Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Life Lessons That Are Nothing Like Life
Jay Mohr wrote in Sports Illustrated of what's become of Little League (it's now Little Coddled League):

My godson batted cleanup (naturally) and led off the second inning with an absolute moon shot. The ball flew off his bat like he was nine! The left fielder had no chance (maybe because he spent the first two pitches squishing bugs against the bill of his cap) and ran like the wind to catch up with the ball. As my godson rounded second base, the ball was rolling around in the outfield after taking a generous carom away from anyone with a glove. Inexplicably, my godson pulled up at second base and stood on it, clapping his hands.

What the hell happened? Maybe he knew he was going to hit for the cycle and wanted to get the double out of the way early. Maybe he pulled a hamstring. I ran down to the dugout where my best friend was on the top step yelling things like, "Atta boy, Walt!" and asked him what the heck was going on. He informed me that in this Little League there are no home runs allowed because the parents and administrators of the league feel it is unfair to the other kids. He continued to tell me that parents don't like it when their children are made to feel bad by being crushed by a home run, so all home runs in this league are only doubles.

WHAT!!! Are you kidding me? Do you want to know who I feel bad for? The mini man standing on second base who was denied the glorious feeling of hitting his first bomb. I am so sick and tired of all the coddling that goes on in kids' sports these days. If your child feels bad when he gives up a home run, then help him get over it. Why not teach kids at a young, impressionable age that there are winners and losers? Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That's what the game -- and life -- is all about.

...My godson sat out the rest of the game, because another pansy rule in some Little Leagues these days is that everyone has to play at least two innings. The nerve! When I was a child, if a kid stunk at baseball he was relegated to manager or deep, deep left field. Sometimes if a kid wasn't good at baseball, HE DIDN'T GO OUT FOR THE TEAM! Not today, folks. Today we have a field full of kids whose parents can't admit that their child doesn't want to be there. Instead of having their kids play soccer, they shove their "one, two, three strikes and you're out" kids onto Little League fields all over the country.

...No one loses in today's Little League world. What the powers-that-be fail to realize is that not only are they ensuring that no one loses, but also, sadly, that no one wins, either. Forget crushing the opponent and taking slow home run trots; today's kids are taught that what matters most is being a good winner and a good loser. Who is a good loser (aside from the Atlanta Braves)? Why are we trying to protect kids so much as to deny them the feeling of humiliating one another? These kids are in for a shock when the real world gets a hold of them, because as you and I know, there are winners and losers in life.

For more on the trend toward nannyism, David Harsanyi:


Harsanyi's book: Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children.

video via Instapundit

Posted by aalkon at November 4, 2007 11:29 AM

Comments

Shhh! Don't ruin a good thing. My future army of hard-assed, Nietzsche-weaned offspring will crush and enslave this generation of cry-babies with their Will To Power.

Posted by: Paul Hrissikopoulos at November 4, 2007 10:07 AM

Isn't little league as good a place as any to learn that life sometimes hands you crushing defeats (and occasionally great triumphs)? I'm thinking these parents forget that the whole point of sports is that they are life writ small.

Posted by: justin case at November 4, 2007 10:20 AM

I think so, too, Justin. I think it's damaging to give kids the impression that somebody's going to be there making things emotionally nice for them.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 4, 2007 10:49 AM

The Jay Mohr piece really took me back - to how crushingly boring little league was.

Back in my elementary school we had a game called "kill the man." Being in rural Iowa instead of a big city, we didn't take the name at face value. It was played with one football or soccer ball and a bunch of kids. Whoever had the ball was chased and tackled by everyone else. If you had the ball, you could throw it away to avoid being tackled. The entire point was just to keep the ball as long as possible.

I'm guessing the people who banned tag wouldn't like that one either, but it was my favorite game.

Also, I have a strong suspicion that all of these sissy, non-energy-burning games are why some kids have such a hard time paying attention in class.

Posted by: Shawn at November 4, 2007 11:10 AM

Mohr lost me when he wrote this:

..My godson sat out the rest of the game, because another pansy rule in some Little Leagues these days is that everyone has to play at least two innings. The nerve! When I was a child, if a kid stunk at baseball he was relegated to manager or deep, deep left field.

I'm sorry that Mohr's little prodigy had to sit out the game to make sure everyone could play at least two innings out of nine. Maybe Mohr will take up a collection and pay the fees that all the parents paid that allow Mohr's little prodigy to grab all the acclaim.

While I agree that we are becoming a nanny state, the two inning rule isn't it.

Posted by: jerry at November 4, 2007 11:13 AM

Sorry, but when I was a kid, I was always picked last for kickball because I was a scrawny little girl who was afraid of the ball. It was as it should be.

If your kid isn't getting into the game, it's up to you to either have a conversation about whether they are interested in playing at all, and if they are, then, how about helping them practice whatever they're not so great at so they can improve and get in on merit?

Life is tough, and changing the rules of Little League isn't going to change that -- it's only going to leave kids even less prepared for reality than they already are.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 4, 2007 11:22 AM

> all the parents paid that
> allow Mohr's little prodigy
> to grab all the acclaim.

The acclaim wasn't "grabbed", it was achieved , whether delivered or not.

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2007 11:36 AM

> Back in my elementary school
> we had a game called "kill
> the man."

In the 1960's in Indiana, we had "Smear the Queer." Political correctness is cancer, see?

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2007 11:38 AM

Kids need to learn that you have to put in to get out. Some people have natural ability, but there's great satisfaction in working for something and achieving through that work.

I spoke to the teacher yesterday who's trying to get this arranged for me to start the program to talk to inner city kids. Part of what we talked about yesterday was how I want to communicate that, while I'm smart, there are probably many people who are smarter than I am out there, but in what I do, I'm probably the hardest working (I'm going to bring the books, and piles of rewriting on the page that I do every week to do my column). You can go places in the world, but not if you sit on your ass waiting for somebody to make things "fair."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 4, 2007 12:06 PM

Life is tough, and changing the rules of Little League isn't going to change that -- it's only going to leave kids even less prepared for reality than they already are.

Word, Amy. When we (my brothers and I) were kids, if you weren't good enough to make the cut, you didn't play. End of story. Some kids had to learn to live with that. OTOH, I tried out for the Pop Warner (like Little League, only football) team in our town, back in the early '70s. I stuffed my hair up under my helmet, ran, blocked, tackled, passed the ball, caught the ball, and made the cut! I jumped up, gave a whoop! pulled off my helmet and tossed it into the air - to stunned silence from the coaches. And was promptly kicked off the team. My younger brother was pissed - he started yelling at the coaches, and one of them said, but she's a girl! And brother said, she's better than half the guys who tried out! And even though they agreed, I wasn't allowed to play. But I did make an impression. And really ticked off the other boys whose butts I beat. When the (woman) manager of the cheerleading sqaud found out, I wasn't even allowed to try out for them. Go figure. o_O

Political correctness is cancer, see?
Word, Crid, I've been saying this for years. Political correctness is neither political nor correct. What it is, is absolution for people not wanting to accept personal responsibility, perpetuated by the powers that be so they can add more sheeple to the already overflowing ranks. I refuse to be one.

Posted by: Flynne at November 4, 2007 12:14 PM

Twenty bucks says these kids drop out of sports from sheer boredom.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 4, 2007 12:21 PM

Crid- that's what we called it to! I remember taking a playground sprinkler-head to the face on one tackle, getting two black eyes and a broken nose. It was a badge of honor!

PS- My Dad (a Teamster's Union member) never gave the medical expenses a thought, since everything for his family was covered by union insurance. I bet most kids today have huge deductibles that make their parents extra cautious....

Posted by: eric at November 4, 2007 12:51 PM

As a college kid who umpires Little League games to make ends meet, I feel like I just read a column of people who have absolutely no clue what little league is about these days.

In my district, we have none of the home run rules that this particular case has. Such rules can be imposed by League officers within their own districts and are to be honored by officials. But their are fairness rules; the fair playing time, slaughter ruling being the major two.

There is a reason we have them. It's because, unlike commented upon earlier,sports are not life as a microcosm, whatever hollywood would like you to believe. Baseball is a game, that was meant to be fun. Little League is really nothing more than organized pickup. We invite everyone within an age group to play (boys and girls, though softball does exist), and they get fair playing time. Who wins and who loses are not major issues. You come to have fun and share the fun with all teammates and competitors. Little League's motto is that anyone can play.

the places where ultimate competition do anything to win baseball start is in Travel team competition, AAU, Legion Ball, High School teams etc. Those league organizations cut kids, have no slaughter rules, and no playing time rules. Little league is recreational, and therefore anyone who comes to play gets a chance. There should be a place for that kind of mentality. That place is little league. Should a kid want become more competitive, and play in more intense league play, they should try out for the All-Star team, or go out for an AAU team, and when they're old high school, so on and so forth.

I agree, life is not fair, and if want anything from it you need to work for it. But if a six year old wants to play baseball 10 times over the course of 2 months in the spring, on a thursday, he should be allowed to play his innings right next to Alex Rodriguez Jr. If he wants to take it to a league where winning at any price is the law of the land, he should expect to have to work for it.

You know why Jay Mohr is a sports writer? Cause he sucks at the games. Unless you're name is Al Leiter, thats usually the rule of thumb with sportscasters.

I like Smear the Queer, thats inventive right there. We just called it "kill the carrier."

Posted by: Scott at November 4, 2007 12:54 PM

Jay Mohr is actually an actor and a comedian, and a nice, smart guy. (Met him when I went out with a comic.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 4, 2007 1:03 PM

> Twenty bucks says these
> kids drop out of sports
> from sheer boredom.

We hope so.

Just as I was exiting the teen demographic, Hollywood horror films became a whole lot gruesome and sexually explicit than they'd ever been. (Hello, Jamie Lee! Let's take that blouse down a couple more buttons as you run screaming through the midnight forest... Whaddya say, Babe?) I was never a horror movie kind of guy, but no one talked about why this was happening and why middle America in the 1970's didn't get more upset about these atrocities at the mall's cineplex.

Two women have since explained it, and Google b'damned, I can't find exact qoutes.

Pauline Kael once discussed the pussy-tude of educated filmgoers, paraphrasing: They squirm at the sight of blood on the screen, as if it weren't coursing through their own veins.

Their children were the ones Paglia talked about later, again paraphrasing: The kids who go to these films and enjoy these videogames know in their hearts that life is bloody and violent, but they're not allowed to acknowledge this truth anywhere else in their pristine, orderly, middle-class lives.

But the parents kinda know this, and so they're kinda OK with the kids watching this stuff. It's easier than giving them the bad news about life in explicit conversation over the dinner table.

I hope it's that way with these neutered sports leagues. There really are people on this planet who can do things that you can't do, and some of them are peckerhead assholes, and they're still going to get all the hottest tail and the most money, even when they don't try so hard. Kids will probably figure this out....

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2007 1:14 PM

I wonder how much time the Instapundit spends telling his dear only child to buck up and stop whining. Or if David Harsanyi has any children at all. I know neither had a hand in putting together that p.o.s. video report, but please: Playgrounds made with non-head-cracking materials as a sign of a softer America? Let's bring back cement and break some 8-year-old arms, people! It's what made America great!

More to the point, I weary of "journalism" like this, based entirely on a few well-publicized anecdotes that would likely not stand up to anything tougher than an NBC news reporter looking to flesh out a trend story. I'll put my anecdotes up against anyone's, and not only have I found that excellent kid athletes still get their share of the glory, I also think today's children are kinder and more compassionate than I remember my peers being -- and if any of you think otherwise, I'll find a few isolated stories to back it up. (Although I doubt Sports Illustrated will print mine.)

Posted by: Nance at November 4, 2007 1:31 PM

I wonder how much time the Instapundit spends telling his dear only child to buck up and stop whining.

Actually, I had a conversation about this with a French journalist this Friday. French parents are much more acknowledging of the realities of life. They expect their kids to get scraped knees on the playground, and to learn from it; they don't live in terror that they will.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 4, 2007 1:35 PM

> today's children are kinder
> and more compassionate

Are they also more gullible and less courageous, or is life just getting better and better?

PS- You're right about TV news

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2007 1:55 PM

From a column by Christine VanDevelde, who sometimes comments here:

http://christinevandevelde.com/columns/200506gentry.asp

We built underground forts in empty lots and constructed dams on a creek in the woods -- without adult supervision. We played ball in the middle of the street until the mosquitoes came out and it was too dark to see. Life was punctuated by broken bones, stitches, bumps on the head and laughter. The point being that we had freedom, including the freedom to find ourselves in a spot of trouble where we might have to use some ingenuity and the freedom to fail. As the email reminded me, "Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team." Remember those days? Today, not only does everyone make the team, but everyone gets a trophy.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 4, 2007 2:36 PM

Instapundit isn't French, nor in the guy whose book you link to.

And there's a huge, huge leap between thinking safer playgrounds are a good idea and going insane over a skinned knee. I don't know a single parent -- not one, not anywhere -- who expects their child not to get bumps and bruises on their way through life. And I have been on many playgrounds made with safer materials, and I don't notice kids having any less fun on them. Plastics, rubber and softer landing areas are just an improvement. Are these people nostalgic for cement? Do they drive cars without seat belts and air bags, because a few knocks on the windshield never hurt anyone? Please.

I don't know about Little League. My daughter swims and plays soccer. But I can tell you that if there's a rule that everybody gets to play, it's probably because the purpose of the league is for kids to learn the game, and you don't learn by sitting on the bench. Trust me: There is no end of highly competitive sports opportunities for talented young athletes. Travel leagues, elite camps -- there are any number of places for Jay Mohr's godson to prep for the big leagues.

Posted by: Nance at November 4, 2007 3:23 PM

Agreed about the playing time, but the forbidden homers are inexcusable.

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2007 3:34 PM

Are they also more gullible and less courageous, or is life just getting better and better?

Well, they're not calling the disabled kids "crips" or "gomers," the way we did. Their lemonade-stand profits go to charities -- not every single one, but at least a couple each year. They know what racism is, and call it out when they hear it. At least some of them do, because I've seen it with my own eyes.

Don't get me wrong: I don't fool myself by telling me these kids are better than kids of any generation that preceded them. At heart, all kids are still little savages that need civilizing. And they're surely find some other way to be horrible to one another as they grow up. All I'm saying, and I know I won't convince anyone here, is that all this talk about feelings and respecting others and giving everyone a chance isn't entirely lost on them. Maybe our hand-wringing over the good old days when lousy players rode the bench every game, and you were allowed to gloat in a loser's face is like yearning for the time when the Negroes knew their place. That's all.

Posted by: Nance at November 4, 2007 3:56 PM

Oh-PUHLEEZE

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2007 4:15 PM

Not that anyone really cares, but I asked a friend who's a Little League coach to read that Jay Mohr column and comment. His reply:

Can't speak for whatever league that kid was in. But I can tell you there are no Little League rules against home runs. I'd note that his godson was 7. At that age there are often local rules designed to keep the games from getting out of hand. In our league, for example, runners at that age have to stop once the ball gets to the infield. And they can't advance on overthrows. Without these rules, the games would be endless, as a great many of the players don't really know how to catch. Also in our league, there are definitely winners and losers. But in A-ball (6, 7 and some 8 year olds) they don't really have standings. There are also mercy rules (no more than 4 runs in an inning, etc.) Xxx Xxxx, who was the A-ball commissioner when I managed my son there, made no bones about the fact that his idea of a perfect season was every team winning about as many games as they lost. But this wasn't really because of worries about self-esteem. It was because his goal at that young age was to get the kids to love baseball. As they get older, the rules adjust. There certainly are winners and losers, home runs, etc.

As for the participation rule, this is absolutely a Little League rule right up to the 12-year-olds. Even in the Little League World Series, every kid on every team must play either one inning or two, I'm not sure. It's a good rule as a simple matter of kindness. But it also keeps an emphasis on teaching baseball to all your kids. My experience in managing little league is that the more successful teams are the ones where all the kids - from the jock studs to the less athletic - get a little better as the year goes on. This is a good thing.

So, a comedian made much ado about not much. Color me astonished.

Posted by: Nance at November 4, 2007 7:05 PM

Literally, I almost died playing dodgeball on an asphalt playground -- and yet I own a copy of "Blessings of a skinned knee." And I would happily take my kids to the Berkeley Adventure Playground where kids get to play with hammers and rusty nails.

But playgrounds built on cork and rubber are just a much better way to go than playgrounds built on asphalt.

At the risk of repeating myself asking kids to allow everyone to get a chance to play is a good thing, not a bad thing at all. There will be plenty of time for them to learn how to step on each others toes as they climb to the top.

My kids are in a soccer team now, and they know that at the next higher league, they have to try out, and will be ranked according to skill. Right now it's really cool to see everyone getting a chance to play.

Posted by: jerry at November 4, 2007 7:05 PM

That second paragraph is part of his reply, too. I screwed up the HTML. Sorry.

Posted by: Nance at November 4, 2007 7:06 PM

> There will be plenty of time
> for them to learn how to
> step on each others toes as
> they climb to the top.

Misplaced snark: You're missing the point. The godson's excellence was not about you. Throughout our lives, people luckier, more-talented and harder-working than us will trounce us with excellence for reasons other than making those around them feel unhappy.

Sure, they're little kids, and everyone should have playing time. But no home runs?

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2007 7:50 PM

If schools, playgrounds, etc had been outfitted with all of these precautions when I was a kid, I wouldn't have had nearly as many physically and emotionally painful experiences.

Wouldn't trade them for the world. I learned something, on my own, after each one.

Posted by: b_raven at November 4, 2007 8:08 PM

At some point in every person's life, he or she will end up in a group work environment in which there is a range of ability, work ethic and attitude. The people in the group will need to find ways to work with one another, looking for strengths and sometimes compensating for lack of ability or will in someone else for quite some time. That's why I'm all in favor of the minimum playing time rule for children's sports - I see it as excellent training for the corporate and academic worlds. And for the sports world - if you think that reaching pro levels shields you from having to play with teammates who come nowhere near to matching your ability and work ethic, ask Michael Jordan what he thought about his teammates over the years. Not all of them were Rodmans and Pippens. (Though I'll point out that what really makes Jordan stand out, in my opinion, is that he was able to inspire his teammates to perform far better when playing with him than they were able to do individually.)

I think part of the issue here is that Little League used to be part of a panopaly of sporting activities for kids that also included pick-up games that kids organized themselves. Now, organized sports are frequently the only sports in which middle-class and upper-class kids are involved, so everything that happens in them takes on outsized importance.

Throughout our lives, people luckier, more-talented and harder-working than us will trounce us with excellence for reasons other than making those around them feel unhappy.

Word. Free the Little League home runs!

Posted by: marion at November 5, 2007 5:41 AM

This kind of "fairness" has been around for a while now, but maybe not to this extent. From what I've witness among my peers and younger relatives, kids are not kinder or more compassionate. They're just sneakier. They learn lip service at an early age and are way more clever at their little cruelties than I ever was. Kids are still essentially moral-less little beings trying to find their way, and I think they only do that by making the mistakes and taking the hard knocks that naturally occur, without so much of this "sensitivity" training they're being force-fed. How do you know how to be compassionate if you've never been utterly humiliated, or if you've never rubbed a loss in another kids face and watched them crumple into tears?I think that learning how to be a decent person only happens when you know what its like to be not decent, or to be the victim of someone else. I think that shielding kids from these everyday little ego dings is making for a group of holy terrors. We have a drive to compete, and to crush our competition, and getting it out in a game is way more "compassionate" than the secret shit kids come up with when their natural aggression is repressed. We just seem to have a generation of parents who refuse to recognize that Suzy or John really do want to fry ants with a magnifying glass just to watch them die.

Posted by: christina at November 5, 2007 8:44 AM

I think that shielding kids from these everyday little ego dings is making for a group of holy terrors.

Agreed. And it's also fortifying their false and over-inflated senses of entitlement.

Posted by: Flynne at November 5, 2007 9:02 AM

> kids are not kinder or more
> compassionate. They're just
> sneakier. They learn lip
> service at an early age

Thanks for saying that. When Nance suggested that a Bold New Dawn of Kindness and Compassion had squelched all the evil in children's hearts, I knew someone was being conned.

Posted by: Crid at November 5, 2007 9:07 AM

I overstated. Haven't had coffee yet.

But I think this is repugnant:

> to gloat in a loser's face
> is like yearning for the
> time when the Negroes knew
> their place. That's all.

No.

Posted by: Crid at November 5, 2007 9:13 AM

All my kids have played rec league sports. I like the rules to let everyone play, and I like the fact that parents have to deal with it. Nothing is more annoying than seeing a grown adult screaming at a ref in a six year old game of soccer. We have rules about banning those mindless idiots too. Competition is good, but respect is too.

How is this not real life? You have never worked for an unqualified boss that you had to tolerate and work professionally with anyway? You haven't had your (better) ideas squashed because of rules, politics, etc.?

In our soccer league we have three kids with downs syndrome who play every year. It is lovely to watch kids allow these kids ball time and even an easy goal or two. Some of the especially talented kids have to learn patience and calm during these times. I think that is good.

Posted by: kg at November 5, 2007 9:59 AM

Crid, I don't think you're overstating at all. That whole paragraph of mislead platitudes made me ill, and the "negroes" line made me sicker. Hyperbole for its own sake doesn't prove a damn thing.

I don't think anyone here was encouraging winners to "gloat in the loser's face," only that there should be winners and losers, and kids need to learn that they're not perfect. I think in little league, at least, everyone should get to play. It was that way when I was in T-Ball, too. However, you score a home run, you score a home run. How are you learning how to play the game of baseball if one of the biggest plays is taken out? Maybe we should take out double-plays, too. I'm sure that hurts a team's ego if they manage to get two runners out in the same play.

Learning how to play a sport - letting everyone play no matter how bad they are...isn't that what GYM class is for??

Some sheltering makes sense. Let the kids play on the same kinda playground equipment, but the rubber surface isn't a bad idea. Prevent bullying and kids beating each other up on the playground. But bring back dodgeball and tag.

What's ironic is how excessive some of these policies are, and when I went volunteered at a local elementary school last year, I'd see kids slap and punch each other in the face in the hallway, with the teachers completely oblivious. Get some fucking priorities, nanny-staters.

Posted by: Jamie at November 5, 2007 10:10 AM

The two inning rule is a good rule for little league. I still get pissed when I think about having to sit out half the game when I was 11 simply because I wasn't one of the coaches kids (his youngest son shouldn't have even been allowed in our division because he was too young and he got to play every inning). I was pretty good too and I hated having to sit there and watch kids who weren't any better than me play the whole game.

The home run rule is kind of stupid though. We had a home run fence which was awesome.

But what's the problem with safer playgrounds? What's so great about breaking bones? I broke two fingers playing basketball when I was little. It didn't make me "tougher" and I'm pretty sure if that hadn't happened my life wouldn't have been any different except I would have been able to play more basketball that month.

The real worry is that the kids aren't getting mentally challenged at school and are getting a lousy education. That's what's scary.

Posted by: Flighty at November 5, 2007 9:27 PM

Crid, even assuming Jay Mohr was accurate in his description, we have no way of knowing that his godson was actually the best or even one of the better players or maybe had just gotten lucky. And ya know what, I really don't care. Nothing is worse than a game for little kids where the score comes out 10 zip. It is truly not a whole lot of fun for anyone.

The no home run rule seems dumb, but their mileage may vary. See, the neat thing is that if they don't like the rules of one league, there are also sorts of other leagues they can play in. And, they can also learn to be flexible wrt rules and that way when baseball changes their own rules from year to year, they won't have to have a conniption. Cf. designated hitter.

Posted by: jerry at November 5, 2007 11:15 PM

I'm from Australia, and while baseball isn't that big here, we do have Australian Rules Football teams for children. It's a fairly rough and tumble game, with fast plays and heaps of tackles, and its obvious that the bigger and faster kids are going to be better. But if they kick a goal, they kick a goal...they aren't penalised to make the other kids feel better about themselves.
There's always one team that wins, and one team that loses. The losing team isn't too happy about it, but they just go back to training and play again the week after.

Posted by: kyla at November 6, 2007 4:13 AM

Perhaps this is why I have yet to meet an Australian guy who seem like a big weenie.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 6, 2007 5:37 AM

Ok, while I'm all for the everyone play rule mainly for the reason flighty give, the no home run rule is crap. When the hell did dodge ball and tag get banned. I knew they were discussing it but that it actually happened is news to me.

"Oh-PUHLEEZE" Was the greatest under statement I have heard in along time. Comparing rubbing someones face in it with being a member of the KKK? I hope that was not the jist you were aiming for. I have only rubbed someones face in it a few times and only when I had to deal with them gloating first. Being a prick when you win isn't nice but how can you learn that when nobody ever wins. You learn not to be a prick when you win in by being the loser occasionally, being an ass to gloaters is fun.

Now lets take a peak at the opposite side of the coin. I'm going to a high school reunion in a few months. There is an ass hole who was really nasty back in the day. Now he's a crippled day laborer has his High School Diploma with a knee injury cause he was a jock. Should I gloat in his face, laugh at him, drag him out behind the school an pound the crap out of him or should I be magnanimous and not be an asshole like him?

Posted by: vlad at November 6, 2007 6:47 AM

...or should I be magnanimous and not be an asshole like him?

Vlad, we all know you're going to be magnanimous! o_O

Posted by: Flynne at November 6, 2007 7:31 AM

Leave a comment