or to win 60% of your contests and be denied by the better team in the end? Surely the team which has failed far more than it has succeeded does not deserve to be placed on the plateau with the runner up in a tournament because that team has failed to accomplish even the level of greatness which the second place team achieved, even though they failed.

In fact the team which consistently climbs the mountain to the edge of greatness will from time to time achieve that greatness and be rewarded the winner's crown. And this is where the courage to cheer greatly is found.

If your favorite team is the Texas Rangers or the Minnesota Vikings or A&M Aggies, then you have never known the elation that comes with victory in final game. Yet you insist that your fandom of these teams is grandiose because you cheer bravely for the team which never wins and yet come back again and again loyally hoping that this year may be different. And of course on the off chance that you may actually climb the mountain and succeed, the world waits to congratulate you because your long suffering has ended at last. And why not? Who doesn't love a winner? All those who claimed to be Red Sox fans when they finally won the World Series were rewarded with glad handing all around as the feel good vibes passed from friend to friend. But where were those feel good vibes in the prior 86 years of frustration and failure? Of course they were nowhere to be found because those who root for such long shots are loathe to admit it because in their heart of hearts they love to lose. And the reason why is that it takes no courage whatsoever to root for a losing team.

If you are a fan of the Rangers or Mavericks, then you expect each year to have your team's ascent to the mountain top frustrated, and therefore when they fail you have suffered no loss since your expectations have been met. And if your team miraculously wins the whole thingthen you are granted a good feeling you have not earned because you did not anticipate your team's success and therefore have not had your expectations met either, but rather have borrowed the capital of other champions and the basked in the glow of fulfillment which cannot rightfully be called yours... Saints fans.

But let us assume you root for the Yankees or the Cowboys or the Lakers. If your team wins the championship, which is of course your expectation if you root for such teams, then you have earned the satisfaction of having your expectations met, but no one throws a parade for Yankees fans when their team wins, but instead scoffs and says, "Well of course they won... they have more money."

By the way, nothing makes Yankees/Cowboys/ Lakers fans happier than the bitter scoffing of other fans who dare not root greatly for great teams so by all means scoff away.

In fact the basic assumption is that you have only rooted for the Yankees because you thought they would win. Well.... yes, and? I suppose your bitchin' new Saints jersey was bought because you thought, "Well even if they don't win they have done great getting this far." No of course not, the spike in Brees Jerseys is because the Saints won, and everyone loves a winner.

Unless of course that winner is from the upper echelons of previous achievement.

But if you root for the great teams and they don't win, as even the greatest of teams are destined to do far more often than not, then your expectation of greatness is destined to be frustrated much more frequently than fulfilled, and when your team doesn't win, those lovable losers' fans do not pat your head as the condescending world does to them, but instead try to rub your face in your team's lack of victory; bitterly assuming that you now are dragged down to their level having not accomplished that for which you so greatly hoped.

But Ranger's fans don't expect to win and therefore cannot understand the mindset of the fans who do, and therefore the Yankees fan will never be on the level with the Ranger's fan because the Rangers fan will never be frustrated whether his team wins or loses.

And for that reason the true sports' fan is the one who dares to root for great things. And that is why teams like the Lakers and the Yankees and the Cowboys will always have more fans who are more dedicated who put more of their treasure into their teams' coffers knowing their teams will turn that treasure into winning season after winning season to try greatly to meet the great expectations of their great fans.

And I see no reason as a fan to apologize for that to anyone.

I'm not kidding.

Just thinking.

Sniff Your Own Hypocrisy

So I am at Target today buying some groceries and hot wheels for the kids. As we are walking around I notice a woman wearing a t-shirt with picture of a baby duck, a seal, a fish, a shark and a sea gull all covered in oil underneath the caption which read, "Thanks BP for killing us!"

Really?

Let me get this straight. This is the tax free weekend in Texas. Every year before the school start Texas has a weekend wherein you can go to the store and buy things like paper pencils, hand-tools and TV's without paying the tax. People are supposed to be duped into thinking this is a sale and usually the store will knock off some ten percent to encourage people to buy. So this woman, trailing a kid behind her and a seriously beaten looking man is say !@#$ BP because they are a big evil corporation who (GASP) killed (SIGH) BABY DUCKS WITH OIL!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

BOOOOOOOOO

HISSSSSSSSSS

Understand I think BP is an evil corporation, but to bitch about BP when your at Target to buy paper processed in China packaged in Kazakhstan and shipped form Norway via train plane and truck to your local Target where you get into your brand new SUV to drive to the store to save five cents and sales tax on paper is the epitome of hypocrisy. And I am supposed to think you love the baby ducks?

The first time I had this conversation it was at McDonald's and a woman was wringing her hands about the sea gulls. I told her she was nuts. She told me I was a republican. I told her if she really cared then she shouldn't be at McDonald's eating beef flown in from Venezuela.

Maybe I am the ass here (well OK I am an ass anywhere I am) but when I see the news reporter who flew in company lear jet to the five star hotel and rode a stretch Benz to the beach bitching about the baby ducks I just want to reach into my TV and slap him for being stupid. Screw you and your cause you !@#$ hypocrite. And screw the baby ducks too.

My biggest problem with this whole thing is the underlying assumption and there are two.

One, most of the worlds pollution is produces by people too poor to make the news and no one gives a rip roaring snot because odds are they re part of the group. I understand why a person wants cheap note book paper, but don't complain about child labor and oil companies when you buy it. The fact is BP is not on the news because they killed some ducks. They are on the news because they are an oil company and they are rich. And nothing makes consummerist crazed Americans madder than a person with more money than they have; so any chance to stick it to the wealthy and famous is a party for most of the embittered house fraus and disgruntled box haulers of the world who come home to a crap house in a crap neighborhood each night to laugh at Lindsey Lohan so they don't have to feel quite so badly about themselves. And the furor over BP is this same mentality run amok because everyone hates the oil companies even though they could not live without them for a week.

Two is the belief that this disaster underscores the need to find alternate energy. Not that alternate energy is a bad thing, but it seems a lot of people think it is a free lunch. A lot of people when they talk about renewable energy act as though solar power will solve our energy problems, it won't. Apart from the massive amount of energy which would be consumed to build the infrastructure to make such an undertaking possible, current technology as well as any foreseeable technology suggests that solar power not only will not replace fossil fuels, but won't even pay for itself. Wind power seems nice unless you live close enough to a turbine farm in which case you will likely suffer from nausea, headaches, insomnia and worse and more lasting health problems because of the constant high intensity frequency of the turbines spinning. Renewable fuels seem like a great idea but they still have to be produced which takes fuel and the lower energy of fuels like ethanol basically negate any money saved by using them. Batteries have to be charged and the lead disposed of and battery powered cars still need fossil fuels to make up for their limited range.

In fact the only alternate fuel source that really seems viable is nuclear energy but man if you ever want to see a tree humper so apoplectic with rage he burns his own flannel suggest that you replace oil with nuclear power.

The fact is a lot of people want something for nothing and it will never never never happen no matter how super hard you close your eyes cross all your fingers and make a super duper birthday triple swear wish. In fact the only way to save the baby ducks from BP is to consume less but man if you ever want to see a soccer mom so mad she burns her own SUV suggest she consume less. The reason why is that if there was no oil industry the trucks trains and planes would no longer be able to deliver consumable goods to our unsustainable cities and any population center anywhere in America would devolve into cannibalism inside a week if there were no Big Macs to eat.

So kindly take your social conscience and job up your shiny new tail pipe until you are ready to get by with less and be satisfied. Until then don't insult the world by pretending you care about it if your sole contribution to the cause is BUYING A !@#$%^& T-SHIRT MADE IN CHINA!

Just thinking.